Mr. NIXON. The present situation in the railroads is that Negroes are not eligible for membership in the unions?

Mr. HOUSTON. That is right.

Mr. NIXON. But is it a fact that, as a result of their ineligibility for membership in unions, they are denied employment in those particular capacities?

Mr. HOUSTON. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, that is the whole history since the Washington agreement of 1910 by the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, in which the unions have constantly whittled down the employment of Negroes by the introduction of what are known as percentage_agreements, providing that not more than a certain percentage of Negroes shall be employed. Now, the interesting thing, Mr. Congressman, is that those are always ceiling agreements. There is never any floor in them. In other words, they can go down to zero, but they can never rise above a particular percentage.

For example, on the Asheville division of the Southern Railway, it is 10 percent Negro firemen. Even then we do not have the employment of 10 percent, for the reason that usually hiring is unofficially done by the local chairmen bringing men up to the roundhouse foreman, or whoever the master mechanic is, or whoever is the hiring officer or manager. In other words, management details to the unions the task of recruiting, and they do not recruit when they cannot take members. There is no percentage in it.

Mr. NIXON. The reason I raise the point is that technically, as I understand it, there is not a closed shop under the Railway Labor Act. Mr. HOUSTON. You are correct.

Mr. NIXON. But your point, I think, is that as a practical matter, since management uses the union as its own source of employment, it means that even though there is not technically a closed shop, as a practical matter, none of the Negro applicants are hired; is that right?

Mr. HOUSTON. That is right. And may I simply say that, in this Palmer case, we have challenged the right of the union to represent us unless they give us the same right to select the members who do the collective bargaining, the same right of censure, and the same right of removal.

Now, the Supreme Court has said in the Steele case that, where necessary for the protection of minority interests, the union must come out of the union hall into open convention, just as you are here, to discuss collective bargaining proposals; so that if we are able to stop the union from representing us, unless they let us help elect the officials, when we make them come out of a lodge hall into open conference to discuss any business, we will be members of the union, because we will have destroyed all of the secrecy and the little perquisites of union membership which are now denied us.

Mr. NIXON. As I understand it, having sat through a number of hearings on the recent labor bill, I find there is a considerable problem in writing regulations opening up a union. We have, of course, in the bill before us, the provision that prohibits discrimination by a union for race, creed, or color, in denying or granting membership. But the interpretation of that clause in some cases, as you recognize, would have to be pretty broad in order to make it effective, because various rules could be adopted by a union which directly or in theory were not

discriminatory, but which in practice would be. You understand what I mean?

Mr. HOUSTON. Let me illustrate. In the case of Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, the Supreme Court decision affecting the postal clerks in New York, these railway unions, particularly the railroad trainmen and the firemen, adopted a rule which said that their exclusion policy should not apply in any State which makes it illegal to deny membership. What happens? They have the black ball, and they kill every Negro by the black ball, although ostensibly they have this principle; so that you would have to reach that by fair-employment practices, showing that invariably a Negro comes up no matter what his qualifications are.

Now, let me say one other thing. The unions put their prejudice above national safety. In the war manpower shortage of World War I, the B. & O. wanted to hire Negro firemen, and the railway unions threatened to strike if they put any Negro firemen on, even in the World War I emergency.

The same thing happened on the Coast Line in World War II. The same thing happened on the Frisco. The management asked the unions on the Frisco Railroad during the war if, in the war emergency-just in the war emergency-they would open up and permit the hiring of Negroes, and they said, unquestionably no. Now, when unions put themselves and their prejudices above national safety, I think it is time for legislation.

Mr. NIXON. During your administration of the wartime Fair Employment Practices Committee, I assume that some effort was made to break down this barrier.

Mr. HOUSTON. That is true. The FEPC held 4-day hearings against the railroads and the unions. The railroads came in but the unions ignored the hearings because there was no power to force attendance. They ignored all the directives, and as a matter of fact took a counteroffensive and went to Congress to attack the FEP Commission itself. But, apart from the railroads and apart from one or two industries, the experience of the wartime FEPC, as in the Philadelphia transit strike, was that, if the effort was in earnest, everything went smoothly. Mr. POWELL. Would you be kind enough to have your association submit to the committee pertinent questions to ask the gentlemen from the four brotherhoods? We are going to set aside next Tuesday at 2 o'clock for them, and the committee is going to request them to appear immediately by telegram, and if they ignore that, as they ignored the wartime FEPC, we will immediately issue subpenas for them to appear on Tuesday at 2 o'clock.

