The experiences of labor unions in the South show that white and Negro men can work together on a basis of mutual respect and justice. The CIO has from the beginning rejected segregation in its unions. A southern war labor conference of the A. F. of L in 1943 declared against any discrimination whatever. The United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers are examples of unions in which racial cooperation has been highly successful; many locals have white presidents and Negro vice presidents. Many other unions insist on equal treatment for Negroes, whether in separate locals or in the same locals with white members. Many examples of successful union functioning on these principles might be cited, but the following case of a Negro steelworker in the Birmingham area is representative:

A colored worker had for a number of years, even before the union was formed, held a job as jobbing mill shearman at the company. The job paid about $10 a day, and the worker was an ardent union man. A white worker, a nonunion man, persuaded the superintendent of that department to give him the job, stating that he was better qualified for it physically and mentally. The colored worker appealed to the mill committee, all southern-born white men, claiming that his seniority rights under the contract had been violated. The committee upheld his contention and demanded that he be put back on the job. The white man hurriedly joined the union and appeared at the next union meeting to ask the local to override the decision of the mill committee. There were two-thirds more whites than colored present when the white worker took the floor to tell why he should have the job. The committee countered that they were carrying out the terms of the contract and that the colored worker was entitled to the job on the basis of seniority. The local, by an overwhelming majority, voted to sustain the committee and uphold the seniority rights of the colored worker.

In concluding, I want to take issue with those southern opponents of FEPC who assert that it will worsen race relations. FEPC would make a very direct contribution to better race relations by eliminating the fear on the part of white workers that Negro workers will be brought in to take over their jobs at lower wages. That this is not an idle fear is proved by the case of the Bibb Manufacturing Co. in Georgia. During the war the company staffed two of its plants with Negro operatives. The union which represents white workers in other plants of the company fears that in the event of a threatened cut in production the company will bring in the nonunion Negro operatives trained during the war to take over the jobs of the unionized white workers at lower wages. The union is afraid that, in spite of all it could do, the situation would result in violence on the part of the white workers being displaced. By making racial wage differentials illegal FEPC would eliminate this kind of racial economic competition and the fear and hate which it engenders.

But in a larger sense the South's racial problems can only be resolved as people come to understand each other on the basis of common interests and experiences. More and more in the South, in plants and unions and elsewhere, this kind of contact is laying the basis for real respect, understanding, and cooperation between the races. I remember particularly the session of the North Carolina Student Legislature, which I attended in the State capitol last year along with 225 students from both white and Negro colleges in North Carolina. In studying our State Government together we gained a new respect for each other as human beings.

This is the kind of respect that fair employment can bring about throughout the employment area. We do not desire an attack on

traditional southern institutions, but we do want the Negro and other minority groups to have justice and we believe that this will do much to heal the deep breach between peoples in the South. FEPC can do this job. And only as the job is done, can the South move on to utilize to the full her resources and to build a bountiful economy for all her people.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Barbour, you are a student at this time at the University of North Carolina?

Mr. BARBOUR. I am, sir.

Senator DONNELL. In what department are you?

Mr. BARBOUR. I am in the general college, sir. I am a sophomore. Senator DONNELL. A sophomore in the general college.

Mr. BARBOUR. I have not specialized as yet.

Senator DONNELL. Have you had occasion to study sociology in the course of your work in the University of North Carolina yet?

Mr. BARBOUR. I took an introductory course in it but as to an extensive study of sociology, under the direction of the professors I have not studied it. My study of it has been on my own.

Senator DONNELL. What are the major studies in which you have engaged in the university?

Mr. BARBOUR. At this time or that I have engaged in since I have been there?

Senator DONNELL. Since you have been there.

Mr. BARBOUR. I have studied Spanish as a foreign language, linquistics, comparative linguistics, English, mathematics, history, psychology-all of the required subjects.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

You are vice president of the Students for Democratic Action chapter at the University of North Carolina?

Mr. BARBOUR. That is correct.

Senator DONNELL. That chapter has about 50 members?

Mr. BARBOUR. Approximately.

Senator DONNELL. What is the total number of the student body at the university?

Mr. BARBOUR. It is constantly fluctuating there, as on all campuses, for people constantly drop out, but I would say there are 6,000 students there.

Senator DONNELL. Would you say this subject of discrimination in the matter of employment has engaged the attention of any other student organizations?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. What are those organizations at the University of North Carolina?

