ployment Practice Committee held a 4-day hearing on the charges. The unions ignored the charges, did not appear at the hearings, and ignored the cease-anddesist orders of the Fair Employment Practice Committee when issued.

1944: In 1944 due to labor shortage because of the war emergency the management of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad approached all four train and engine service organizations (Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and Order of Railway Conductors) seeking their consent to the hiring of Negro locomotive firemen and brakemen because of the emergency. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen and the other three organizations stated they were unalterably opposed to the hiring of any Negroes as firemen or brakemen.

1944.-In 1944 the United States Supreme Court in the case of Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. et al. (323 U. S. 192) (Dec. 18, 1944) decided the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen had violated the obligation on bargaining representatives of fair representation of minority workers' interests in negotiating the Southeastern Carriers' Conference agreement, February 18, 1941; and that the agreement was discriminatory. Nevertheless the brotherhood persisted in enforcing the agreement, until damages were awarded against it in the cast of Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, United States District Court, Eastern Division of Virginia, and the decision affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (163 F. 2d 289) and certiorari denied.

This Tunstall case was on the Norfolk Southern Railway. Even after final decision on that property, the brotherhood continued to enforce the Southeastern Carriers' Conference agreement on other properties, and separate suits have had to be filed on the Southern Railway, Atlantic Coast Line, and Seaboard Air Line Railroad to abrogate the agreement. These suits are still pending.

Mr. POWELL. We will now adjourn until 10 a. m. tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4: 30 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Wednesday, May 18, 1949.)

FEDERAL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE ACT

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 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 kindly come to order.

We have a letter from the Department of State, signed by Mr. Ernest A. Gross, the Assistant Secretary, which reads, in part, as follows:

I wish to state that the comment made by Mr. Acheson in 1946 as Acting Secretary of State, and quoted in other reports on this legislation, accurately expresses the position of the State Department and can again be quoted.

The Department is frequently embarrassed by the apparent conflict between the principles of nondiscrimination and protection of human rights which we advocate in our international relations and instances of discrimination which occur in this country. Therefore, the Department hopes for continued and increased effectiveness of public and private efforts to do away with discriminations against minority groups, although it cannot comment on the merits of this specific domestic legislation.

(Mr. Acheson's comment, referred to in the above letter, is as follows:)

*

the existence of discrimination against minority groups in this country has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries. We are reminded over and over by some foreign newspapers and spokesmen that our treatment of various minorities leaves much to be desired. While sometimes these pronouncements are exaggerated and unjustified, they all too frequently point with accuracy to some form of discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin. Frequently we find it next to impossible to formulate a satisfactory answer to our critics in other countries; the gap between the things we stand for in principle and the facts of a particular situation may be too wide to be bridged. At atmosphere of suspicion and resentment in a country over the way a minority is being treated in the United States is a formidable obstacle to the development of mutual understanding and trust between the two countries. We will have better international relations when these reasons for suspicion and resentment have been removed. I think that it is quite obvious that the existence of discriminations against minority groups in the United States is a handicap in our relations with other countries. The Department of State, therefore, has good reason to hope for the continued and increased effectiveness of public and private efforts to do away with these discriminations.

* * *

I also have statements from Congressman Augustine B. Kelley, of the Twenty-seventh District of Pennsylvania, Congressman Christopher C. McGrath, of the Twenty-sixth District of New York, and

Congressman William T. Granahan, of the Second District of Pennsylvania, in support of the legislation.

Also a letter from the State of Connecticut Inter-racial Commission regretting they cannot be present today, and a statement supporting the legislation from the standpoint of the operation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.

Without objection, they will be inserted in the record. (The statements referred to above are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. AUGUSTINE B. KELLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, It is my hope that legislation creating a Fair Employment Practices Commission will be enacted. The problem of discrimination is a serious one in this country. There are many minority groups which it affects, both racial and religious groups. It is not only the Negro who is interested in this problem; many others are equally concerned in it, for discrimination in employment has been practiced for many years in various parts of the country. Every individual in this country should have the right and the opportunity to seek employment on the basis of his ability and should not be so prevented by an accident of birth. Therefore, I am in full accord with the efforts being made to wipe out discrimination toward any members of minority groups and to assure full justice for them.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER C. MCGRATH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee on Education and Labor, I appear before your committee today not only as the Representative of the Twenty-sixth District of New York but also as an American who believes in fair play for all people.

