Mr. BURKE. Well, he pushed westward and finally wound up in Ohio. But as I understand this type of legislation, it is to prevent that sort of artificial barrier to employment opportunities, and it is only for that purpose. As Mr. Ferkins says, it will be an incentive. to accelerate the educational process.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Do not misunderstand me. This is because the Negroes have not progressed as far as others. There is no such thing as discrimination against the Jews. In this country, if I understand the situation correctly, the Jews have the world by the tail. They are on top. So I do not think it applies to them. And as far as the Negro goes, because he has not made as much progress, perhaps educationally and financially as other races, my own thought would be to give him the best end of it. I can illustrate that this way: In Benton Harbor we have many colored folks who come from Chicago. They are not Negroes; they are colored people. And over there on the beach, the mayor at one time-for what reason I do not know-asked my advice about this indiscriminate bathing on the beach. He said, "What are we going to do? If this keeps on, we may have trouble." They did not have any trouble, but I said I would call in the ministers and the leaders of the Negro race; I would divide that beach half and half. They are only a comparatively small part of the population. And then I would say to those Negro leaders, "Now, you folks take whichever half you want." I would give them the best end of it. I would give them school facilities equal to or better than gave the whites. But I would not force them to mix.

I

Mr. BURKE. That would be discrimination in their favor, then; would it not?

Mr. HOFFMAN. All right. We can take it. That is the American attitude: Give the fellow that you might term the underdog in any way the better end of it. That is your practice. I have never heard of an Irishman complaining about discrimination against him. I have heard people say that an Irishman was a fighting, drunken Irishman, and the Irishman would jump up and click his heels together and say, "Come on, buddy, if you think you can get the best of me." Mr. BURKE. That is about right.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes. And you are here in Congress. Was it your father or your grandfather that you thought was discriminated against?

Mr. BURKE. I did not say he was discriminated against, but that is the condition he found.

Mr. HOFFMAN. But he came through all right?

Mr. BURKE. Oh, yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURKE. That is all.

Mr. POWELL. I would just like to interrupt to say that this bill does not outlaw segregation. It just outlaws discrimination.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I was bitterly criticized by an editor in my district because on the floor one day I said I would give one car on our trains in Michigan to whites, I would give one car to the colored, and I would give one car to the mixed, where everybody could get in it if they wanted to.

Mr. POWELL. That is when you and I were having some discussion one day.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes. And they said I was unfair in that.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hoffman, I would like to ask you one more question. When you say that your figures show that the wartime FEPC made no effort except to end discrimination, are you saying that the Commission turned down the application of qualified whites? Mr. HOFFMAN. I know nothing about it. I only know the result, as given in their report.

Mr. PERKINS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon?

Mr. NIXON. I have no questions.

Mr. POWELL. There are no further questions.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you ever so much, Mr. Hoffman.
Representative Laurie Battle.

TESTIMONY OF HON. LAURIE C. BATTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have prepared a statement based on H. R. 21. May I ask before I start if this new bill, H. R. 4453, is practically identical, at least in purpose?

Mr. POWELL. It is practically identical, except for a couple of minor things, such as the shifting around of some of the sections in different places and raising the salary of the Commission members from $10,000 to $17,500, and the chairman gets $20,000.

Mr. BATTLE. With the committee's indulgence, I will testify against both of them.

Mr. Chairman, the enactment of H. R. 21 or H. R. 4453 would be a serious mistake, in my opinion. Such legislation is unconstitutional, unenforceable, and unwise. This is clearly a proposal for too much government.

Discrimination of itself is a bad practice, of course. I am not here to defend it. I would like to say why I feel this bill is not the way to attack discrimination in employment.

In the first place, H. R. 21, or H. R. 4453, is unconstitutional. Quoting from H. R. 21, on page 16, line 14, we read:

No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing documentary or other evidence in obedience to the subpena of the Commission on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty of forfeiture.

