great armies: it does not require huge expenditures of funds; it merely requires that our democratic conscience be put into immediate and forceful practice; it merely requires that the principles upon which this Nation were founded are upheld. To give each man and woman willing to work the opportunity to do so without an obstacle or shackle of discrimination because of race, color, or national ancestry is merely reaffirming that this indeed is "a nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It is a reaffirmation that in the United States we have beaten our prejudices into plowshares, and that we do not fear the religious faith, or the color of the skin, of the man who tills the soil or the woman who spins the thread.

To pass S. 984 is reaffirmation that in America a man's right to work is part of his right to worship as he pleases, to read what he pleases, and to speak the truth without fear. For these reasons, in our historic liberal tradition, we support and urge passage of S. 984.

STATEMENT OF MERCHANTS AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Toler

S. 984 is based on the fallacy that it is possible to legislate tolerance. ance is an individual state of mind. Any attempt to control it by punitive regulation merely magnifies intolerance. The only sensible approach is through the educational process. The creation of a Federal commission to regulate tolerance will result in the enhancement of the problem, and will increase race- and colorconsciousness. Actually such a law places minority groups in a preferred status, which can only result in deep resentment on the part of other workers. This will inevitably result in a deep cleavage among the workers which does not now exist.

There is no need for the enactment of S. 984. In our free economy, minority group workers have made great progress in the field of employment, as well as in other fields. During the recent war period, minority-group workers were able to demonstrate their ability, and have firmly entrenched themselves on the basis of that ability. This is the only sound approach, and it will be a cruel error to jeopardize the recent forward steps made by minority-group employees by arousing antagonisms and prejudices through bureaucratic interference.

A measure of this sort will create no new jobs, nor would it in any way help our production or productivity-the basis of our material welfare.

The best way to create a national hatred for a particular food would be to pass a law requiring everyone to eat it daily. It is a very natural American reaction. This reaction was well demonstrated during prohibition when Congress sought to force regulation of the conduct of people on a moral issue contrary to the desires of the majority. It just didn't work.

There is no demonstrated need for this law, nor for the huge Federal bureaucracy which would be needed to attempt its enforcement. The Federal FEPC operated for 18 months in 48 States during wartime, backed by the wartime power of the President. It heard only 6,855 cases. Of these, 3,400 were immediately dismissed as not having grounds for complaint. If the crusading FEPC could find only 3,455 cases in 48 States in 18 months among more than 50,000,000 workers, discrimination cannot be so terribly dangerous to our economic life as to justify the creation of a new Federal bureaucracy.

Actually, the proposed measure will place in jeopardy the job of every worker, because claims of discrimination rest on intangible factors. If we may judge by experience, the proposed FEPC would undoubtedly operate along the same lines as the NLRB, where a discharged worker need only show that he is a union member to have the burden shift to the employer to prove that the worker was not discharged because of his union membership. The proposed FEPC would undoubtedly place this same burden on employers with respect to discharged minority workers. The fear of employers to deal with minority employment problems in a normal manner would create great antagonism on the part of other workers.

Lack of harmony among employees in a plant inevitably results in lower production. Majority-group employees would retaliate in many ways if the Government would favor minority groups. S. 984 will create more discrimination than it will prevent. It should not be enacted.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., June 11, 1947.

LETTER OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, LABOR SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Hon. FORREST C. DONNELL,

Chairman of Subcommittee on Labor and Welfare,

Washington, D. C.

JUNE 23, 1947.

DEAR SENATOR DONNELL: During the testimony on Senate bill No. 984, Senator Allen Ellender, of Louisiana, questioned several witnesses, including President William Green, of the American Federation of Labor, on the Point Breeze strike which involved employees of the Western Electric Co. This plant is located in Baltimore, Md.

During my service with the War Production Board and the Committee on Fair Employment Practice, I dealt with the management of the Western Electric Co. in New Jersey and Baltimore on the subject of employing colored persons.

