order. Now, evidently what that answered related to the set-up that was made possible by the late President Roosevelt. Is that true? Dr. BOYD. I would imagine so. I was not on the staff of the Federal

council at that time.

Senator ELLENDER. Well, are you familiar with the extent to which the FEPC that was created under this Executive order went toward correcting segregation?

Dr. BOYD. In employment, you mean, now?

Senator ELLENDER. How is that?

Dr. BOYD. In employment, you mean?

Senator ELLENDER. No. I mean in the elimination of segregation. For instance, are you familiar with the difficulty that took place at Point Breeze, Md., at the Western Electric Co.? Well, the Western Electric Co. had a factory where it employed both colored and whites and had separate toilets properly marked for each. The FEPC insisted that the designation of colored toilets and white toilets be discarded. It went so far as to force the company to tear down the wall that divided the designated sections, and, of course, when that occurred, an indignation strike took place and lasted for quite some time. Do you think that this law should go that far in its attempt to correct segregation?

Dr. BOYD. I think this bill, as I have read it, Senator Ellender, and I am not dodging your question

Senator ELLENDER. I don't want you to dodge it. I am asking you about the past example of its operation.

Dr. BOYD. I will be very honest. I am not familiar, sir, withSenator ELLENDER. I am asking your opinion as an individual, because you yourself have said

Dr. BOYD. I don't believe that would have happened if it had been handled properly by the people who were attempting to comply.

Senator IVES. I think that is the correct answer, and I think that was the difficulty.

Dr. BOYD. I think there were a lot of people. I heard someone say you can mess up any good law by

Senator ELLENDER. Interfering with local conditions.

Dr. BOYD. I wasn't going to say interfering with local conditions, but the application of the law. There are ways and ways of doing it. I can probably make you terribly mad and you can probably make me terribly mad about something on which we disagree, but there is another approach whereby we can disagree violently but our approach to each other can be on a plane that could preserve such a fellowship. Senator ELLENDER. I have correctly stated to you the situation at Point Breeze, Md., and you say that it was wrong, then you state that the matter was not handled correctly. Do you mean that the commission should have respected the custom or whatever law was in effect in that State? Would you say that?

Dr. BOYD. I don't know whether I would go that far. I am not a lawyer, by the way. Before I would form a judgment based on what you have said, I will go back to our point that perhaps whoever attempted to comply did not use the wisdom that he might have used.

Senator ELLENDER. What difference does it make to a colored man or a white man if he goes to the toilet where one is marked white, the other colored, if both toilets are the same? Can you tell me that? Dr. BOYD. Maybe I am stupid. I don't quite get your point.

Senator ELLENDER. I don't think you are stupid. You know what I am driving at. There was a similar case in St. Louis, as I recall, wherein there were four factories that made shells. Three of them were manned by white people and the other was manned entirely by colored. I understand a demand was made that the employees of the four factories should all be mixed and not handled as separate groups. That difference in viewpoint caused another strike. Do you think that it was the proper procedure for the Fair Employment Committee to cause delay in production in order to satisfy the whim of a few colored people who desired to rub elbows with the whites in the factories? Dr. BOYD. Do I think it was fair for them to do that? Senator ELLENDER. Yes.

Dr. BOYD. I think an application of that directive, with which I am not too familiar-I think they had a duty to perform; yes.

Senator ELLENDER. So that you believe that this law should go so far as not only to give the same employment and the same wages, but to make it possible for them to associate and rub elbows one with the other?

Dr. BOYD. Senator Ellender

Senator ELLENDER. Answer the question; it is simple.

Dr. BOYD. Of course, I have declared myself and I am not retracting one bit. I am opposed to segregation of any kind; so I think I have answered that question.

Senator ELLENDER. So that in this law, you would go one step further and in addition to giving the people of all races, be they Jews, or colored, or Italian, the same wages, the same working conditions, and everything else, that if they insist on white and colored working at the same benches and using the same facilities, toilets, and so forth, and so forth, that you also want to make that demand obligatory. Dr. BOYD. May I say this, sir, that I thought the bill, as the phrase has been used several times today, regards equal economic opportunity. In his presentation this morning, Senator Ives said there are other areas in the field of social relations and education, as you have just mentioned, in labor relations and what have you. The statement that I read was dealing largely with this bill.