Mr. HOUSTON. I shall be very happy, sir, and I shall not only do that, but I will submit to the committee all the material about the litigation which is pending against them and the results of it. We will see that this is put in your hands not later than Friday.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you.

Mr. NIXON. My last question relates to the experience since the wartime Fair Employment Practices Commission was in effect. Would you say that the voluntary agreements that you were able to work out during that period have been maintained, or has the situation become better or worse since that time?

Mr. HOUSTON. On the whole, I would say that the total situation has improved. It has improved because the State FEPC's have

recommended and proceeded from the point of the Executive order. On top of that, we are now in a move of wider integration of minorities in all phases of American life, and that inevitably reflects itself in wider integration in labor.

I served in World War I, and I was in Washington as a young man at the time of the riots after World War I. Fortunately, after World War II, the only thing that we had here of comparable size was the Columbia, Tenn., riot. But the integration of Negroes into the organized labor movement, more than anything else, has perpetuated industrial peace and community peace, because in the Sojourner Truth riots in Detroit there were no outbreaks in the shops where whites and Negroes were integrated and working side by side, and no violence in integrated neighborhoods.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Burke has a question.

Mr. BURKE. With the exception of these few unions that you mentioned, where you run into specific problems, you have received cooperation from the labor movement, generally, rather than otherwise?

Mr. HOUSTON. From the CIO. Not from the A. F. of L. in all spots. The A. F. of L. building trades are pretty reactionary.

I am not an A. F. of L. expert, and I cannot give you the recent data on that, because I have been working in the field of the railway labor unions. But I think an investigation by the committee will clear that up. I can have someone here to give the committee that information. Clarence Mitchell, who is labor secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, I am sure, will be able to testify and tell the committee specifically in what area the A. F. of L. unions have a bad record. But the whole movement, taking it by and large, is increasing integration of Negroes into the ranks of organized labor.

Mr. BURKE. I thank you.

Mr. POWELL. It is a shame we cannot keep you all day, I have so many questions to ask you, because you really know this problem better than anyone else. And I appreciate your coming here.

Mr. HOUSTON. I am at the service of the committee at any time. Mr. POWELL. We might call you back.

Mr. HOUSTON. I would be only too happy to be called back, either Tuesday or Wednesday.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon says he thinks we ought to call you back. Mr. HOUSTON. I shall be most happy to be here on Tuesday.

Mr. POWELL. Tuesday at 2 o'clock?

Mr. HOUSTON. Tuesday at 2 o'clock and Wednesday, all day.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you.

Mr. Masaoka, we are sorry to have kept you because you had an appointment at 11:30. But you saw how our witness was.

Mr. MASAOKA. That is quite all right.

Mr. POWELL. Will you kindly give your name and organization for the benefit of the record?

TESTIMONY OF MIKE M. MASAOKA, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE ANTIDISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE

Mr. MASAOKA. Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike Masaoka. I am the national legislative director of the Japanese American Citizens League

antidiscrimination committee. Our organization is the only national organization representing persons of Japanese ancestry in the United States, and, therefore, on their behalf I would like to express our appreciation to you and the committee and the Members of Congress for this opportunity to appear before you and point out that while we persons of Japanese ancestry constitute one of the smallest pools of any persons of a racial minority in the United States, perhaps one-tenth of 1 percent, we still feel racial discrimination just as much, just as viciously, and just as seriously as any other group.

I have a rather lengthy prepared statement which I would like to submit for the record, and with your permission I would simply like to summarize certain aspects of it and make certain comments regarding the Japanese-Americans in the employment field.

Mr. POWELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE ANTIDISCRIMINATION

COMMITTEE

THE INTEREST OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE

Because we believe in the American ideal that every person willing and able to work has a right to equal consideration for a job commensurate with his ability, and because we have had long and intimate association with the problem of racial discrimination in employment, the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), through its antidiscrimination committee, is grateful for this opportunity to express its views in support of Federal fair-employment-practices legislation.