Starting as a struggling Nation over a century and a half ago, inheriting the prejudices of the Old World, we have gradually eradicated most of them. The fears and hatreds of yesteryear have in the main passed away, but there still remain prejudice and passions and fears that make some minority groups suffer. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not mean the mere right to breathe air, to be relieved of the shackles of slavery. It goes further and deeper than that. The right to live carries with it the right of earning a livelihood in whatever field of endeavor one is fitted for. Hence, to say to a man or woman, "This job is barred to you solely because of your race or your religion or your color or your national origin or ancestry" is to deny to that man or woman his right to life and to happiness, because one cannot be free when economic prejudice persists.

When a competent person is denied employment because of this narrow-mindedness in reasoning, that individual suffers, but so does our general economy and, even more, so does our national security. The Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, now being considered as H. R. 4453, is a step in the right direction. America cannot and America must not tolerate discrimination in any degree. The adoption of this measure will do a great deal to end this un-American practice, but let us not rest solely upon legislative enactment. That in itself is not enough. In the heart of every American must be the deep, the genuine, and the sincere effort to do everything that will eliminate the spirit of hate. With that accomplished, we as individuals will be happier; we as a nation will be stronger, and then truly can we all say, "This is America, the land of freedom." I strongly endorse all of the provisions of the so-called FEPC bill, and I respectfully urge that this committee report the bill favorably.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM T. GRANAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, in connection with the hearings of your subcommittee on the subject of the Fair Employment Practice Act, I should like to go on record as

strongly in favor of the enactment of a fair-employment-practice bill at the earliest possible moment.

I do not believe that even the opponents of this particular piece of legislation would deny that the conditions exist for which this is an attempted remedy. Prejudice and discrimination are facts. They are a part of the reality of life which we must face.

It is not contended for a moment that prejudice can be cured by legislation. That can be achieved only by education. But certain discriminatory practices which spring from prejudice can be curbed, and among them is the practice of discrimination in employment, that is, the refusal of a job to an individual not on the basis of his qualifications but because of his religion, race, or nationality background. The mere fact that these practices are common is no justification why they should be permitted to continue nor for the position that Congress can do nothing or should do nothing about it.

Under the Constitution, it is the duty of the Congress to act in furtherance of the purposes for which our Government was formed. These purposes include "to promote the general welfare" and "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

The right to the pursuit of happiness by competing for a job on an equal basis with others is an essential part of our liberty. Equality of opportunity for all is one of our basic American tenets. One applicant for a job may have better qualifications than another by reason of experience, training, or education, and an employer who does not take these into account in making his decision would, of course, be foolish. But, on the other hand, it is equally short-sighted to disqualify from consideration a whole category of applicants, blacklist them from the start as undesirable, and remove them from the field of competition with others, regardless of their individual capabilities. To base such disqualification on a person's religion or race or where his parents came from is not only shortsighted but un-American.

Now there is nothing revolutionary or of wild-eyed radicalism about the fairemployment-practice bill now before Congress, although you may hear many of its opponents so classify it or claim it is Government interference with the right of free enterprise.

Actually, it is merely a proposal to apply one of our long established principles of government; namely, to safeguard by specific legislation one of the fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution.

The bill would establish as a part of our Federal law this protective legislation for equality of opportunity that already has been written into the statutes for six States-New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. I am sorry that Pennsylvania is not on that list, too, but the State Senate at the last session of the legislature saw fit to permit the FEPC bill there to be bottled up in committee.