It is entirely wrong to say that the Fair Employment Practice Committee ordered management to take down signs or partitions, as was stated by Senator Ellender.

It is clear, of course, that in any decent place of employment all individuals should have equal access to whatever facilities are available. However, in this case, management took a position which was as follows:

"Frequently it was necessary to transfer employees and equipment between departments and buildings. In order to have a flexible working force and to make certain that it did not discriminate in doing this, the company felt that it was necessary to have facilities which would be available for use by employees, regardless of race."

Management's position was explained to the War Labor Board at a panel hearing on November 11, 1943, by Mr. C. C. Chew, who was then superintendent of industrial relations for the Western Electric Co.

I think it should be noted that the city of Baltimore at one time required by a municipal ordinance that separate facilities be provided for colored and white persons working in industrial plants. This ordinance had been repealed on February 13, 1942, because it was found that it hindered the full utilization of the labor force in the community.

The Western Electric Co., which prior to the war had not employed a large number of colored persons, had established some separate facilities for colored truck drivers who occasionally came to the building. When it embarked on its program of making an intelligent and fair use of all available persons, it followed what certainly is a commendable practice and ended the separate facilities. There are other factors in this situation which are not necessarily relevant at this point. However, if you want me to do so I will be glad to discuss the entire situation with you or any other member of the committee.

Incidentally, I believe that I should point out that the situation is fully erplained on page 159 of the hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, June 1945, Seventy-eighth Congress.

Sincerely yours,

CLARENCE MITCHELL

STATEMENT OF THOMAS RICHARDSON, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

The United Public Workers of America, CIO, joins with the rest of CIO in supporting S. 984, which would provide the United States with a permanent fair-employment practice law. The job discrimination against minority groups has become a serious and dangerous infection which threatens the very health of our Nation. Such discrimination is totally out of keeping with the basic principles of the United States Constitution and strong Federal legislation which takes cognizance of this fact and provides a proper remedy will protect the health and strength of our democracy.

Particularly are we interested in the passage of Federal legislation which would serve to eliminate the widespread practices of discrimination against minority groups which are at present being carried on in the hiring, promotions, and lay-off of Federal Government employees. We believe that S. 984 would correct much of the racial discrimination in Government personnel practices, and would thus aid the United States Government, as an employer, to set an example of justice and fair play in its personnel practices. We believe that such

an example set by the Federal Government would give added weight to the various statements of President Truman and other Government officials who have from time to time condemned the practice of discrimination in the field of employment. The coverage of agencies and instrumentalities of the United States or of any Territory or possession thereof, as is provided in S. 984, would make a major contribution in helping the Federal Government to perform its role as a model to all other employers.

The policy of fair employment practice for Government as an employer is not new. Rule 1 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations provides that ap pointments to jobs in the Federal Government be made on the basis of merit alone with no discrimination because of color, race, religion, or place of national origin. It has been impossible, however, for the Civil Service Commission to guarantee the application of this policy because it has lacked machinery for rapid investigation and adjudication of charges of discrimination in Government hiring. S. 984 provides for a Commission which has the right to investigate charges of discrimination in Federal employment and to make the proper recommendations to the President of the United States for the correction of the problem wherever it may exist. This provision if enacted into law will narrow the possibility of continuing discrimination in Federal employment.

Despite existence of rule 1 in the Civil Service Rules and Regulations and despite the various statements against discrimination made by the President, many shocking and disturbing cases of discrimination have occurred and are now occurring in the employment practice of Federal Government without corrective action being taken. As an example of one type of discrimination found in Federal employment, I cite the case in which the personnel office of a liquidating war agency, which in attempting to place its employees with more permanent Government agencies, was informed by 10 agencies of the Federal Government that they had clerical jobs for white applicants but none for Negro applicants. These agencies were:

Bureau of Standards and the Patent Office in the Department of Commerce. Bureau of Internal Revenue in the Treasury Department. Public Health Service in the Federal Security Agency. Public Buildings Administration in the Federal Works Agency. Alien Property Custodian in the Justice Department. Navy Department. Government Printing Office. Office of Army Security in the War Department. State Department.

