That is very true. That is one of the reasons we need a Federal FEPC, to standardize conditions, especially in interstate commerce.

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is very true. I was a member of the State legislature in 1935, with my good friend Dr. Shepard, who sits back there. And at that time, I introduced the equal rights bill of the State of Pennsylvania, which made it against the law to discriminate against Negroes or anybody in any of the hotels.

One of the things they said there was that this would run trade away from them. But we told them it would not, because in New York they have the same law, and in New Jersey, and in all the surrounding places, and it has not. So the Manufacturers Association, led by the same man that the Congressman bawled out, Mr. Grundy, put up that big excuse that if they passed that law, it would drive industries away from them, and we are appealing here that we put it on the Federal books so that all States will be on an equal basis.

Mr. POWELL. Another thing I would like to ask you, if it does not embarrass you, is, why is it in Pennsylvania, a very enlightened State, where the Governor has spoken several times in favor of FEPC, where the Democratic Party is committed to it, where many outstanding Republicans such as you are committed to it, that you cannot get a State FEPC law through?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is the first time we have been turned down. Maybe we might get a repercussion from that at the next election. Personally, even though it is my party that is in power there, I hope that happens.

Mr. POWELL. I feel the same way you do with regard to my own party.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think our Governor was for it up to a point. Of course, he might have the bug of wanting to come down here to the Senate after awhile, and he wanted to go along with some of the pow ers, I suppose.

Mr. POWELL. I see.

Mr. Burke?

Mr. BURKE. It is probably true that you might have some repercussions from it in the next election. We had the same thing in Ohio. Mr. REYNOLDS. We have not gone through a State election since we had it turned down. Of course, I hope we do not have too much repercussion at the election this fall, because I come up for reelection myself as a magistrate.

Mr. BURKE. We had a city FEPC ordinance that was defeated. Mr. REYNOLDS. We have one in Philadelphia, and no one has complained about it at all.

Mr. BURKE. I would like to go back to the opening part of your statement, where you cite two reasons for bad employment conditions generally, and first, of course, is discrimination in employment. and the second you say is that many Negroes were the last hired and therefore the first laid off. That, of course, would be under a seniority system, and I do not believe it would be fair to go to some sort of super-seniority system that would guarantee jobs because of race.

Mr. REYNOLDS. No. But if we had had an FEPC bill 25 years ago, Negroes would have been in there a longer time. So we have to start somewhere. If we get one now, 25 years from now they will have been in there for 25 years, or 10 years from now, they will have been in

for 10 years. We would not want to push them up on the list because they are Negroes. If we start now, Negroes will be old in their jobs from now on.

Mr. BURKE. Yes. If we set up some sort of superseniority system, the net result will be a lot of repercussions the other way.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. BURKE. Now, I know in many plants where there is a recession in employment, where Negroes who do have 18 or 20 or 25 years' seniority, now for the first time in the history of industry are able to maintain the jobs that they were upgraded to because of the work of the unions on seniority.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think you have the right interpretation of my statement, and that is that from now on that would happen. We would not want to supersede anybody who has more seniority than a Negro. But it is unfortunate because of the lack of FEPC prior to World War II that Negroes do not have any seniority.

Mr. BURKE. I thought it would be well to explore it and get a clear interpretation of it.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am glad you did. And then, with respect to getting trainees in, quite often they will not hire young men because they have not had any experience. They say, you have not had any experience in this line. And then they will not hire them as apprentices because they were Negroes. Therefore, they cannot get in as men, because they could not get in as boys as apprentices.

Mr. BURKE. During the war, and even before the war, we were able in the unions to extend seniority benefits not only to job security but also to upgrading. That was not done overnight, but was over a period of years. We were able to provide training programs in the Vocational schools, and so on, and prepared the people for upgrading and better jobs, to take advantage as employees of their rights under the seniority system.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think you are quite right. We did get some upgrading. I think it has helped a lot, and it will help the condition along a lot, even with what we got during the war. But of course the war is over now and we are about to revert back to where we were. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon, do you have any questions?

Mr. NIXON. I might say that I appreciate the statement that Judge Reynolds has made. Since the hour is late, I think the statement speaks very well for itself.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you very much.

Mr. POWELL. Is Mr. Fred Wolf, of the Railroad Engineers, here? (No response.)

