Mr. BURKE. May I ask a further question? Getting back to this train porter classification, the way it seems to me, that all boils down to just this: There is actually a false classification that has militated against the interests of that particular brotherhood and against its members in that labor supply for that job was obtained by the companies cheaper tha nit would otherwise have been obtained, and therefore, if the motive back of setting up this proposed classification were prejudicial, then there was extensive prejudice toward the workingman.

Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. Burke, I agree 100 percent with you. I want to state openly, and state in the presence of these brotherhood men, that the history of Negroes on the railroads has been a history of exploitation on the part of the carriers and suppression on the part of the brotherhoods. The carriers always used them when they could hire them for fractional percentages or substandard wages. The history has no place in this, except as it is a continuing history, coming right down to date.

What I am saying is that the hostility which arose because of this economic competition, which has not been eliminated by the equalization of pay, still continues because these men are not members of the brotherhood.

I think we are going to stop them from representing us unless they let us help elect the persons who do the bargaining, unless they give us the right to come in and make proposals, unless they give us the same right of censure and the same right of removal.

We are now in a process of biting off piecemeal, simply chipping off, so to speak, the same principles by judicial decision which we are asking Congress here to do, asking here for a broad statement_of policy in the present FEPC bill. Nothing revolutionary is intended because it is already anticipated in the decisions of the Supreme Court. We are going to lose a lot of men, but to the credit of these old men-and remember these old men came in when the schools were not what they are now in the South-these old men say they are willing to take the promotion examinations, and even if they fail they have no complaint, if it makes a place for the boys and girls to come after them. They say they have the same incentive and same desire to see their sons and their nephews follow them on the railroads that the white railroadmen have with reference to their own sons and nephews.

If they want to talk about promotion, let us talk something about hiring, too, so we may have some replacements of the men we may lose through examinations.

Mr. POWELL. From your experience with the recent wartime FEPC of which you were a member, and in your knowledge of peacetime FEPC, have you ever met in industry any employer who offered as much resistance as have the brotherhoods?

Mr. HOUSTON. There was the East Alton case in Illinois, where management was absolutely opposed, but they gave the excuse that it was their workers. I don't think that is true; I don't think management is entitled to load all of this hostility on the workers. Generally speaking, the railroads themselves, the carriers, were just as hostile to the FEPC as were the railroad unions. I don't think there would be any distinction. Mr. Alderman, who was counsel for the railroads

before the Smith committee, was against the FEPC, and he was followed by Mr. Mulholland, of Toledo, Ohio.

Mr. POWELL. So you feel the railroads were against the FEPC; were against democracy and it applied to the workers?

Mr. HOUSTON. I should think the public utilities in general, not only as to Negroes, but as to the Spanish-speaking citizens, as to the Jewish people, as to all of the so-called minorities, the interstate public utilities are the toughest industries against minorities, both from the management standpoint and also from the standpoint of the unions. The unions in the public utilities, particularly the railroad unions, are perhaps the most reactionary of all the unions, the Big Four brotherhoods.

Mr. POWELL. Do you consider the clerks to be a part of the general picture?

Mr. HOUSTON. There is no doubt about that. Mr. Mulholland, in stating the problem, always wanted to holler about the fact that there were white women who were members of the clerks. They tried to drag in the social issues, on the theory that these Big Four brotherhoods originally started off as fraternal benefit associations and gradually changed over into labor unions. What we are interested in is in the particular union which controls our jobs. I think the good sense, the good breeding of the people would be sufficient to take care of the personal situations. There is no discrimination, no segregation in the locomotive cabs. Remember that white and black are working within 5 feet of each other in the locomotive cab. They are working there for hours and hours at a time. You do not have arguments between the fireman and his engineer; you do not have arguments between the trainman and his conductor.

Mr. POWELL. What is Mr. See talking about when he says people of the brotherhood would not accept such a situation, such democracy, when the fact is they work side by side?

Mr. HOUSTON. In the twenties, immediately after World War I, and also in the thirties when there were assassinations of the Negro firemen and trainmen, there is a history in that connection.

Mr. POWELL. There were assassinations?

Mr. HOUSTON. There were assassinations.

Mr. POWELL. Were any of them ever convicted?

Mr. HOUSTON. There was never a conviction, the usual stuff. I cannot give you the figures, but I think 13 firemen and trainmen were killed in the thirties, assassinated. That can be found in the Archives. The investigation was by Otto Beyer.