I am wondering since when we have undertaken to rewrite the Constitution in this manner. It would seem to me that it would be much more appropriate to pass such a law against the Communists rather than against our loyal American unions and businesses.

What part of the Constitution gives the Government the right to establish a Federal agency that can bypass the State government, that can bypass the local government, and that can go into a restaurant in Birmingham, Ala., or Seattle, Wash., and judge whether or not a Negro or Japanese waitress has been discriminated against? The bill would invade the realm of human activity which is not subject to legislation. Why not enact laws requiring all people to be kind, or to like everybody else? They would be just as sensible.

How can an agent of the Government peer into a man's soul and tell whether he acted through discrimination or for a dozen other rea

sons? Is it the prerogative of the Government to decide that an employee was dismissed because of his church affiliation rather than because he was an inferior worker? If the Government ever assumes this right, America cannot call her soul her own.

The American Bill of Rights guarantees certain freedoms to the individual. This bill would deny some of those basic rights: Freedom of contract, freedom to choose those who work with you or for you. These would be destroyed by such legislation. Under this bill, you would even be denied the right of trial by jury, as fundamental as any civil right.

First, then in my opinion, the bill is unconstitutional. Second, it is unenforceable. Imagine the enormous network of Federal agents required to ferret out and report cases of so-called discrimination throughout the land, to investigate and hold hearings. An army of investigators could never scratch the surface.

Business and labor unions would be constantly disrupted by Government investigations. Employees would feel insecure and suspicious of each other; morale would be destroyed. Actually, the bill would discriminate against the majority by giving special privilege to the minority. A union or an employee would hesitate to take any action at all involving a member of a minority group for any reason, no matter how valid.

As was pointed out in the minority report on S. 984 of the Eightieth Congress, relative to a similar bill:

In any establishment, employees and applicants for employment are certain to include persons of different races, religions, or colors. Any selection in treatment of a particular person can plausibly be complained of as an unlawful discrimination.

Small-business men and unions would not have the time nor the money to spend for going to court to appeal unfair decisions, or to make so many appeals on unfair decisions of the Fair Employment Practice Commission.

H. R. 21 prohibits discrimination against properly qualified persons, and I assume that H. R. 4453 takes the same line. But who is to decide whether a person is properly qualified? Is the employer no longer to have that right? And who has the final say as to whether an employer or a union acted through discrimination? These are intangibles beyond the power of the Government to decide. Apart from these arguments, there are certain communities which by tradition and heritage are deeply opposed to enactment of this kind of law. In these places, such a law could not be enforced except by mass coercion. Walter Lippmann puts it this way:

There are certain kinds of laws which, though enacted, cannot be enforced by any means that the majority is able or willing to employ. These are laws to which a sizable region, even though it is numerically a minority in the Nation, is so deeply opposed that it will resort to nullification, resistance, and passive and active disobedience, to thwart enforcement, and in the extreme and ultimate cases, to insurrection and rebellion. The cost, the trouble, the futility, and the danger of trying to enforce laws under these conditions are so great than the majority will not, as a matter of fact, insist on enforcing them. If it is wise, it will not enact these laws.

I remind you that these are the words of Walter Lippmann.

Of the more than 500,000 people who live in my district, an overwhelming majority agree with Mr. Lippmann that this type of legislation is unwise. This is not because the majority of our people are

unintelligent or uneducated or biased; it is because our people, the wisest and the most forward-looking, the true leaders of both races, are convinced that the delicate problem of race relations must be met by enlightened action from within and not by coercion from without. This is a program which is exceedingly intricate and far reaching, not to be dealt with lightly or with expedience. To understand the problem requires first-hand study over a considerable period. It is something which must be lived with. Only then can a realistic solution be worked out.

To be successful, legislation in the field of race relations must be grounded in the good will of the people who are to carry it out. It must be local in origin and spirit. Of course, this implies the responsibility of a community to meet its minority problems squarely with an enlightened program and with constructive action. This we are doing in the South. Substantial progress has been made and is being made, progress which would be seriously retarded by the enactment of the proposed legislation.