Mr. POWELL. He was on our schedule..

The committee stands adjourned until Tuesday at 10 a. m.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, May 17, 1949, at 10 a. m.)

90748-49- -11

FEDERAL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE ACT

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. Adam C. Powell, Jr. (chairman), presiding.

Mr. POWELL. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness for the morning is Theodore E. Brown, research director for the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, representing that organization and representing A. Philip Randolph, the president of that organization. Mr. Brown.

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE E. BROWN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF SLEEPING CAR PORTERS, A. F. OF L.

Mr. BROWN. I welcome this opportunity to appear here. Mr. Randolph wanted to be present but, unfortunately, he found it necessary to be in the far West at this particular time. One of the reasons he is in the far West is on one of the very questions you are here considering, one of the issues we have before the Federal courts involving one of the railroad brotherhoods that I understand is going to appear here this afternoon. He asked me to present to you his statement.

As I said, I welcome the opportunity afforded me by your committee to appear here in behalf of H. R. 4453. A quick passage of this bill by the Eighty-first Congress is vitally necessary if democracy is to have meaning in many areas of national life.

I have followed very closely through the daily press and the radio the statements made by earlier witnesses before this committee. Those who have appeared in favor of the bill have argued eloquently, and I hope convincingly, to this committee for the urgent need at this time for legislation to outlaw discrimination in our national economic life, based upon race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry.

The question of fair employment practice is of grave concern to me, and it is because of that reason that I have dedicated much of my time and energies in the interest of this issue. I request that you hear the remarks that I shall present in my official capacity as the research director of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

As you may perhaps know, I serve as a cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC. Mr. Martin Quigley will present the arguments of the council, but I should like to request that you hear, as one of many illustrations, how this question of racial discrimination

is snuffing out the economic life of thousands of Negro railroad workers, solely because of their color.

Before you is a bill designed to enact legislation in the interest of fair employment practice opportunities for all workers, regardless of race, religion, color, or national origin. The tragic display of racial discrimination in the various industries throughout this Nation, North, East, South, and West, has seriously hampered our economic development. It has provided an opportunity to illustrate the most serious and glaring weakness in our avowed claim for a democratic society. Negro workers in the railroad industry who are competent enough to fill a number of vacancies either by direct hire or upgrading are banned solely because of racial discrimination. Numerous efforts have been made by various means to correct this racially economic injustice. The records of the wartime FEPC and recent litigation in the courts have failed to correct the gradual elimination of Negro locomotive firemen from the Nation's railroads. The infamous nonpromotable agreement entered into by the Brotherhood of Enginemen and Firemen and 22 southeastern railroads with the help of the National Mediation Board on February 8, 1941, has resulted in reducing the percentage of Negro firemen from 41.4 percent to 5 percent.

More recently, we in the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters are gravely concerned with the future of the Negro train porter. For more than 30 years the craft of train porters has been a definite craft for many of the Nation's railroads. Recent demands by the lilywhite Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and numerous carriers including the Missouri, Kansas, Texas and Santa Fe Railroads have placed the jobs of veteran Negro employees in jeopardy. This issue is also in the Federal courts, but because of the lack of a definite Federal statute dealing precisely with the question of racial discrimination, we have been unable to resolve this issue with justice to the thousands of Negroes who are involved.

The same type of discrimination which prevails in the railways, also obtains in the public utilities and many other industries throughout the country. The policy of some employers not to employ Negroes is justified by the claim that the Negro workers do not have union cards. Upon receiving this information, some of the Negro workers promptly go to the unions and request the opportunity to join in order to receive union cards to work in a plant under a closed-shop agreement, and they are politely advised that they cannot get union cards until they get union jobs. Thus they are caught between the Sylla and Charybdis of union evasion discrimination and employer discrimination. May I say that this is not true of all unions or all employers, but it is sadly true of far too many. Obviously, the Negro workers are victimized when both the shops and unions are closed. But, may I observe here, that I am by no means opposed to the principle of the closed shop, if the union is open to all workers, regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Not only are the railroads and public utilities guilty of racial economic discrimination, but also most, if not all, of the large American corporations doing interstate business. The oil, aircraft, automobile, food producers, insurance and banking institutions and the many other great corporations which comprise much of the big business in this Nation are guilty of minority discriminatory practices.