Mr. POWELL. In the National Archives?

Mr. HOUSTON. In the National Archives there is that story.

There are many individual members of all these unions who are in favor of fair employment practices, and who are in favor of elimination of discrimination. I am certain you will not find the resistance to be what it was before, and I think, as the gentleman testified, improvement is being made, but the only way to get improvement is to put all the facts on the table. You do not have the facts when somebody tells you they propose to eliminate all restrictions as to promotion and at the same time keep on all the restrictions as to hiring.

Mr. POWELL. The fact is these Negro workers are bringing these hearings about. Do you think that they are in danger themselves? Do you think there will be any repetition of the thirties?

Mr. HOUSTON. No; I think we are living in a different day. As a matter of fact, we have been talking about this now for 3 years and there has been no violence.

Mr. POWELL. If any violence occurs in any way I am sure you will let us learn about it as quickly as possible, so we can take the proper steps through the Government agencies, the FBI, and so forth.

Mr. HOUSTON. I will certainly do that, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to say the American people are now of a different temperament. If you recall the restrictive-covenant cases, there has been only one instance of violence; in the education cases there has been absolutely no instance of violence. I think we are in a different trend, and I think America is ready for abolition of the discriminatory practices. Mr. POWELL. Mr. McBride, is there anything you would like to add? Mr. MCBRIDE. All I want to say is that I believe the hiring of firemen is a prerogative the railroad companies have insisted belongs to them.

Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. Chairman, while hiring is a prerogative of the railroad nevertheless down on the ground the master mechanic, the roundhouse foremen will say to the local chairman of the brotherhood lodge, "Bring me so many men," so that, as a matter of fact, hiring is actually assisted in by the brotherhoods unofficially.

Mr. MCBRIDE. That is news to me. I don't think that is true. In my 46 years' experience I never heard that our organization had the authority to furnish the men to be employed as locomotive firemen.

Mr. HOUSTON. May I ask the witness how he can argue that the brotherhood has no interest or voice about hiring when the fact is that, when management proposed to hire Negroes, the brotherhood proposed to strike.

Mr. POWELL. Through the Chairman, Mr. Houston would like to ask if the railroads proposed to hire Negroes then why was it that the brotherhoods proposed to strike, if they have nothing to do with the hiring?

Mr. MCBRIDE. The situation that he is speaking of is just one particular instance. What I had in mind was the general, over-all hiring of locomotive firemen. I have no knowledge that the railroad companies consult us or consult our organizations to hire these men.

Mr. POWELL. In these particular instances, on the Atlantic Coast Line and the other railroads, the Chattanooga Railroad and Baltimore & Ohio, when the railroads were going to employ Negroes the brotherhood said they would strike if they employed them.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Did the brotherhoods take a strike vote?

Mr. POWELL. They threatened to.

Mr. HOUSTON. They did take it on the Coast Line in 1942.

Mr. POWELL. In 1942 the Atlantic Coast Line took a strike vote?

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. What was the vote?

Mr. HOUSTON. I don't know what was the vote, but I know they took a strike vote under Thad Lee as general chairman.

Mr. POWELL. The Atlantic Coast Line did take a strike vote.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Nine years ago there was a jurisdictional dispute on the Atlantic & West Point, there were approximately 30 Negro firemen involved, of which the majority voted for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen to represent them. Naturally when I

come up here and hear what sounds like antagonism, I did not know that there was anything of that kind existing.

Mr. POWELL. I do not know that this is antagonism.

Mr. MCBRIDE. That is the feeling I get.

Mr. POWELL. If there is antagonism, frankly, against any organization, whether it is a union or otherwise, it is because the Constitution is "for whites only."

Mr. MCBRIDE. Every time we get an increase in pay we include every man whether a colored man or not.

Mr. POWELL. That is not the question before us. The question is whether the Negro is displaced by whites.

Mr. MCBRIDE. I believe you have my views on the question of seniority. The senior fireman should have the preference to assignments if qualified.

Mr. BURKE. You heard the questions I asked in regard to the seniority system and how it operates. Were the answers substantially the way you understand?

Mr. MCBRIDE. Congressman Burke, on many railroads they have different systems of seniority rights. It is a matter for the men themselves to handle. I might cite the New York, Ontario & Western Railroad; they had a strike the other day. On that railroad they have three seniority districts. The firemen have what they call system of seniority. When they are promoted to engineer they give them 30 days to decide whether they shall be assigned to the northern division exclusively or southern exclusively, or the Scranton division.

