condition of their problems. The crucial question, therefore, is: Is this type of opposition and the nature of its ramifications worth taken into consideration? Or is this apparent sincerity a facade to deter the attention from the enactment of this bill? From my limited experience in Oklahoma and Texas, and my observations throughout my travel and readings, I maintain that much of the opposition to the civil-rights program is motivated especially in the FEPC by a sincere desire to allow them ample time to prepare the South in particular to be more receptive to such legislation.

Here the legislators are faced with a dilemma. Executing their duty they know that something must be done to enable those who are discriminated against to have equal opportunities. They also know that a law is the intrinsic expression of the will of the people. The American people and the southerners are not opposed to such legislation intrinsically, but their will has not become articulate in demanding such legislation. Per se, the South does not will this legislation now, and in the formative stages of the will which encounter several obstacles of traditions and customs, the execution of this bill in all its phases will be detrimental to the ends we all want-namely, equal opportunity and equality for every American, regardless of his race, creed, or national origin.

But many of those who oppose this bill and the civil rights program must realize that the United States cannot afford apathy and indifference toward certain practices which not only harm those individuals involved, but the position of the United States in world affairs as champion of the human rights and democracy. Those who oppose the bill H. R. 4453 must begin to acquire a sense of responsibility on a national scale rather than confinement to narrow provincialism. Sometimes I wonder if they comprehend that every discrimination against an American is contributing to the sapping of his patriotism and his belief in the American institution of constitutionalism? I also wonder whether they know that a wholesale allowance of discrimination attributes much to the lack of vitality and socio-economic conditions which we see in many parts where discrimination is mostly practiced?

I favor this bill as a policy, a context, which is flexible enough to allow development toward certain goals at which we must arrive. I think the time has arrived when Congress should enact a law which would contribute to a healthier and more vital society.

I am opposed to certain phases of the bill because I know that the machinery created by this act will encroach upon whatever chances the objectives of this bill have in the South and in other areas in the United States. The powers of the Commission are very extensive and quasi-judicial. The salaries of the Commissioners compare to other high officials in the various governmental departments illustrate the extent of the scope of the agency. The bill, if enacted as it is, will create a variety of interpretations and many of the so-called minorities will in their sensitivity and previous frustration, misuse the vagueness of the law. Many would resent the law and until a process of adjustment precedes the implementation of this act, I personally will be inclined to vote to amend the act so as to make the salaries of the Commissioners around $12,000, and the elimination of sections 7 and 9, in particular, of the bill, so as to make the Commission an Advisory Board with powers to recommend policies to be followed by the judi

ciary and legislation to the State legislative bodies to enact laws pertaining to the specific conditions of the area.

Every area has its particular problems and every State has many peculiar situations of their own. These cannot be handled by a uniform Federal agency with judicial powers except in an advisory and recommending manner.

But the powers of the Commission implied in this act must apply to all governmental agencies and institutions which are aided or helped by Federal Government. This would apply in Government dealings with private contractors; but as applied to private business and industry the Commission must act in an advisory capacity and as a conciliatory agency.

My disagreement, Mr. Chairman, with particular phases of the bill is due to my desire to see the objectives of this bill attained. A nation, with a democratic tradition and willingness to evolve into relative but continuous success will undoubtedly overcome the several weaknesses and vulnerable spots which exist in many phases of the American human situation. Except for bigots and national chauvinists, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Gerald L. K. Smiths and others of their kind, the American people in one phase or the other are willing to see their defaults and correct them.

But in minimizing the evils of discrimination and racial prejudice we cannot lend ourselves to sensationalism and dramatization. Many of the political groups in the United States, such as the Communist Party, use the techniques of sensationalism to exploit the sufferings of the people for their own recruiting and selfish purposes.

There is vested interest in the perpetuation of inaction on civil rights. This vested interest should be exposed and the American people should know that in a land of opportunities like ours, we must mold ourselves to the observance of the institutions which made our greatness possible, our freedom unchallenged and our basic and constitutional rights unmolested.

It would be difficult to compromise much of our prejudices, but as we begin to bear the fruits of tolerance and recognition of human rights, discrimination in employment and other fields of human endeavors will be minimized and subsequently eliminated.

