sirables who have come to America and who are presently filling up our penal institutions." All this notwithstanding that our population then was a little over 3,000,000 people in all. Nearly all of those who were desirous of entering the United States in those days were Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, and not of the so-called newer immigrants who came here in the middle of the nineteenth century.

But it must be conseded that the prejudice and fear which the early Benjamin Franklins entertained was unjustified and unwarranted because most of these newcomers to America have made good and have aided in building up our Nation-increasing our production and helping to develop all of our resources, to the end that today America is the most prosperous country in the world. A great deal of the credit for our present prosperity is due solely to these brave immigrants. Therefore I feel that the prejudice that we aim to eliminate by this legislation is something that does exist, notwithstanding the fear expressed by many employers that it will force employers to employ people whose rights we are trying to safeguard.

Since 1941 there has been considerable interest in fair employment practice and related problems at the Federal level. The Federal Government, as a matter of fact, pioneered in the fair employment practice field. By an Executive order of June 25, 1941, the President established the Committee on Fair Employment Practice within the Office of Production Management. Its organizational history was complicated by many changes, but its purpose remained the same throughout-namely, to promote the fullest utilization of manpower and to eliminate discriminatory employment practices. This order provided that all agencies of the Government of the United States shall include in all contracts a provision obligating the contractor not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. Thus was established the pattern on which much of the legislation in State and local units was subsequently based. This committee was continued in operation throughou the war period, until in July 1945 the Congress discontinued its appropriation. Request was made by the President that such a body be established by law on a permanent basis, but to date there is no such permanent body. In 1948 the President's Committee on Civil Rights recommended that a Federal Fair Employment Practice Act be enacted prohibiting all forms of discrimination in private employment, based on race, color, creed, or national origin. Since the Federal Act would not reach activities which do not affect interstate commerce, the committee also recommended the enactment by the States of similar laws. These recommendations and others were incorporated into the President's civil rights program which he has several times urged upon Congress for adoption. The President has continued to press his demands for the enactment of the program, proceeding meanwhile to use his powers to realize some of its objectives, and rightly so. July 26, 1948, he issued two Executive orders, one establishing a Fair Employment Practice System for Federal Employment, the other establishing a President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services.

On

There can be little quarrel with FEP legislation, for the practical working of democracy requires that no person possessing educational and experience qualifications necessary for doing a particular job should be excluded from consideration for appointment on the basis of purely extraneous matters over which he has no control. It is basic democratic theory that a person shall have opportunity in accordance with his ability and qualifications.

The report of the Committee on Civil Rights created a tremendous public reaction, for reasons that are not clearly apparent. National party platforms of both political parties had for years declared for the goals which the committee report sought to implement and translate into practice. The new party platforms for 1948 were no exception. With reference to discriminatory practices in education, this report stated that "the public cannot long tolerate practices by private educational institutions which are seriously conflicting with the patterns of democratic life. Further, in order that this mandate of public obligation shall have equal force everywhere, and not lead merely to pronouncements by individual colleges, the invoking of legislation along lines of the proposed legislation against discrimination in New York, seems the logical way of advance." The Commission concludes that to assure a universal and equal regard for a policy of nondiscrimination the legal method becomes both fair and practical. Prejudice of course cannot be eliminated by legislative act or edict but discrimination-the outward social manifestation of prejudice, can be corrected by

legislation and perhaps only by legislation. The record of the work performed by enforcement agencies in half a dozen States seems to indicate clearly that these laws can be made to produce results. Some say that education as offered in the public schools of the Ñation presents a dynamic approach to the problem of intergroup relations, however this is fallacious. It is unfortunately true that the official records do not bear out the claim that education as now organized and carried on has made any substantial progress in eliminating either prejudice or discrimination. In the aggregate, stupendous sums of money have been spent on public education in this country. Although a constantly increasing percentage of the adult population is the product of this training, both prejudice and discrimination are very much in evidence. FEP legislation does work. There is ample evidence to support this by viewing the experience of the several States with laws in operation on this vital subject.

Our very heritage was founded upon principles of conduct which must still be preserved. But we can do this only by readapting them to modern economic realities. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in a frontier economy meant that the nonconformist might move into the wilderness and make himself a new homestead. However, in a modern industrial society, life itself has become dependent upon the individual finding suitable employment. His happiness depends upon his ability to utilize his capacities in rewarding and productive employment under favorable working conditions. To those who have been discriminated against in seeking or holding such employment because of their race, color, or religion, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," mean absolutely nothing.