Mr. BARBOUR. I have only been at the University of North Carolina for the past quarter. I transferred from a smaller school down at Buies Creek, N. C., Campbells' college, a denominational school. Senator DONNELL. Which denomination?

Mr. BARBOUR. Baptist.

Senator DONNELL. So you have been at the University of North Carolina only how many months?

Mr. BARBOUR. Approximately 7 months. I went there to work before I went to school. I worked for the Jones Construction Co.

Senator DONNELL. So you have been at the University of North Carolina about 7 months?

Mr. BARBOUR. That is correct, sir.

Senator DONNELL. And are you able to tell us what other student organzations at the University of North Carolina have considered this subject of discrimination in the matter of employment?

Mr. BARBOUR. I made that statement, sir, because of the lack of time, the briefness of the time I have been on the campus. I am not intimate with all of the organizations, but the church groups of all denominations, we will say, in the community of Chapel Hill are very active in dealing with these issues. We even have what they call the Carolina Conservative Club and they, amazing as it may seem, are very active.

Senator DONNELL. Is that in the university?

Mr. BARBOUR. That is a campus organization.

Senator DONNELL. I meant to confine my question to campus organizations.

What is the name of that last organization you mentioned?
Mr. BARBOUR. The University Conservative Club.

Senator DONNELL. Has it considered this matter of discrimination? Mr. BARBOUR. That, sir, I do not know. I am only associated with individual members of the organizations. I do not attend their meetings. I do not have the time.

Senator DONNELL. I appreciate that.

Mr. BARBOUR. I only discuss these problems with the individuals who are members of those organizations and I assume that they follow the same policies.

Senator DONNELL. What I wanted to get at is whether or not these organizations to your own personal knowledge-have been thinking on the subject of discrimination.

Mr. BARBOUR. I would not want to voice an opinion on that.

Senator DONNELL. You would not express any opinion as to whether there is any other student organization than the Students for Democratic Action on the campus of the University of North Carolina which has been considering this subject of discrimination in employment?

Mr. BARBOUR. I cannot speak for any other organization. I can only speak for those individuals of the organization whom I know and I might say in the light of some of the activities of the program that they have sponsored on the campus, I think it is generally known that the whole campus-it is the university policy-I am referring now to the sociology department, Dr. Odom's work in the department-I think the University of North Carolina is known throughout the country to be concerned with problems of the races.

Senator DONNELL. What I am trying to get at, Mr. Barbour, is whether any other student organizations of the University of North Carolina have considered the subject of discrimination in employment, to your knowledge. If you know, all well and good. If you do not know, all well and good.

Mr. BARBOUR. I do not know, sir.

Senator DONNELL. I think that is all, Mr. Barbour, and we thank you very much for presenting the testimony and for representing your organization.

Mr. DAVID D. LLOYD (Americans for Democratic Action). I represent the Americans for Democratic Action with which Mr. Barbour's

organization is affiliated and if there is any additional information which the Senator would like about that organization, we would be very glad to furnish that for the record.

Senator DONNELL. Thank you very

much.

Mr. LLOYD. I also want to say that the subject of FEPC law in California has been mentioned several times in the record this morning, before the Senator arrived, I believe, and we have a representative here of the Americans for Democratic Action from California who would like, if possible, to have just a minute of time to give the Senators his views on

Senator DONNELL. No, sir; it will not be practicable to take the oral testimony but if he desires to make a written statement we will be very happy to have it in the record.

In fact there is a letter which has come to me from California which I will offer for the record, if similar letters are not printed.

It will not be practicable to hear his oral testimony.

Mr. LLOYD. It would be germane to the general record. And if it would be inserted at an appropriate point.

Senator DONNELL. How soon can we have the written statement? (Subsequently Mr. Lloyd transmitted the following communication :)

Mr. PHILIP R. RODGERS,

AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION,
Washington 6, D. C., June 20, 1947.

Clerk, Labor and Public Welfare Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. RODGERS: Pursuant to the request made during the hearings yesterday before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare concerning S. 984, I transmit the following information concerning Americans for Democratic Action, an organization which sponsored the appearances of Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minneapolis, and Mr. Clarence Barbour, of North Carolina, in behalf of the bill.

Americans for Democratic Action was established at a national conference in Washington, March 29-30, 1947, when a constitution and a statement of policies were adopted and officers were elected. The national officers and the national board are as follows:

National chairman: Wilson W. Wyatt, Kentucky.

Chairman, executive committee: Leon Henderson, New Jersey.

Vice chairmen: Hubert H. Humphrey, Minnesota; Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., New York.

