Senator SMITH. This still will be law; it is just a question of whether you want to put in section 8 which brings the court procedure. Mayor HUMPHREY. Yes, sir; that is my considered opinion. Senator IVES. Are there further questions?

(No response.)

Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming.

Our next witness is Mr. Henry Epstein, chairman, National Community Relations Advisory Council, New York.

Will you come forward, Mr. Epstein.

(The brief submitted by Mayor Humphrey is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MAYOR OF MINNEAPOLIS, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTIDISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION OF THE SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C., JUNE 19, 1947

The city of Minneapolis has taken the lead among American communities in acting on the conviction that governing bodies have a positive responsibility to assure equality of opportunity for employment to citizens of all races, religions, and national origins. We are the first city in the Nation to establish by municipal ordinance a fair employment practice commission. In spite of the fact that this commission has been in office for less than 2 months, we already have positive evidence of the value of this legislation in overcoming discrimination in employment. We expect positive benefits from this ordinance and we are already beginning to achieve them. I propose to outline these benefits and to emphasize the responsibility of the Federal Government to enact similar legislation so as to assure the same benefits to all citizens of this democracy.

Since the adoption of the Minneapolis FEPC ordinance, the Minneapolis Urban League reports a marked improvement in employment opportunities for Negro workers. A major 5-and-10-cent store has employed a Negro worker on counter work as a direct result of the law. The change in public policy represented by the adoption of the ordinance is given by the regional manager of this 5-and-10 chain as the reason he is requesting all his stores in the upper Midwest to adopt a policy of nondiscrimination in employment. The league has secured employment for a qualified Negro worker in a photo-development laboratory since the passage of the law, a result that it had not been able to accomplish in a year of negotiation before the law was passed. One of the city's leading department stores, which formerly did not employ a single colored worker, has begun to hire Negro applicants for a wide variety of jobs requiring training and skill. The personnel director has given “improved acceptance by the public of colored workers" as the reason for the change in policy. However, this improved acceptance was gained by the educational work done in promoting the legislation and by its adoption.

The law gives employers the opportunity to shift to the city government the burden of meeting whatever opposition may present itself against a policy of nondiscrimination in employment. That is a responsibility that I, and the members of the fair employment practice commission, are glad to assume. We believe that the practice of hiring qualified workers on the basis of their skills, and without distinction because of race, religion, or national origin, provides positive benefits to employers and unions, as well as to minority workers and the community as a whole. Therefore, the city has taken effective action to assure these benefits to all the members of the community and to protect them against those who, through ignorance and prejudice, may resist the carrying out of this sound public policy.

There are few, if any, whose real interests are served by maintaining praetices of discrimination in employment. The enemy that we must combat is not the self-interest of any group, but consists of ignorance and apathy and the failure to see that the real self-interest of the entire community is served by using without limitation the productive power of all of its human resources. Legislation against discrimination in employment is a proper and effective instrument for combating this enemy. Even our short experience in Minneapolis indicates that our municipal fair employment practice ordinance is directing the attention of employers and union leaders toward the problem, and is impelling them to solve it.

In spite of the fact that our commission has not yet established an office or employed a staff, the chairman has received a number of inquiries from leading employers and from union officials as to the steps they should take to bring their practices into full compliance with the provisions of the ordinance. Several of them have submitted copies of their application blanks for review and approval by the commission. They are seeking advice on the elimination of irrelevant items relating to race, religion, and national origin, in order to make sure that this information will not be used by the people who do the hiring as the basis for discrimination in the selection or rejection of qualified applicants. Similar inquiries are reported by the Minnesota Jewish Council, Associated Industries, both the senior and junior chambers of commerce, the central labor union, the Hennepin County CIO Council, and other agencies working in the field. The spirit in which these inquiries have been made indicates an intention and desire on the part of major employers and unions to wholeheartedly carry out a program of nondiscrimination in employment. I am convinced that the operations of the Minneapolis Fair Employment Practice Commission will make this policy effective so far as its jurisdiction extends. We in Minneapolis expect to benefit economically, socially, and morally through the adoption of this ordinance. Let me list the economic advantages first: We now have in Minneapolis a very considerable number of people of different racial, religious, and nationality groups who are now prevented by prejudice and discrimination from fully developing and using their potential skills. We believe that effective enforcement of the ordinance will give these people both the opportunity and the incentive to develop and utilize their full skills. This increased productivity will benefit the entire community in many ways. One of its effects will be to reduce the expenditures of public funds now required for relief, public health services, and the correction of delinquency and crime. Another benefit will be the increased market for the products of other workers and of business concerns in the community because of the increased buying power which minority workers will gain. A third economic benefit will be the higher standard of living enjoyed by the minority workers and their families.

These economic results are expected to have a cumulative effect in improving the social health of the community. Their increased earning power will make it possible for minority workers to gain for themselves and their children education and training which will enable them to fully develop their potential skills. Furthermore, the day-to-day contacts between the members of different racial, religious, and nationality groups in employment is the best possible device for building mutual understanding, respect, and good will. It is through this kind of educational process that we will break down those false and vicious stereotypes which have grown up in our society because of the limited and unnatural status of intergroup contacts. This increase in personal acquaintance with members of other groups will lead us to treat all of our fellow men as individuals and will teach us the truth of Mark Twain's observation: “If a fellow is a human being, he can't be any worse."

