Locomotive Firemen, and Order of Railroad Telegraphers in 1898 to the effect that the object of the organizations was to have locomotive-firing jobs held by white firemen, eliminating Negroes (Locomotive Firemen's magazine, November 1898, vol. 30, pp. 526-528). 1898.-Grand Master Sargent above addressed a meeting in Norfolk, Va., in 1898, at which there were representatives of the conductors, trainmen, telegraphers, firemen, and engineers that the elimination of the Negro from the railroad service was the most important subject for discussion and official action by the body (Locomotive Firemen's magazine, January 1899, vol. 26, pp. 109-110). 1900.-One of the resolutions adopted at the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen's Des Moines Convention, 1900, was to instruct the grand master to send two or more vice grand masters into southern territory for the purpose of organizing the white firemen and eliminating the Negro firemen (Locomotive Firemen's Magazine, November 1900, vol. 29, pp. 426, 430–431). 1914. On May 15, 1914, P. J. McNamara, vice president and national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, joined with H. E. Wills, assistant grand chief engineer, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; W. M. Clark, vice president, Order of Railway Conductors; and Val Fitzpatrick, vice president, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, in writing the letter to Col. George W. Goethals, set out in full as an exhibit hereto attached (Report on National Legislation, 63d Cong., 1914, by the national legislative representatives of the BLE, B. L. F. & E., ORC, and BRT, December 1, 1914, to their organizations). 1917.-President W. S. Carter, of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, in 1917 instructed all general committees and local committees to protest the introduction of Negro firemen on any railroad where they were not then employed (Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine, June 15, 1917, vol. 62, p. 9). 1917.-Acting President Shea, of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen in 1917 ordered the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen general chairman on the Baltimore & Ohi Railroad property to protest the hiring of Negro firemen on that property and issued a circular to all Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen lodges stating they would have the support of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen in striking against any attempt to employ Negroes in train and engine service, even under war conditions (Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine, August 15, 1917, vol. 63, pp. 11-12). 1928.-The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen did not give the Negro firemen or trainmen on the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway or its predecessor corporation's property any notice or opportunity to be heard at any stage of the negotiations which resulted in the contract of March 15, 1928, exhibit A to the complaint herein. 1940. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen March 28, 1940, served on 21 southeastern railroads a notice to change collective bargaining agreements in the following manner: 1. Only promotable men will be employed for service as locomotive firemen or for service as helpers on other than steam power. 2. When new runs or jobs are established in any service, only promotable firemen or helpers will be assigned to them. 3. When permanent vacancies occur on established runs or jobs in any service, only promotable firemen or helpers will be assigned to them. 4. It is understood that promotable firemen, or helpers, on other than steam power, are those who are in line for promotion under the present rules and practices to the position of locomotive engineer. Negroes are not permitted to qualify for promotion to positions of locomotive engineer; hence were the class aimed at in the notice. If this notice had been accepted by the carriers every Negro fireman would soon have been eliminated, because (1) every time a "seasonal" train is put on or taken off, a vacancy occurs; (2) every time a starting time is changed half an hour or more a vacancy occurs; (3) every time a job is changed from 6 days to 7 days a week, or vice versa, a vacancy occurs. 1940. The carriers refused (except the Frankfort and Cincinnati Railroad Co.) to agree to the brotherhood proposals in the notice of March 28, 1940; and the brotherhood invoked the services of the National Mediation Board and pressed for an agreement according to the terms of the notice. 1941. The brotherhood through the services of the National Mediation Board obtained the compromise Southeastern Carriers' Conference agreement February 18, 1941, seriously curtailing the rights of Negro locomotive firemen : "Agreement between the Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committee representing the Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co., Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co. and Western Railway of Alabama, Atlanta Joint Terminals, Central of Georgia Railway Co., Georgia Railroad, Jacksonville Terminal Co., Louisville & Nahsville Railroad Co., Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Co., Norfolk Southern Railroad Co., St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., Seaboard Air Line Railway Co., Southern Railway Co. (including State University Railroad Co. and Northern Alabama Railway Co.), The Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co., The Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. (including Woodstock and Blocton Railway Co. and Belt Railway Co. of Chattanooga), New Orlean & Northeastern Railroad Co., New Orleans Terminal Co., Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co., St. Johns River Terminal Co., Harriman & Northeastern Railroad Co., Cincinnati, Burnside & Cumberland River Railway Co., Tennessee Central Railway Co. and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. "(1) On each railroad party hereto the proportion of nonpromotable firemen, and helpers on other than steam power, shall not exceed 50 percent in each class of service established as such on each individual carrier. This agreement does not sanction the employment of nonpromotable men on any seniority district on which nonpromotable men are not now employed. "(2) The above percentage shall be reached as follows: "(a) Until such percentage is reached on any seniority district only promotable men will be hired. "(b) Until such percentage is reached on any seniority district all new runs and all vacancies created by death, dismissal, resignation, or disqualification shall be filled by promotable men. A change in the starting time of the same run or job will not be considered as constituting a new run. "(3) Except as provided in items (2) (a) and (2) (b) men now holding seniority as firemen, or helpers on other than steam power, shall be permitted to exercise seniority in accordance with their seniority and the rules of their respective schedules. "(4) It is understood that promotable firemen, or helpers on other than steam power, are those who are in line for promotion under the present rules and practices to the position of locomotive engineer. "(5) It is understood and agreed that on any road having, in the opinion of its B. of L. F. & E. committee, more favorable rules or conditions than above stipulated, such rules and conditions may at the option of such committee be retained in lieu of the above provisions. "(6) * * * "(7) It is expressly understood that in making this agreement representatives of the employees do not waive and are in no way prejudiced in the right to request agreements on the individual carriers here represented which will restrict the employment of helpers on other than steam power to promotable men; and it is agreed that this question is to be negotiated to a conclusion with the individual carriers. "(8) * This argreement put a ceiling on employment of Negro firemen. It provided a maximum but no minimum. On the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad property where the four organizations had an agreement with the carrier March 14, 1928, that after said date no Negroes should be hired in train, engine, and yard service the B. L. F. & E. elected to retain the 1928 agreement as having terms more favorable to the white union firemen than the Southeastern 1941 agreement, and did not put the Southeastern agreement into effect. On the Southern Railway property, the Seaboard Airline Railway property and other properties the B. L. F. & E. made supplemental agreements under the provisions of paragraph (7) of the Southeastern agreement practically prohibiting Negro firemen from serving on Diesel-engined locomotives. 1942: In 1942 when the Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. wanted to hire Negro locomotive firemen in the war emergency because of labor shortage, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen spread a strike ballot among the white union firemen on the Atlantic Coast Line encouraging them to strike before they would permit a Negro fireman to be hired in the war emergency. 1943: The President's Committee on Fair Employment Practice in 1943 cited carriers and the national railway labor unions because of discriminations against minority workers, especially Negroes and Mexican-Americans. The Fair Em 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 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 discrimina. tions 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 |