Now, if you are asking me personally, I, as just a citizen of these United States, to answer your question, would go further; yes. Senator ELLENDER. You would go further.

Dr. BOYD. I am not speaking now in the name of the Federal Council.

Senator ELLENDER. The next question I was going to ask you is: Isn't it going to eventually lead to your line of thought or your method under which it should be handled?

Dr. BOYD. I want to be so careful that what I am saying now-
Senator ELLENDER. As an individual.

Dr. BOYD. As an individual, please. I ask your courtesy on that. Senator ELLENDER. I understand that perfectly, because I don't believe your church will stand for it.

Dr. BOYD. May I cite you one example, sir, Mr. Chairman?
Senator DONNELL. Certainly.

Dr. BOYD. All of my own experience and all of my ministering prior to going to the Federal Council has been in the South, from Virginia to Texas to North Carolina and back to Virginia. I was the rector of my parish in Richmond for 10 years prior to going to

the Federal Council. As president of the local council of social agencies, I invited all of the social workers of the city of Richmond, a professional employed staff, to a service of holy communion in my church to be followed by breakfast. I was told the first year that I did that, that I could not have my Negro brethren come. I submitted to it that first year. The second year I was determined, because my Christian conscience hurt. I sat on boards with my brethren. I have eaten with them in other places, and here I was a Christian minister setting up so-called service for social workers in my church to the exclusion of some of my brethren.

I went to my vestryman first and told him what I was going to do, that if I would have this service first, followed by the breakfast, it would be completely on an unsegregated basis or I would not have it. I then went to the ladies of my church who served breakfast and told them the same thing, that if anyone has any feelings about it, I do not wish you to feel badly about it, that I don't want to embarrass you, but this is the way it is going to be; and from that time on until Í left Richmond-that service, I understand, is still being held in Grace and Holy Trinity Church in Richmond, Va., and that is an Episcopal church.

Senator DONNELL. So, to have our record clear. I first thought you said exactly the opposite of what you mean. I think you used the term "unsegregated." You mean nonsegregated.

Dr. BOYD. Nonsegregated. My point there, Senator Ellender, is that it can be done, and it can be done in the South.

Senator ELLENDER. I don't question that at all, that it can be done among certain classes and will be done in the course of time among certain groups, but you can't force it on all.

Dr. BOYD. No; I wouldn't wish to force it.
Senator ELLENDER. But you are doing it here.
Dr. BOYD. I don't think so.

Senator IVES. Not by this bill.

Senator ELLENDER. This attempt is the first step.

Dr. BOYD. I disagree with you.

Senator ELLENDER. There is no doubt about the intention. I want to say this, that I have observed in various parts of Louisiana a number of people, colored, Chinese, and Japanese-not many, but a few Japanese go into the various churches wherein the white are predominant, but that is on a voluntary basis, you understand. But when it is attempted by law to change a custom that is as old as the section itself, that is when troubles ensues, and that is why I am asking you about this segregation law which, as you know, has been practiced in the South considerably. I imagine that in the course of time, not during my life, but a few years hence, as educational advantages spread, there may be a little relaxing of those issues. However, I fear that advocacy of this bill is the first step in the direction of social equality right here.

Dr. BOYD. I disagree with you, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Let your little white children play with little Chinese children; let your children and Negro children go to the same schools, theaters, churches. If they don't intermarry within a few years then I don't know the first rudiments of this issue.

Senator IVES. Well, I want to answer that because I happen to live in a fairly small community in up-State New York. That very condi

tion of human relationships, as far as the social aspect of the thing are concerned, have been going on there for quite a number of years, and there has been no intermarriage.

Senator ELLENDER. How many Negroes have you got down there? Senator IVES. We have a population of about 9,000, and something like 200 Negroes.

Senator ELLENDER. What would you do about this problem in a section of my State where the proportion is three colored to one white? Senator IVES. That isn't the point, Senator.

Senator ELLENDER. Yes, it is.

Senator IVES. The point is you can't get along this way without these things you are talking about, and it has been demonstrated in community after community. You have got a different situation that you are referring to.