I oppose certain phases of this bill because I believe they will retard the fulfillment of its objectives. I am in favor of the policy which the bill installs and I think that such a policy must be enacted soon. Mr. POWELL. Thank you for your testimony. You are a constituent of Representative Steed, are you not?

Mr. McSOUD. Yes, sir. I belong to a minority group of national origin that has been discriminated against in many cases. Mr. POWELL. You live in Oklahoma?

Mr. McSOUD. Bristow, Okla.

Mr. POWELL. I appreciate your testimony. It is very fine. The only thing is you recommend the withdrawal of sections 7 and 9, which are just about the heart of the bill.

Mr. McSOUD. I probably did not make myself clear. I would withdraw them in the fields of private business in particular, especially at this stage of the game, but I would implement them in the Government agencies.

Mr. POWELL. What about trade unions?

Mr. McSOUD. In the case of trade unions, I think there is a little less discrimination found among trade unions than in other places, and it could be applied to a particular situation. I don't think that trade unions in general are sold on the policy of discrimination. There might be some individual cases. I don't think it is very dangerous

there.

Mr. POWELL. The experience of the wartime FEPC was that it accomplished quite a lot of good, but the results were much less favorable than if they had had the power of putting a little coercion to work after they exhausted all the stages of conciliation, mediation, and that sort of thing.

Mr. McSOUD. Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the fact that the FEPC has done a lot of good and it proved itself for a temporary period-it proved that it is workable. But you must not forget that the circumstances of war made any serious opposition to it impossible. Now that the war is over and there isn't a national tension and we have a world responsibility, I think we now are a very large target to the people who oppose the United States. They might point to any discrimination in the United States as illustrative and as indicative of the whole human situation here, which you know is not true. Any vulnerable spot is liable to be exploited by the opponents of the United States in the international field. I think a national policy should be established. I would be in favor of that policy, and I just made it clear that there are certain sections which I do not think are practical enough to be enforced in certain areas. I know it is an unfortunate situation, but we could accomplish something that would be a step forward, at least, we could put in a framework so that people will know there is a national policy. If many people in the Southern States would know there is a national policy they would try to adapt themselves. You cannot impose it in such a judicial manner, because I think they would resent it. I think you would have to let their will be more receptive of this legislation.

Mr. POWELL. I would like to say in New York State we have an FEPC law which has been in operation for a couple of years, and they have not used the judiciary power, or resorted to the courts, even though they had the power, but the fact they have that power has aided them in their conciliation work.

Mr. McSOUD. That would be interpreted, as the southerners would take it, as a threat. There is less likelihood among the New Yorkers, due to their historical background, to have discrimination as compared to the South. I don't think the pattern of the FEPC that has been established in New York can be applied to many States in the South. Mr. POWELL. I would like to conclude this morning's session by including in the record the following communication from Mr. Dwight R. G. Palmer, president of the General Cable Corp., a member of The President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, and the telegram to which he refers in his letter. (The letter and telegram referred to are as follows:)

GENERAL CABLE CORP., New York, N. Y., May 12, 1949.

Hon. ADAM C. POWELL, Jr.,
House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Joseph S. Jarosz, your research specialist, indicated in a recent letter to me that your committee might be interested in having me testify on or about May 25 re H. R. 4453.

Under date of February 16, 1948, a telegram re the Ives-Fulton bill against discrimination in employment was forwarded to the Members of the Senate and the Congress. This telegram reflected the then sentiments of the men whose names were appended thereto, I having had the privilege of having my name included. As you may know, the President under date of September 18, 1948, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 9981 of July 26, 1948, designated me as a member of The President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. The committee has been functioning since the early part of this year, not having been called together by the chairman until that time.

It is my feeling that I had best forego the opportunity of speaking before your committee while our own committee is in session and engaged in deliberations paralleling to some extent your own efforts.

Were I not a member of that committee, I would be delighted to appear before

you.

Best wishes.

[Copy of telegram]

DWIGHT R. G. PALMER,

President.