Despite the fact that the United Public Workers of America revealed this condition to the Civil Service Commission, the White House and the President's Committee on Civil Rights, no corrective action has been taken and as a matter of fact agencies not in the above list have begun to follow the example of discrimination. The original 10 agencies alone represent about half of the agencies of the Federal Government.

Or as another example of the kind of discrimination which is encountered in Federal Government employment practices, I cite the case of four Negro Government workers of several years' experience, all with very good or excellent efficiency ratings who were referred by the personnel office of their agency, which was liquidating, to the Department of Agriculture. After having been interviewed by the personnel office of the Department of Agriculture, they heard nothing with regard to employment by that agency. Some time later one of the applicants received in an officially franked envelope of the Department of Agriculture the application blanks of herself and three other Negro job applicants. Attached to these blanks was a memorandum on official United States Government stationery which was obviously a note exchanged between personnel officers in the Department of Agriculture. The note stated, "attached are the applications I talked to you about. Except for color they look like good girls." The note was dated January 27, addressed to "John," and the words "except for color" underlined in red crayon. The signature on the memorandum was illegible. This situation was revealed to the proper Government officials but to date none of the four girls have yet been hired by the Department of Agriculture and the discrimination which they suffered was obviously but a reflection of a firm policy on the part of that Government agency.

I cite for you another example which concerns the Bronx office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which had a staff of over 2,000 employees performing essential work in the Government's tax program. Ninety percent of these employees were Negroes. The head of that agency, a Mr. Ernest Campbell, stated prior to the giving of the examinations that he would get rid of most of the Negro employees. The employees demanded that they be retained on the basis of merit and argued that their method of retention should be the same as for any other

Government workers; that is, that the marks which they made on the civĮservice examination should be the basis upon which they were retained. The administrator stated that only a few of them would be able to pass the civservice examination. However, when examinations were given and graded. I was found that large numbers of these employees passed the examination. Immediately thereafter the Treasury Department moved the office from New York dismissed all but a few white employees, and set up the office in Kansas City, Mo (It was claimed the move was unrelated to the question of retention of Negr workers, but the sequence of events is as I have described.)

The above-mentioned cases are but examples of the type of discrimination which is now being practiced by the United States Government as an employer. Each case merely represents scores of other similar cases in which Negroes. Jewish workers, Catholics, and workers of Spanish descent are being discrimi nated against. The United Public Workers of America, CIO, supports S. 94 because this bill would provide for an apparatus which would have the right to investigate such cases and to make the proper recommendation to the President for corrective action. Without such apparatus, the pattern of discrimination against minority groups by Government agencies will grow with a resultant harm to the efficient and economic operation of the various Government agencies and to the whole problem of achieving friendly race relations in the Nation as a whole.

The United Public Workers would like to suggest that the coverage of this bill be extended to include all employees whose pay is derived entirely or in part from moneys appropriated by the National Congress. Such coverage would then extend the benefits of this legislation to the many State, county, and city aid programs being financed, in part at least, by the Federal Government, and would include not only Territories of the United States but activities which are being conducted by the United States Government on leased areas such as the Panama Canal Zone.

Our

We therefore urge that the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare report favorably and swiftly on S. 984, and that the committee use its influences to secure positive action on this legislation in the United States Senate. members have watched the development of this issue for some time and it is with real expectations that we present our opinion to this committee, hoping that rapid action will occur as we continue to watch the fate of this bill. The malpractices which the legislation is designed to correct can, if allowed to fester, infect our national life to the point where no strong bond exists to hold the great American people together. The principle of Government of, by, and for the people cannot be qualified. A Government of, by, and for all of the people except minorities would be a tyranny. And the land of opportunity cannot deny opportunity to some without eventually reducing the opportunities for all.

LETTER OF CHARLES E. SANDS, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOTEL AND RESTAU RANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE AND BARTENDERS' INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

SENATE COMMITTEE EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Capital City.

