Mr. QUIGG. Lumber, woodworking, and plywood manufacturers all over the United States.

Senator DONNELL. Does it include the southern timber interests and constituencies?

Mr. QUIGG. I think that a third of my subscribers are southern lumbermen and woodworkers.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Quigg, have you considered S. 984 in the course of your presence here, or earlier?

Mr. QUIGG. I never heard about the bill until today. I happened to read about this hearing this morning. I came over to see what it was about. I thought it was the beginning and I now find it is near the end of the hearing instead. I am glad that I had a chance to listen to Senator Ives before I appeared.

Senator IVES. Were you here when I had my conversation with the gentleman from Walden?

Mr. QUIGG. Yes, sir.

Senator IVES. Then you know my philosophy from that?

Mr. QUIGG. I would not get it from this bill; that is, that same philosophy.

Senator DONNELL. Are you familiar with the lumber industry, by personal observation or otherwise?

Mr. QUIGG. I have been specializing in writing to the lumber industry and related industries for about 18 years.

Senator DONNELL. Do you have all of the Southern States in the lumber area?

Mr. QUIGG. Not all, but most of them.

Senator DONNELL. The southern United States?

Mr. QUIGG. All over the country.

Senator DONNELL. Do you know Mr. Rogers-Mr. James F. Rogers, of Oregon?

Mr. QUIGG. He is one of my subscribers. Therefore, he is a great gentleman.

Senator DONNELL. Would you be kind enough, Mr. Quigg, to give us your view with respect to S. 984, as to whether it applies only to the southern lumber industry?

Mr. QUIGG. First of all, I do not think you can confine it to the southern lumber industry. I think that you will find that it would apply to a number of companies in the Lake States. It would apply to probably hundreds of sawmills out in the Pacific Northwest. Certainly, it would apply to some of the sawmills in Maine. Those that I have talked to did not know anything about this bill, but I know how they work; and, of course, that applies to all of the sawmills in the Southern States that produce southern pine and hardwoods. I am very much surprised that they did not have their association representatives here to testify.

I suppose it is because they have been so busy with the minimumwage hearing on the other side of the Hill. I have been over there, myself, and I could not have come here if I wanted to, earlier this week, because I could not attend both meetings at once, and I suppose it is the same with them. The best thing that I can tell you at the moment is that what you have heard this morning from Mr. Saunders represents most southern lumbermen's views. It is hard to state a percentage, but I figure that 90 percent of the lumber and wood

working industry of all the Southern States would agree with the views Mr. Saunders presented. You would find that most of them would look at it that way, although some of them would not have that kind of approach to it. Some of them would probably get more vicious in statements than he did. They would not be able to talk with you so calmly about it, Senator Ives.

Senator DONNELL. Do you mean that they would be more vehemently opposed to it?

Mr. QUIGG. Much more so.

Senator DONNELL. What proportion of the remaining 10 percent, over and above the remaining 90 percent, would be opposed to the bill? Mr. QUIGG. Those 10 percent, I would say, might not oppose it, but they would not be for it. Some might not know what they are for or against. Some just would not care.

Senator DONNELL. I thought you meant that that 90 percent would take substantially the view of Mr. Saunders. Also the remaining 10 percent of that number would be more vehemently opposed to the bill than Mr. Saunders.

Mr. QUIGG. I did not mean that. The 90 percent would all oppose it, but the 10 percent would not know whether they did oppose it or did not. Some of them would be in favor of it, I expect.

Senator DONNELL. I misinterpreted your meaning of that state

ment.

Mr. QUIGG. I personally am very much surprised at the bill. I, also, have read it since this morning's session. I have not read all of it, but I personally object to the statements of findings of fact and the declaration of policy. I do not think you can support it. I do not think you can support this statement that the practice of discriminating in employment is contrary to the principles of American liberty. The best statement that you can find on the American principles of liberty would be contained in the Declaration of Independence rather than any bill that you might look into now. The Declaration. of Independence was signed by a number of people who did so discriminate. The Constitution was adopted by a number of people who did so discriminate. I think that is a matter of history.

At present I live in Alexandria and have lived there for the past year and a half. Alexandria is the home town of George Washington. He certainly was a man who discriminated. He was a slave owner. I think that it is a matter of history.

Since I am here, I object, and I would not like to be here and not object, to these statements, that discrimination is incompatible with the Constitution. I would object to the statement that it "forces large segments of our population into substandard conditions of living." In the first place, I object to the principle that the United States Government can lay down a standard in respect to that. I object to the principle of the United States Government attempting to set up a standard for me. I do not believe that it "foments industrial strife." I question very seriously whether this "deprives the United States of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production." I do not think that you can prove that, one way or the other, except that we can say that the United States has steadily increased its capacity for production, while this bill cannot, that is, as it relates to hiring and firing.

I do not accept the statement that it "endangers the national security and the general welfare." I have seen no evidence, in my own contacts, that it "adversely affects the domestic and foreign commerce of the United States." I seriously question that statement.

I would like to know what "right" means; that is, "the right to employment without discrimination" is declared to be a "civil right of all of the people of the United States." I have been around Washington most of the time since-or half of the time-since 1941, and I have heard much here about rights. This is declared to be a civil right, and it is a little bit obscure to me as to what that means is a "civil right."

Can you declare a thing to be right? I have been very much impressed by your legal ability, and I would like to know.

Senator DONNELL. I am not undertaking to express the power of declaration of civil rights at this time. We would be glad to have your views on it.