The undersigned American citizens believe that passage at this session of the Congress of a national act against discrimination in employment is important to the welfare of the country. We note with satisfaction that the Ives-Fulton bill has been favorably reported out by the Senate Committee on Labor and Education, and we ask you, and through you your colleagues, to use your fullest influence to expedite its passage by both Houses of Congress.

The great majority of employers in the United States, together with their fellow Americans, believe in the principle of nondiscrimination in employment. They know that such discrimination is uneconomic, in that it results in an unsound use of manpower and retards the development of purchasing power. They know it is undemocratic and un-American, being contrary to the principles upon which our Government was founded and upon which it endures. They know, finally, that it weakens the position of the United States in the eyes of the world and in the war of ideas between freedom and totalitarianism.

In our judgment, the Ives-Fulton bill, if enacted into law, will substantially advance the cause of nondiscrimination in employment. It will strengthen the hands of those who believe in its purposes, and it will tend to bring into compliance those few who do not. Our judgment in this respect is based in part upon the successful working of very similar laws in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other States.

We like the reliance which the bill puts upon education and conciliation. On the other hand, we recognize the necessity of governmental sanctions when conciliation breaks down. We do not believe that passage of this bill will eliminate prejudice from America, but it will be an effective step along the road. For this reason, we have formed ourselves into a committee to advocate its adoption. We hope you will do all in your power to help toward this objective.

Mr. POWELL. The committee stands adjourned now until 2 o'clock this afternoon, when we will hear testimony from the railroad brotherhoods.

(Whereupon, at 11:10 a. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The subcommittee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to the taking of the recess.)

Mr. POWELL. The committee will kindly come to order. The first witness, and only witness other than for the railroad brotherhoods, will be Mr. Martin Quigley, president of the Quigley Publishing Co., Rockefeller Center, New York, and cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC. Mr. Quigley, we welcome you. Before you speak, I would like to compliment your organization on the inestimable help they have given us with these hearings and in scheduling the witnesses.

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN QUIGLEY, PRESIDENT, QUIGLEY PUBLISHING CO., ROCKEFELLER CENTER, NEW YORK, AND COCHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A PERMANENT FEPC

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, sir.

My name is Martin Quigley. I am president of the Quigley Publishing Co., Rockefeller Center, New York, and cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you in support of H. R. 4453, the Federal fair employment practice bill.

I am cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC, which is the principal organization working in behalf of this proposed legislation. More than 50 national religious, civic, fraternal, labor, and racial organizations are members of the council. It is interracial and interfaith in character. Among the organizations represented on its board of directors are the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Congress of Inustrial Organizations, American Federation of Labor, American Civil Liberties Union, American Jewish Committee, United Council of Church Women, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Cooperative League of America, American Jewish Congress, and the Independent Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World.

In addition to the national organizations, our council is composed of local units throughout the country which represent groups of members of the organizations I have named. The national and local groups represented by the council number a membership of approximately 60,000,000 persons. Representatives of various of these organizations will appear before your committee.

The bill before this committee does not represent new or radical legislation. It is a moderate and reasonable measure. It is calculated to do nothing more than achieve and maintain that measure of economic justice which is the right of every citizen of this Nation under the principles to which the Nation is pledged. It proposes to deal affirmatively and constructively with a distressful condition which has not yielded-and is not likely to yield-to the slow and uncertain processes of education, adaptation, and adjustment.

The first FEPC was instituted by Executive order in June 1941. It was a wartime measure. Bills to establish a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission were introduced in 1944 in both Houses of the Seventy-eighth Congress, and again in the Seventy-ninth Congress. Hearings were held by both Senate and House committees, reports of which are available. The bill appeared again in the Eightieth Congress where, in the Senate, it had the sponsorship of four Democrats and four Republicans. These bills have been reported favorably by Senate and House committees. The Congress has not yet had an opportunity to vote upon them.

FEPC legislation was endorsed and requested in the President's message to Congress February 2, 1948. It was pledged in the platforms of both major political parties at their latest national conventions. It was an important issue in the Presidential campaign of last fall, and the election of Mr. Truman may only properly be interpreted as meaning that great numbers of Americans support the civil-rights program to which he is pledged.