Mr. BURKE. The seniority counts from the first day?

Mr. MCBRIDE. That is right. That is a matter that they just take care of themselves.

Mr. BURKE. Well, this division or district seniority is not a universal practice on all railroads, is it?

Mr. MCBRIDE. No. Some men prefer a divisional seniority to what they call a system seniority, because the system seniority, may cover many miles of territory and, in the event of a depression, men would be required to go many miles from home to exercise their seniority. If they are on a 150 mileage division and are displaced they can go to any place on that division where their seniority would entitle them to have a job.

Mr. BURKE. Do you find that there are more division seniority systems in operation than the other systems?

Mr. MCBRIDE. From my experience, the question of voting for what seniority you will have, whether it is district or system, has never been a question of discrimination, it is a question of which system the men prefer.

Mr. POWELL. I would like to say it is now 4:30 and the committee will adjourn until tomorrow at 10 when we will hear the chairman of the State FEPC organization of New York and Massachusetts, and tomorrow at 2 o'clock we will hear the testimony of the representatives of the two remaining brotherhoods.

I would like, before the committee adjourns, to have placed in the record the statement of the Honorable Edward deGraffenried, of Alabama, a memorandum on discrimination against Negro railway workers in World War I and World War II, and memorandums on discriminations against Negro railway workers by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Ener

on.

(The matters referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD DEGRAFFENRIED, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

On behalf of the people of my congressional district, of my State, and of my section of the country, I wish to ask the committee to include in H. R. 4453 a provision which would allow the States to choose for themselves with regard to the prohibition of descrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

There is at present no law requiring an employer to hire any applicant merely because his eduction and experience qualify him on paper for the job he is seeking. With the exception of cases involving veterans preference, an employer is free to choose an employee from a number of equally qualified persons, judging on the basis of temperament, personality, manner, or general potential capacity for getting along with fellow workers. This freedom of the employer to choose employees without the supervision of the Federal Government is definitely a democratic principal and it should be preserved.

As part of its platform for the 1948 Presidential election the Communist Party demanded "a national FEPC law, to be vigorously and fully enforced."

While there is racial inequality between Negroes and whites in the South, there is no acute problem resulting therefrom. Each race has its own place in our culture and the two have lived together with remarkably little dissension. We can continue to live together in harmony if we are left alone, but neither race is ready for so drastic and sudden a change in the relationship which has existed and worked for so many years. Outside interference can only, at best, bring to a head a problem which will surely solve itself in time without the ill feeling and resentment which is bound to come if the issue is forced by the enactment of the Federal Fair Employment Practices Act.

The following is a quotation from a letter which I have received from Davis Lee, Negro publisher of the Telegram newspapers: "As a Negro, naturally I want to see my race enjoy every right, every privilege, and every opportunity enjoyed by every other American, but I am convinced by experience and keen observation that he is acquiring these privileges, opportunities, and rights as he is capable of utilizing them, and that to enact such drastic legislation now would precipitate the very thing which we are seeking to avoid, racial conflict."

MEMORANDUM ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGRO RAILWAY WORKERS IN WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II

Before World War I, the Big Four brotherhoods (Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 'Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and Order of Railway Conductors) tried to drive Negro firemen and trainmen off the railroads under the excuse that Negroes were working for substandard wages, and consequently held down wages for whites and hindered unionization.

1918-Equalization of wages.-On May 25, 1918, the United States Railroad Administration issued General Order No. 27, under which article VI equalized wages for Negro and white train and engine service employees:

"ARTICLE VI.-COLORED FIREMEN, TRAINMEN, AND SWITCHMEN

"Effective June 1, 1918, colored men employed as firemen, trainmen, and switchmen shall be paid the same rates of wages as are paid white men in the same capacities.

"Back pay for period January 1, to May 31, 1918, will be based only upon the increases provided in article II of this order for such positions. Back payments will not apply to the further increased rate made effective by this article." 1918-Further clarification of equal-wage scale.-Some question arose whether the Negro train porter who did all the head-end braking work on passenger trains, handled mail and baggage, cleaned cars en route and assisted in loading and unloading passengers for mere-pittance wages, was included in the wage-equalization scheme under General Order No. 27, article VI above, as a trainman.

To set all doubts at rest, on December 2, 1918, the United States Railroad Administration issued supplement 12 to General Order No. 27 setting up certain functional tests for classification as brakeman and equalizing wages.