Witness the last war where soldiers of every race and creed fought side by side to make victory possible. Duty and patriotism knew no artificial barriers. There were no minority groups in terms of sacrifice. This legislation represents a constructive approach to the fulfillment of the democratic ideals for which men sacrificed so much. It places our democracy on record as striving to fulfill the ideals of equality of opportunity upon which it was founded. Education and legislation is the only effective panacea for the discrimination evil that exists today. The bill under consideration by this committee (H. R. 4453) is certainly a step in the right direction, and I strongly urge that this committee report the bill out in the very near future. After 43 years in Congress, I would like nothing more than to be able to vote on and witness the passing of the present legislation. It is very close to my heart.

In conclusion, may I call your attention to the fact that the very last request our great and revered President Franklin D. Roosevelt made was one wherein he urged me to endeavor to obtain a rule making possible the adoption of a resolution establishing a Federal Fair Employment law. Not only that, but on the day of his funeral, President Truman assured me, and has demonstrated beyond a doubt, that it is also his aim and intention to bring about this legislation..

Mr. SABATH. With that, I thank the committee for hearing me briefly, and I hope that favorable action will be had without great delay, because time is running, and if we do not act speedily, we are liable again to find ourselves in the position where the legislation might be delayed until the next session of Congress, which I would regret exceedingly.

I think both parties at the 1944 and 1948 conventions had planks in their platforms, endorsing this legislation. I feel we should act, and hope you will act favorably.

Mr. NIXON. No questions.

Mr. POWELL. Senator Humphrey?

Senator, I am sorry

shall hear you.

that some of the members had to leave, but we

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that some of your members had to leave, too. I have been dashing in and out of subcommittee meetings myself this morning.

TESTIMONY OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Senator HUMPHREY. I appreciate

Mr. POWELL. Could I just interrupt a minute? Representative Nixon has an engagement at 12 o'clock, and he has a burning question in his heart that he would like to ask, which should come normally at the end of your testimony, and he is asking for unanimous consent from your side to ask a question now.

Senator HUMPHREY. I would be delighted to receive a question from Congressman Nixon. It is very nice to meet you, too, Congress

man.

Mr. NIXON. Senator, the problem that I think we are all confronted with in this field of civil-rights legislation is a very practical one in which you have had considerable experience, particularly in the last Democratic convention, and that is that of getting action as well as getting a lot of very good declarations about how we personally feel about civil-rights legislation.

Now, my question is this. Do you think that the bill which we have before us, H. R. 4453, either in its present form or incorporating substantially the provisions in that bill, could be acted upon favorably by the Senate, having in mind the present make-up of the Senate from a political standpoint? I recognize that is a question which probably should be put to Drew Pearson, or somebody who can predict. But if you would take the predicter's chair for a moment, I would appreciate your comment on that point, because it seems to me that what we should try to do here is to approve finally a bill that has a reasonable chance for passage, rather than to work for days on a bill simply for political purposes and to put that bill up knowing very well that there is no chance for its passage. I would appreciate any comment you might have on that point.

Senator HUMPHREY. I must say first, Congressman, you prefaced part of your remarks by referring to my prophetic knowledge, or ability that I might have, and I have none. I recognize the difficulty, however, of civil-rights legislation in the Senate.

I concur in the expression and the points of the House bill, as I do in those that were presented by Senator Ives in the Senate. The bills are not too far apart. It is really a matter of detail.

I

Now, with respect to your question as to whether or not this would be adopted by the United States Senate. Frankly, Congressman, it seems to me that civil-rights legislation in the Senate can pass. know it should pass. And I say it can pass. Here is why I say that. Many of my friends and your friends continuously lay the blame for the lack of civil-rights legislation upon our southern colleagues. I do not want to make any comments about the number of southern Congressmen in the House, but I think I can speak with some accuracy as to the number of southern Senators in the Senate, that is, the number there that represent States where there is considerable feeling in opposition to civil-rights legislation.

The maximum number would be 22 Senators who have in some way or another in the last few years expressed themselves unalterably opposed to civil-rights legislation such as is embodied in House bill

4453.

Now, this is not a party matter. We have had a bipartisan foreign policy that many people have pointed to with pride. If there is any one field in American domestic policy in which there ought to be bipartisan support, which ought to be lifted out of what I call just sheer party politics for the purpose of vote getting and political activity, it is this field of civil rights.

I feel very deeply that this is a matter of arithmetic. There are enough members of the Democratic Party who are not southern Democrats, and there are enough members of the Republican Party, which party unanimously endorsed legislation of this nature, and which party in some areas of this country has done enviable work in the field of civil-rights legislation, that if you add the northern Democrats, and the border Democrats, and the western Democrats, and if you take the Republican votes that are in the Senate, there are enough votes, No. 1, to break a filibuster and, No. 2, to pass the legislation.