The bill now before the House subcommittee relies strongly on the elements of education and moral suasion to bring about a change in unfair employment practices. The Commission of five members apointed by the President which would be created under this bill is specifically directed to try to achieve a remedy by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. It is only in the event that such a method fails to bring about the desired improvement in the specific case brought before the Commission on a complaint that punitive legal action is resorted to.

And even such action by the Commission is subject to an appeal to the courts. In fact, the courts are given the power in entering a decree to enforce the Commission's order as it was rendered, modify it, or set it aside in whole or in part.

This bill approaches the whole problem in a spirit of moderation and common sense, and there is no basis for the statements of its opponents to the effect that a tryrannical bureaucracy is being set up which could tell an employer whom he must hire.

The experience in every State where commissions are operating has been that there is very little need to resort to exercise of the full powers of the commission and the courts. And I believe the same thing is true of the Philadelphia Fair Employment Commission, which was created a little more than a year ago. The question is frequently raised as to why, since the activity of the States and muncipalities in this direction is expanding, it should be necessary to have a Federal law. It is my feeling that this is a national problem and requires treatment on that basis. Prejudice and bigotry, and the employment discriminations which are a form of expression of these evils, are not confined within State lines.

The need for Congress to enact this bill is twofold: There is an economic need and a moral need. First, the practices complained of deprive our national economy of the productive value of the work of individuals who are denied an opportunity to make full use of their talents, their education, and their training. These are vitally needed in our economy to carry out America's program of full employment and full production.

Second, we must make effective in everyday life at home the principles of democracy which we are helping to spread abroad in other countries of the world.

I do not maintain for a moment that this law we seek would be a cure-all or panacea, or that if it is enacted that all discrimination will end, but the mere expression by the Federal Government of its abhorrence of these evil prac tices, written into the body of its statutes, will have a tremendous preventive and educational effect. I will encourage and hasten action by other States where similar bills are under consideration. Moreover, a national commission will be of great help to State commissions in setting standards of procedure and coordinating policies in addition to acting administratively in its own sphere.

It will be a start into enactment into law of the great program recommended by the President's Commission on Civil Rights and which the President has repeatedly urged upon the Congress since he first took office.

STATEMENT OF THE INTER-RACIAL COMMISSION, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 4453

The Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act which has the same purpose and the same basic procedure as that set forth in H. R. 4453 was enacted May 14, 1947, or approximately 2 years ago. It is administered by the Connecticut Interracial Commission which is a budgeted State agency established by statute in 1943.

During this 2-year period approximately 115 formal complaints have been filed with or by the commission alleging unfair employment practices. In addition nearly as many informal complaints alleging discrimination in employment have also been investigated.

Of the 100 formal complaints dismissed as of this writing 78 were filed by individuals and 22 by the commission. The latter were issued against discriminatory regulations practices or policies which were in conflict with the law in that they excluded or discriminated against a racial, religious, or national group in matters involving employment although not directed against any specific individual.

Of the 100 complaints dismissed in 60 percent of these, the commission found evidence of discriminatory practices prohibited by the law and was able to effect a satisfactory adjustment. This meant that either the complainant was employed or offered employment or that in the event there was no individual complainant that a discriminatory practice was eliminated.

Complaints received may be grouped roughly into three categories; denial of restriction in or separation from employment because of race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry.

The most common allegation has been refusal to employ on account of color or race followed by restrictions in priviliges and conditions of employment with relatively few complaints being filed because of alleged discriminatory discharges or lay-offs.

Although unemployment compensation claims in Connecticut have increased approximately 50,000 over last year, few complaints have been filed alleging discriminatory separations. On the basis of these figures it is evident that getting employers to consider minority workers for employment is the paramount problem and that once they are employed attitudes change and the prejudices and fears against them as employees seem to dissipate.

The commission realizes that the law has been successful largely through the cooperation of employers, labor unions, and other agencies. Prior to the passage of the law many large employers were hesitant to alter their employment policies to admit minority workers not because they were personally opposed to such action but because they were apprehensive of the reaction of their employees and their customers. With the enactment of the law, many of these same employers have commenced to employ minority workers not because of complaints filed