Treasurer: Louis H. Harris, New York.

Secretary of board: Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D. C.

Executive secretary: James Loeb, Jr., Washington, D. C.

Board members at large:

Harvey Brown, Washington, D. C.
Melvyn Douglas, California.
David Dubinsky, New York.

George Edwards, Michigan.
Ethel S. Epstein, New York.
William Evjue, Wisconsin.
David Ginsburg, Washington, D. C.
Lester Granger, New York.
Sal B. Hoffmann, Pennsylvania.
James Killen, Washington, D. C.
Frank W. McCulloch, Illinois.
B. F. McLaurin, New York.
Othmer J. Mischo, Michigan.
Reinhold Niebuhr, New York.

Mrs. Gifford Pinchot, Pennsylvania.
Edward F. Prichard, Jr., Kentucky.
Bishop William Scarlett, Missouri.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Massachu-

setts.

Paul A. Porter. Washington, D. C. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Massachusetts.

Monroe Sweetland, Oregon.

H. L. Mitchell, Tennessee.
Mrs. M. E. Tilly, Georgia.

Other board members:

Mrs. Jim Akin, Illinois.

William Batt, Jr., Pennsylvania.
Leigh Danenberg, Connecticut.
Melvyn Douglas, California.

Mortimer Hayes, Connecticut.
Louis J. Hexter, Texas.
Edward Hollander, Washington,
D. C.

Eduard Lindeman, New York.
Don S. Willner, Massachusetts.

At present Americans for Democratic Action has approximately 40 chapters in 20 States and is in the process of organizing local chapters elsewhere throughout the country.

Students for Democratic Action is an organization of students affiliated with Americans for Democratic Action, in which membership is open to college and university students. It has at present 70 chapters in 22 States. In the course of yesterday's hearings, Mr. Barbour stated that Students for Democratic Action is the successor of the Students' Union. The correct name of the organization to which he referred was the United States Student Assembly. In January of this year United States Student Assembly voted to change its name to Students for Democratic Action and become the student division of Americans for Democratic Action.

Membership in ADA and SDA is on a local chapter basis-that is, local chapters pass on the qualifications for membership and issue membership cards. Members in ADA and SDA upon joining must subscribe to the following declaration of principles:

"Americans for Democratic Action (or Students for Democratie Action) is an organization of progressives, dedicated to the achievement of freedom and economic security for all people everywhere, through education and democratic political action.

"We believe that rising living standards and lasting peace can be attained by democratic planning, enlargement of fundamental liberties and international cooperation.

"We believe that communism, like all forms of totalitarianism, is incompatible with these objectives. In our crusade for an expanding democracy and against fascism and reaction, we, therefore, welcome as members of ADA (or SDA) only those whose devotion to the principles of political freedom is unqualified. "I subscribe without reservation to the principles stated above."

The constitution of Americans for Democratic Action provides as follows concerning the aims and objectives of the organization.

"We, liberals and progressives dedicated to democratic principles and the rights of the individual under law, establish and adopt this constitution for Americans for Democratic Action. We pledge ourselves to political action, in accordance with constitutional democratic principles, on local, State and national levels, and to the support of the progressive objectives of labor unions, of cooperatives and farm organizations, and of other social and economic organizations of the people. We are neither a third party movement nor a part of any political party. Our aim is to provide a medium and a program to unite the liberal and progressive forces of America to promote action for the general welfare locally and nationally."

I enclose a copy of the declarations of policy adopted by the organization at its meeting in Washington on March 29-30, 1947. These declarations of policy contain the following statement with regard to discrimination in employment: "We favor the prompt enactment of a (Federal) Fair Employment Practices Act designed to eliminate discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin."

On behalf of the organization I would appreciate the inclusion of this statement in the record of the hearing at or near the testimony of the first witness associated with ADA, Mayor Humphrey of Minneapolis.

Sincerely yours,

DAVID D. LLOYD, Director, Research and Legislation.

Mr. ROBERT W. GILBERT (cochairman of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC). I would just like to make the record show my name and affiliation and then I will submit that document upon my return to California.

Senator DONNELL. How soon will that be submitted, Mr. Gilbert? Mr. GILBERT. According to the desires of the committee, I will be returning to the coast when these hearings adjourn and immediately upon my return I will write it. I would say within a week's time.

I would like to state my affiliation for the record and not attempt to testify.

I am appearing as cochairman of the Los Angeles Chapter for a Permanent FEPC, in which capacity I have previously requested an