Mr. QUIGG. I would very much like to know what a right is; that is, a civil right. There has been much said here about what the various rights are. There are many rights. There is a right to employment set forth, and the only place that I can find that in American history, a statement of rights, is again in the Declaration of Independence. The rights are mentioned there as "unalienable rights," but there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence about those unalienable rights being given by the Government. They are "endowed by their Creator," as I recall. They certainly derive from the Creator. Men who are created equal are endowed by their Creator with these rights; and the function of government-if I recall the Declaration of Indenedence correctly-the function of government is to secure those rights. I do not find in the Declaration of Independence any other function of government except to secure those rights.

If there are any questions that I can answer I would be very glad to do so at this time.

Senator ELLENDER. Aside from your views on the declaration of policy, why, in your opinion, would this law not be workable in the South, or in any other State that you can think of other than what would fall within the limits of the South?

Mr. QUIGG. The law could be made to work after a fashion. It would require a very large staff, I should think, and I note that the bill provides for as large a staff as the Commission should decide is necessary. Whether the Congress would then agree with the Commission is questionable, because I think you all remember Leon Henderson stated that it would require 90,000 people to properly administer OPA and he never did get that large a staff.

Senator ELLENDER. How many people would it require to actually administer this as intended?

Mr. QUIGG. I do not know; I do not think anybody knows.

Senator ELLENDER. Do you think that the passage of this law would be more effective in order to give to the colored people, and other minority races, this equality of opportunity that we have all been discussing here today?

Mr. QUIGG. I think that from my own observation of the lumber industry, some of it quite close at hand in the backwoods down South, you can just multiply the statement of the gentleman from Richmond,

If you will recall, he kept coming back to this: "We would find it hard to refute this," or "We would at least have to come into court to do it, and defend litigation in that respect." The lumbermen that I have talked to about it-and I have listened to them in meetings, and I have heard them discuss it with each other in trying to buy and sell lumber-have been very much worried about the time that they had to take in complying with the regulations. It was not so much the regulations, but what they had to do, that was necessary to meet the requirements of a Federal bureau to satisfy the bureau that they were complying. The man in the bureau has only rules by which he can operate. He does not have authority to go beyond the rules.

This Commission as proposed has possibilities of a tremendous number of rules. To do any good you would have to have a great number of rules. The best comparison would be the OPA.

In lumber, in Chicago, which is my home, the regional OPA had a great many men on the staff that knew nothing about lumber. They had two people there who did know something about lumber. In order to acquaint these people that did not know anything about lumber, out in the district where they had to apply the rules company by company, one man in the Chicago office wrote a large book. I saw it the last time I was in Chicago and it was a tremendous work. It was very well done, but by the time he got the book completed the OPA was out the window. It still was not really complete, even then. You still could not take that large book and do a good job with OPA..

You are going to run into the same job in the administration of this law, as it relates to lumber. I do not speak for any other industry. You have to bear in mind that in the South, alone, there are somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 sawmill operations. How many woodworking plants, like Mr. Saunders has, I do not know. There are thousands of them. They range from large operations down to very small ones. I visited one in 1943, and took movies that I showed to the Patman committee, where there were seven men in the whole operation. As I recall it, three of them were running the mill and the others were in the woods, or were delivering lumber when it was sawed, to the concentration yard that bought their lumber.

To give you an idea how well a small sawmill operator may understand these Bureau regulations, I came there with an Army lumber buyer. He had a Government shield on the side of his car. (He took me around all over Mississippi to these different small mills.) There was a Government shield on the door of the car, as I mentioned, and the mill operator's wife saw that shield, and she did not want to tell where the mill was. She thought that we were coming there to take her husband into the Army. He had just been reclassified in the draft. He had been given an occupational deferment, but his wife thought that I was the agent of the United States Government to take him into the Army. They were both greatly relieved when I told them that the classification he had meant that he was not going into the Army. Senator ELLENDER. That is a little off the subject, but do you think that in effect the administration of the law would be rather difficult? Can you assign any specific reasons why, in your own mind, this bill would not operate adequately in the South, and would not obtain the goal that is sought to be accomplished by some of the proponents of

That is what I am more interested in rather than the

this measure?
OPA, and other agencies.

Mr. QUIGG. The only thing I can say is that you will have the same trouble that the OPA had in the operation of this bill to try to achieve these ends. You will have the same problems. All of these thousands of mills in the South would present their problems to you. There are no two trees alike. Out of one tree, there are no two boards alike. You have the same thing in the administration of this bill, that no two men are alike. The people in the South, I have found, resent someone else coming in and telling them how to conduct their business.

There were some of them that I visited that were inclined to resent my coming there from Chicago, until they found out I was not trying to tell them how to run their business, but simply to listen to them. It took me several years to reach the point where the people in the South did not figure that I was trying to run their business. They resent that. I found numerous instances where they resented what they thought was this Government attempting to tell them how to run their business.

The things that I have encountered in the lumber business bear out what you have been told here today. The man from Texas told about the progress that they are making there, without the Federal Government doing it. I heard the same thing to be true of Alabama. This lumberman was explaining his interest in the Negroes. His neighbors thought that the situation presented a necessity to look after them. I had some of these ideas that you have heard, as to improving the lot of the Negro by possibly writing about it, or legislating about it, until I visited the South, and since I have come to Washington.

Senator DONNELL. We thank you very much for giving us the benefit of your views.

The committee will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.

(Whereupon, at 3:50 p. m., the committee adjourned until 9:30 a. m., Thursday, July 17, 1947.)