(Attention Mr. Rodgers, clerk.)

JUNE 10, 1947.

DEAR MR. RODGERS: The attached resolution passed by our recent convention which was held in Milwaukee, Wis., April 4 to 12, 1947, was reported to the convention by committee and passed without dissenting vote.

Therefore please insert in the records that our international union wholeheartedly approves of the establishment of a National Fair Employment Practice Act Our convention was attended by 1,150 delegates representing over 400,000 workers from all over the United States of America.

Very truly yours,

CHAS. E. SANDS.

TO ENACT A FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT-RESOLUTION NO. 110, SUBMITTED BY DELEGATES OF LOCAL No. 110, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Whereas during World War II the late President established a Fair Employment Practices Commission thereby recognizing the right of all workers to employment without discrimination and making possible the most effective com tribution by all American workers to the production essential for the winning of the recent war against fascism and nazism; and

Whereas this policy of the late President Roosevelt has been shamefully abandoned by the present Federal administration and by the present and previous Congresses; and

Whereas the concept of no discrimination in the field of employment is consistent with the finest ideals of American democracy; and

Whereas our international union has traditionally been in the forefront of the labor movement in adhering to and practicing the policy of no discrimination in the field both of organization and of employment; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That this Thirty-first Convention of the HREIA and BILA declares itself for the enactment of a Fair Employment Practices Act as a national policy on the part of our Federal Government; and be it further

Resolved, That the legislative department of this international union stand instructed to work for the enactment of such legislation.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR SCHUTZFR, STATE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN LABOR PARTY, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The American Labor Party respectfully urges this subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to report out favorably S. 984, a bill to establish a national commission against discrimination in employment and to outlaw unfair employment practices.

The American Labor Party notes the special significance of the introductory sections of the bill.

We refer to section 2 (b) and section 2 (c) which read, respectively, as follows: "SEC. 2. (b) The right to employment without discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right of all the people of the United States.

"SFC. 2. (c) This act as also been enacted as a step toward fulfillment of the international treaty obligations imposed by the Charter of the United Nations upon the United States as a signatory thereof to promote universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

By declaring that the right to employment without discrimination is a Federal civil right, section 2 (b) affirms a basic right of democracy. Without this right, effectively enforced, other rights become empty and academic; so long as an individual can be denied the opportunity to earn a living because of discrimination on the ground of race, creed, color, or national origin, so long is the very meaning of democracy denied and thwarted.

Moreover, by citing the obligations of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations as one of the constitutional and moral justifications for the enactment of the bill, section 2 (c) renders timely recognition of the role of the United Nations and of America's duties as a member nation.

S. 984 has a persuasive precedent for its purposes and provisions. The President's Fair Employment Practice Committee, which was created by executive order of President Roosevelt, demonstrated the effectiveness of such legislation. In its first report, covering the period from July 1943 to December 1944, the FEPC stated: "At critical points in the production program, minority groups have played an essential role. Every twelfth American in prime war industries is a Negro. In Federal Government service every eighth worker is a Negro." The other minority groups showed a corresponding increase in employment, as a result of the activities of the FEPC, affecting 5,000,000 Jews, 20,000,000 Catholics, 3,000,000 Americans of Mexican and Hispanic origin and 11,600,000 persons of foreign birth.

In its final report, the FEPC recommended permanent legislation against discrimination in employment, and pointed out that a postwar survey of employment practices in 11 American cities indicated a sharp increase in discrimination. The American Labor Party vigorously endorses the conclusion of the FEPC that "No device will solve the problem short of the enactment by Congress of Federal fair employment legislation."

The defense and wartime civilian employment of Negroes increased by approximately 1,000,000 jobs between April 1940 and April 1944, according to the report of the United States Department of Labor issued January 1945. Employment of Negro men in the same period rose from 2,900,000 to 3,200,000; Negro women from 1,500,000 to 2,100,000.