And speaking in terms of ethics, our conscience in America has become corroded and encrusted with a bitter feeling of guilt because we profess a belief in justice and equality of opportunity, but we practice injustitce and discrimination against the members of minority racial, religious, and nationality groups in every one of these United States. The outlawing of discrimination in employment by adequate and effective legislation is a major step in lifting this burden of guilt from our American conscience. We have taken this step in Minneapolis. It is a step that should be taken in every city and State, and by the Federal Government as a clear and unequivocal statement of national policy. The enactment of this legislation by the Congress would represent a long stride toward the solution of the American dilemma by bringing our practices into harmony with those high principles of justice and equality of opportunity to which we all subscribe.

Municipal and State experience to date shows the tremendous importance of including in the law proper and effective provision for administration and enforcement. Chicago and Milwaukee are the only other cities that have enacted municipal fair employment practice ordinances. Both of them cover private employers and unions and provide penalties for violations of the law. However, I understand that they have not been very effective because the laws do not provide for any qualified commission or staff to make investigations and adjust complaints. Furthermore, such lack of administrative machinery exposes employers and unions to the possibility of legal prosecution on the basis of complaints which are not well-founded or which could be readily adjusted by constructive negotiation.

In fact, experience has shown that one of the principal services performed by a fair employment practice commission is to protect employers and unions against unjustified charges of discrimination. The records of both the Federal FEPC and the New York State Commission Against Discrimination show that more complaints are dismissed than are accepted as valid. During the first year's operation of the New York State law, 58 percent of all cases were dismissed or withdrawn and the remaining 42 percent were successfully adjusted. Likewise, by screening out cases which were not well-founded, which were outside the jurisdiction of the committee, or which could not be proved, the Federal FEPC eliminated 64 percent of all complaints and accepted only 36 percent for adjustment. The existence of a responsible public agency to investigate and adjust complaints also serves to clear up doubts in the minds of minority workers who have reason to suspect that certain job situations are discriminatory although in fact they are not. The clearing up of these doubts, and the satisfactory adjustment of valid complaints, serve to reduce tensions and to improve intergroup good will. The selection of properly qualified personnel for the Commission and staff holds the key to fair and effective administration of the law. In Minneapolis we have been extremely fortunate in securing five outstanding leaders in different phases of community life to serve as members of the commission. The chairman, Mr. George M. Jensen, is regional manager of the Nash-Kelvinator Corp., Protestant cochairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, recently headed the civic fund campaign which provides the budget for the chamber of commerce and related agencies, and is a valuable member of the mayor's council on human relations. Another member is Mr. Raymond Cannon, prominent Negro attorney and one of the founders of the Minneapolis Urban League. A third member is Mr. Jack Jorgenson, president of the Teamsters' Joint Council and vice president of the Minneapolis Central Labor Union. A fourth member is Mr. Amos Deinard, another distinguished attorney and the Jewish cochairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews. The fifth and final member of the commission is Mr. Lawrence E. Kelley, who is circulation manager of the Minneapolis Daily Times and retiring president of the Minneapolis Junior Chamber of Commerce. I have indicated the caliber and the community status of these members of the Minneapolis commission because I want to emphasize the importance of securing individuals of similar qualifications and corresponding national status to administer the national fair employment practice legislation. Such individuals must have the full confidence of the community in terms of their soundness of judgment, their fairness and integrity, and their forthright resolve to make effective the principle of nondiscrimination in employment. They should be broadly representative of those groups in the community who are most directly concerned with the proper administration of this legislation-namely, employers, labor organizations, and the members of minority racial, religious, and nationality groups. It is just as important to have the commission's negative decisions on unjustified complaints accepted as fair by the members of minority groups in the community as it is to have its positive action on valid complaints accepted as proper by employers and labor unions.

In spite of the very successful record that has been established by some State laws against discrimination in employment, and although we are making an effective start on the administration of our municipal ordinance in Minneapolis, local action can never be sufficient or adequate to solve this serious national problem. First of all, this is a problem of national morality. The denial of employment opportunities to our citizens because of their race, religion, or national origin is a flagrant violation of our democratic principles and of our traditional statements of public policy. We cannot hold up our heads as self-respecting American citizens, and we certainly cannot successfully aspire to leadership in world affairs, so long as we make mockery of our high-sounding talk about justice and democracy by practices of discrimination which destroy the dignity and deny the rights of millions of our fellow citizens. It is high time that we correct this weakness in our public character by taking such forthright action against it that there can be no question of our sincerity and good faith. The enactment of Federal fair employment practice legislation with provisions for vigorous enforcement power and with a sufficient appropriation of funds to assure effective national administration would go a long way toward lifting this burden from our national conscience.