It is a matter of whether or not we have men who are not only good men, but who are men of good will, with the will to carry through on their campaign commitments.

Every Democrat who subscribed to the platform adopted at Philadelphia, every Democrat who campaigned for Harry S. Truman, knew exactly where the President stood on civil-rights legislation. Every Republican who campaigned for the Governor of the State of New York, the Honorable Thomas Dewey, knew that New York had a State fair employment practices act that he pointed to with justifiable pride. And many a Democrat was deeply concerned lest the Republican platform be too attractive to some folks; therefore, they were perfectly willing to go along with a strong Democratic platform to offset the attraction the Republican platform might have in civil rights. Now, that was done during the campaign, and I am not one of those who believes that during the campaign you talk one way and when you get down here in Congress you vote another way. I committed myself to certain things in the Democratic platform. I endorsed that platform. I campaigned on it.

Many of the men who are serving in the United States Senate who are Republicans campaigned on the basis of the Republican platform. They believed in it; they are fighting for it over in the United States Senate. And that is an honest, good, clean-cut fight.

Now, I want to see both of those factions in the Senate stand up and admit very candidly that it is not our southern brethren that are blocking civil-rights legislation. It is, if you please, the indifference and the apathy and at times, shall we say, just the politics of our northern, western, and eastern brethren which is blocking civil-rights legislation. We cannot lay this at the doorstep of Alabama and Mississippi. They do not have enough Congressmen; they do not even have enough Senators. We can lay this at the doorstep of New York, Minnesota, California, Wyoming, Nebraska, and the other States in the Union.

Now, that is my answer to you.

Mr. NIXON. Then under the circumstances, since you think from a practical standpoint the votes should be available for supporting such legislation, and also, I might say, I agree with you on this point, that it should be a bipartisan concern to support such legislation; do you feel, then, that the leadership in both the House and the Senate should bring such legislation to the floor at the earliest possible time?

Senator HUMPHREY. I surely do, Congressman. I do not believe in what we call priorities. I said that when I first came down here. I am rather new at this whole business, as you well know. I feel that all of these legislative matters are vital and important, just as Federal aid to education, housing, and all of these matters. But I am not one of those who believes that we could constantly be putting off civil rights because it is going to cause a fight. If we are going to do that, let us put off the reciprocal trade matter. There is going to be a fight on that. Let us put off the Atlantic Pact. There is going to be a fight on that.

We put off for years Federal aid to education, and we had a fight on that one. We have fights and political battles on public housing. I call on the leadership of my party, and I want to say to my party, the Democratic Party, they cannot kid the American people. They are in a majority in the Congress, and it does not do any good to go around pointing the finger at the Republicans all the time. The American people believe that the Democratic Party has a majority. Let us say so if we do not have a majority. But we say we have a majority. We have a President, and we have a majority in the Senate and a majority in the House. All I ask of my colleagues is that they not relish the difficulties that the Democratic Party is having in terms of civil rights, but that they rise above this pettiness that we see at times and say: "We are perfectly willing to try to get this issue out of the narrow confines of precinct and ward politics, and let us take it up here on the high plateau where it belongs."

That is what we are talking about, human rights in the world. Every time we fight the Communists, we are saying we have to join together. We are all Americans; we all believe in freedom. Now, I say to you, Congressman, that we have to have exactly the same point of view and the same philosophy in terms of civil-rights legislation.

Mr. NIXON. I do not intend, and have not intended in my remarks to indicate the political difficulties that we both find ourselves in. Senator HUMPHREY. No. I know that.

Mr. NIXON. But I think as you have well indicated in your remarks now, this bipartisan effort cannot be initiated until the leadership on your side puts this legislation on the agenda. That is the case at the present time, is it not?

Senator HUMPHREY. I would say that is a true statement. I would like to make this qualifying remark, however, or this qualification, that I have watched the great and able leadership of the Republican minority in the Senate, and if they will be as anxious and as militant and let me say as clever and as astute in using their good offices to get this legislation up before the Senate as they have at times to block some other legislation or to get some other legislation up, I think that possibly the action may produce results that we want. In other words, Congressman, it is perfectly true that the Republican Party has a stake in this legislation, and the Democratic Party has. But a greater stake is in the American people. And when you look over the States which I will reveal in the testimony, you will find that some of the strongest proponents of civil-rights legislation come from the Republican Party. In other areas, some of the strongest proponents have come from the Democratic Party. And I submit to you that both of us have obligations and great obligations.