As an example, in the city of Birmingham our Negro population is from 41 to 43 percent of the total. You will probably be surprised to learn that in 1947 slightly over 43 percent of the tax funds available for education went to Negro schools. Some people are more interested in making political capital out of this issue than they are in investigating the facts.

For these reasons I join the many liberal, realistic thinkers throughout the country who feel that the enactment of FEPC would be unwise. To make political sport, as some would do, of issues which form the very fabric of life in many States, and which affect the day-to-day lives of millions of our people, is short-sighted, indeed. To enact such a bill would set back many years the accomplishments of generations in the field of race relations in my part of the country. It would be a sad day for the courageous, high-minded men and women of both races in the South who are working against odds, but persevering toward the solution of one of the most challenging problems our people were ever called upon to meet.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Battle, I appreciate your statement, and I would like to say just one or two things. First, I would like the clerk of our committee to give you a copy of the questions and answers which I have prepared on the bill, and they could answer some of your statements in detail.

During wartime we had a temporary FEPC. It operated in all sections of the country and handled about 7,000 cases. What was your opinion of that?

Mr. BATTLE. Being rather involved in the war and overseas part of the time, I did not observe it very closely. I really could not express an intelligent opinion on it.

Mr. POWELL. I can show you that the wartime FEPC, which handled 7,000 cases, in the South as well as the North, and adjusted them without any coercion, met with community cooperation and no illwill resulted. You know, of all the civil-rights proposals before Congress, although the FEPC seems to meet with most resistance, it happens to be the only civil-rights proposal which is not new, but which actually was in practice for about 3 or 4 years during the war

period. Antilynching, the abolition of segregation on interstate transportation, the abolition of segregation in the armed forces-all of those parts of the civil-rights program have never been tried out. But this has, and it met with cooperation.

With regard to its being unconstitutional, that issue has been raised by a similar bill. The New York State FEPC was taken to the Supreme Court that is, the section involving trade unions; not the whole bill-and the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional. As regards the right to interfere in a person's business, I feel that it is the legitimate concern of a community that the industry within that community should employ all available labor without regard to race or religion. We are not telling the employer that he must employ inferior people; we are not telling the small employer who has 50 workers or less that he is under this act at all. The small employer, the small-business man, the small-farm owner, anyone employing under 50 people, is not involved in this act. We are not telling social organizations or religious organizations that they come under this act; they are exempt, also. But we are saying that where a 'business is operating with more than 50 people, it should give everyone in the community a chance, if they are qualified.

Mr. BATTLE. Why in this legislation-if I may be permitted to ask a question do you not work with the States in this matter? The legislation which I read-H. R. 21—and I believe H. R. 4453, also— states, in effect, that it is permissible for you to consult with the States and with the local governments in this matter.

It looks to me that you are completely bypassing those agencies of the Government.

Mr. POWELL. I do not think it would bypass them, because the bill, as you just said, says that the commission is to work in cooperation with local, regional, and State organizations. And then the commission

Mr. BATTLE. May I ask if that is what the bill says? It is my impression that it said they may consult with them.

Mr. POWELL. Yes; that is the language.

Mr. BATTLE. That is quite a different proposition.

Mr. POWELL. You would prefer to see the language that the commission must consult with them; is that what you prefer?

Mr. BATTLE. I would certainly think that we should cooperate with the State and local governments.

Mr. POWELL. I think the committee, when it gets to reading the bill-because I do not intend as the chairman to have the bill brought out without giving it full consideration-could think that proposal over, that the commission must consult with local, regional, and State governments.

Mr. BATTLE. I think the States' rights involved here is a serious problem and should be seriously considered.

Mr. POWELL. I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. No questions.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Burke?

Mr. BURKE. I have no questions.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon?

Mr. NIXON. Mr. Battle, I am just curious as to what effect this bill would have if it were in operation. I realize, of course, that you prob

1