It should be noted here that even the bitterest opponents of this legislation have never publicly opposed the principle that all of our citizens should have the opportunity to work in accordance with their qualifications and skills. This principle is not controversial. Therefore, there is no excuse for leaving the question

of making it effective to local option. We need Federal legislation with broad enforcement powers and adequate administrative provisions as an unequivocal statement of sound national policy.

There is plenty of room for State and municipal action in addition to the Federal law. For example, our Minneapolis ordinance applies to all employers of two or more workers. We believe that we can properly administer this provision of the law in our local situation. However, such a broad coverage may not be administratively feasible on a national scale. Federal legislation should set the basic national pattern, and local laws may be enacted to apply this pattern to groups of employers, labor organizations, and workers which cannot be appropriately covered by national legislation. We might say that the Federal Government should get the minimum standards and that State and local governments may raise the standards for their areas as far above these minimums as their social development permits.

In economic terms, the entire Nation is a single unit. The effective use of our human resources throughout the Nation is essential to our general welfare. The increased productivity which comes from the full use of our potential skills is vital to our social health. It will help us to overcome poverty and disease and delinquency and crime. Those areas in which discrimination in employment is most serious are the ones in which the use of our human resources is most wasteful. The public welfare clearly demands Federal action against discrimination in employment in order to prevent these wastes, to raise the standards of living of minority workers, to give the entire Nation the benefit of their increased productive power, and thus to preserve and strengthen the social health of the Nation. Through action setting up a board of economic advisers to the President and providing for recommendations by this board to the Congress, the Federal Government has finally recognized its responsibility for creating conditions which will assure continued high levels of production and employment. If full employment is to be meaningful, it must provide not only that all workers shall be employed at some job, but that they shall be placed in the job in which they can produce most effectively the goods and services that meet the Nation's needs. This cannot be accomplished if artificial barriers are raised to prevent workers from filling the jobs for which they are best qualified. Therefore, if the Federal Government is to achieve the objective of continued full employment, it must act on its responsibility to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or ancestry.

Finally, I want to emphasize the intimate interdependence between the solution of our human-relations problems in our own communities, and within our own national boundaries, and our major human task of building sane and decent and peaceful relations between the peoples of the world. If we are going to export democracy, we better get tooled up for mass production of it here at home. We must deal with justice and mutual respect and good will with our neighbors, if we are to qualify as decent citizens of the world.

STATEMENT OF HENRY EPSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. EPSTEIN. Do you want me to recite my background, Senator? Senator DONNELL. If you will, please.

Mr. EPSTEIN. The organization which I represent here, Senator, is the National Community Relations Advisory Council, which is not a New York organization. It is, as its name indicates, a representative organization national in scope. It is a policy-making and coordinating body whose constituent members are the national and local Jewish oganizations, including the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Jewish War Veterans, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the Jewish Labor Committee.

It also represents on its body 24 councils of cities, regions, and States in this country.

Of my own background may I state briefly, I was born in South Carolina; I attended, in my early years, the public schools of Charleston, S. C. and Savannah, Ga.

I taught high school in Arlington, Mass., along the road that Paul Revere rode. I was also for 2 years on the faculty in the department of history at Harvard College.

I am a graduate of the public high schools of New York City, of Harvard College, and the Harvard Law School.

I, for 10 years, occupied the post of solicitor general of the city of New York; I have been for 2 years now the chairman of the national community relations advisory council and also the chairman of the commission on community interrelations, which is sponsored by the American Jewish Congress.

I was at one time for a very brief period the counsel designated to the President's Fair Employment Practices Committee to conduct the railroad hearings on discrimination in the employment of Negroes on the railroads in the United States.

In January of 1943 when those hearings were to be commenced, after we had prepared the evidence, and after the President had gone to Casablanca, Mr. McNutt canceled the hearings. I thereupon resigned in protest against what I considered to be an unwarranted action on his part.

Senator DONNELL. I just want to make a statement here for the record, and also that all may know, that at 12 o'clock that same buzzer goes on again indicating that the session of the Senate has begun and for about 3 to 5 minutes we will have to stand in recess until permission is granted for us to continue.

Proceed, please.

Mr. EPSTEIN. Subsequently, when Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. Ethridge as chairman of that commission, he asked me whether I would resume the conduct of those hearings in the fall of 1943, and I declined to do so unless they could have some assurance that the findings would be made effective under the Presidential order.

No such assurance was forthcoming; I did not resume my position as counsel to conduct those hearings.

Senator DONNELL. I see.

Senator ELLENDER. Could it have been done under the Presidential order?

Mr. EPSTEIN. The hearings could be conducted.

Senator ELLENDER. I am not talking about enforcing anything. Mr. EPSTEIN. The order could be issued under the Presidential directive at that time. There was another way in which that particular order could have been enforced. Because the discriminatory provisions which we were inveighing against are embodied in contracts between southern roads chiefly and the railway unions such contracts were subject to and approved by a governmental agency, that governmental agency, in my humble judgment, was thereby overstepping the bounds of its constitutional authority in actually placing its imprimatur upon a discriminatory contract.

Senator ELLENDER. You mean the ICC?

Mr. EPSTEIN. That was the National Railway Mediation Board. Senator ELLENDER. So you would have used the same facilities that were used by the Government in Government contracts?