Senator ELLENDER. You mean we in the South have?

Senator IVES. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. Certainly, and yet some of my good friends in the Senate want to try and shove this burden off onto us. That is plain

to see.

Senator DONNELL. Dr. Boyd, I want to ask you a few questions. Have you studied this particular bill?

Dr. BOYD. I have read it. I haven't studied it.

Senator DONNELL. Are you in favor of the punitive measures of it? Dr. BOYD. I think if you are going to have any law of this nature, you have got to have some teeth in it, sir, or it is not going to be observed.

Senator DONNELL. Then, as I understand it, you are very doubtful of the advisability of making the teeth apply only in a part of the United States.

Dr. BOYD. I would rather have you and your competent committee and others with you explore that before you take out the teeth, explore it very carefully.

Senator DONNELL. In other words, you think it is a proposition that is worthy of exploration, but, as I understand it, your present personal judgment is opposed to what I may term, without undue facetiousness, the extraction of the teeth in some parts of the country. Is that right?

Dr. BOYD. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator DONNELL. Have you studied this bill with a view to determining whether the bill authorizes all sorts of lack of segregation? Have you studied it with that in mind?

Dr. BOYD. Not with that in mind, but I wouldn't get that impression. It seems to me it is pretty narrowed down to this one field of equal opportunity in the economic sense.

Senator DONNELL. That is what you are testifying for here, as I understand it. primarily today, though you may personally go further, but what you are testifying to is your belief in the advisability of having equal opportunity for employment.

Dr. BOYD. Absolutely.

Senator DONNELL. Now I want to call your attention to the fact that the bill, it would appear, is at least suceptible to a further construction in section 5, where it recites as follows:

SEC. 5. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire, to discharge

and then this other portion

or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry.

I assume, Doctor, although you are not a lawyer, as you mentioned, that you would agree that "otherwise to discriminate" obviously involves something in addition to the refusal to hire or to discharge. Dr. BOYD. I would say so.

Senator DONNELL. Therefore, it must refer to other types of discrimination, and the other types would appear to be those relative to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Now the point I am making for our record so that we will not overlook it is not so much to interrogate you on your construction of it as a part of law, but to call attention in our record to the fact that this portion which I have read is at least susceptible to the construction that it refers not only to equality of opportunity in obtaining employment, but to equality of opportunity in all the phases of the terms and conditions of employment, which might be construed to entitle the individuals of whatever race to exact identity of facilities.

Now, of course, I can readily see where it might be construed, as it has been, in connection with the schools in some States not to require identity of facilities, but merely facilities of equal nature and of equal benefit and of equal convenience. But I think there is at least room in the bill as phrased for that ambiguity. I am not asking you to express yourself if you don't care to, Doctor.

Dr. BOYD. No; I would not.

Senator DONNELL. You prefer not to do that. You have read the entire bill. Is that right?

Dr. BOYD. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Is there anything further you wish to ask, Senator?

Senator ELLENDER. NO.

Senator DONNELL. Our next witness is the Reverend Edward Cardinal, director of the Sheil School of Social Studies, Chicago, Ill. (The following brief was submitted by Dr. Boyd:)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DR. BEVERLEY M. BOYD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RELATIONS, FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN AMERICA, TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE ON HEARINGS ON SENATE BILL S. 984

Mr. Chairman, my name is Beverley M. Boyd. I am executive secretary of the Department of Christian Social Relations of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and appear to express its views, as stated in official action by its executive committee and at its biennial meetings.

The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America is composed of 25 Protestant denominations with an approximate membership of 27,000,000, all of whose members "share a basic faith in Jesus Christ as Divine Lord and Savior." Such a faith in Jesus Christ prompts these denominations to work together in order "to secure a larger combined influence for the churches of Christ in all matters affecting the moral and social conditions of the people, so as to promote the application of the law of Christ in every relationship of human life."

There are three basic axioms which Christians accept as fundamental to the practice of Christian discipleship. They stem from the life and teachings of the founder of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ. They are as follows:

(a) The Fatherhood of God.

(b) The Brotherhood of Man.

(c) The infinite worth of each individual in the eyes of a Heavenly Father.