The only national organization representing persons of Japanese ancestry in the United States, the JACL was organized in 1930. In 1946, to more effectively combat discrimination and prejudice against persons of Japanese ancestry, the antidiscrimination committee was incorporated to serve as the active legislative, educational, litigious, and petitional agency of the JACL proper.

The purposes of our organization are best described in our slogan: "For Better Americans in a Greater America"; and that of our antidiscrimination committee: "Equal Rights, Equal Opportunities for All."

The legislation now under consideration, H. R. 4453, "A bill to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin," and cited as the Federal Fair Employment Practices Act, comes under the scope of these objectives.

At our last biennial national convention, convened in Salt Lake City, Utah, September 3 to 9, 1948, JACL delegates unanimously went on record urging the enactment of fair-employment-practices legislation on Federal, State, and municipal levels.

In accordance with this mandate, various chapters throughout the Nation have assumed, and are assuming, prominent roles in the many campaigns to secure city and State fair employment practices laws. At the same time, all 80 of the chapters and committees in 38 States and the District of Columbia which comprise the national organization are joined in support of the present effort to enact Federal legislation eliminating racial discrimination in employment. We know of no other legislation that will have more far-reaching consequences for good than this.

We know that by eliminating race and religion as factors in employment, more effective use can be made of the manpower available, to the end that the productive capacities of our Nation may be increased and the national income and standard of living for all Americans materially raised.

THE PREWAR EMPLOYMENT PICTURE

To fully understand the present employment picture with reference to the Issei (first generation, immigrant Japanese who by law cannot become naturalized citizens) and the nisei (second generation, American-citizen Japanese), it is necessary to review the situation that existed prior to World War II.

At that time, about 95 percent of all the Japanese in this country, citizens and aliens alike, lived in 11 far western States. Nearly 90 percent resided in 3 States California, Washington, and Oregon.

90748-49- -10

For years, a small but powerful minority in the West, particularly in California, was exceedingly hostile, and vocal in its hostility, toward persons of Japanese ancestry. The obvious result of this animosity-subsequently expressed in restrictive covenants and such discriminatory legislation as alien land laws which barred immigrant Japanese from purchasing and owning agricultural lands-was to force Japanese in the urban areas to build up local communities within cities, often referred to as "Little Tokyos."

Job discrimination was so extensive that the situation as late as in the thirties can best be described as similar to that which still exists in the South against the Negro.

Most issei operated their own small business enterprises, catering in the main to the Japanese community. And the nisei, by and large, could only look to these few issei enterprises for employment. Working conditions were poor and wages low. If employment outside the Japanese community was desired, gardening, housework, clerking, and other "menial" tasks were about all they could find. Nisei, many of whom were college graduates, were forced to accept work in produce and fish markets, grocery stores, tailor shops, and nurseries. In fact, at one time, it was the boast of a Los Angeles operator of a chain of super food markets that only nisei with at least a bachelor's degree need apply for employment.

Doctors found a place for their service and ability only among their own people. Lawyers, accountants, and newspapermen faced the same situation.

Even when defense industries-aircraft, shipbuilding, and the like—were opened up on the west coast and skilled help was badly needed, qualified nisei engineers, draftsmen, construction experts, and stenographers, as well as ordinary laborers, were refused employment simply on the basis of race. Negroes, Mexicans, and even American Indians were also rejected for defense plant jobs because, in the opinion of employers, "white" persons would not work side by side with either them or us.

When the President's Fair Employment Practices Committee visited the west coast for the first time in October 1941, JACL testified before it in Los Angeles to the effect that persons of Japanese ancestry, no matter how well qualified by education, training, and experience, were denied employment in defense establishments. Immediately thereafter, however, because of the corrective action taken by the FEPC, qualified nisei began to be considered and accepted for employment in the comparatively "high-paying" aircraft and shipbuilding industries. Because of this experience with FEPC, we are convinced that Federal legislation on this subject is not only necessary but that it will also be effective.

THE EMPLOYMENT PICTURE DURING THE WAR

Early in 1942, the Army evacuated-without trial or hearing-all persons of Japanese ancestry from the west coast to 10 huge camps in the interior. The War Relocation Authority was created by Executive order to supervise our “relocation.'

Late that same year, the WRA initiated a program of resettlement, of attempting to place the nisei and issei in its custody in normal communities in the Midwest and the East. A special section was established within the WRA organization and was charged with this responsibility. Relocation offices were set up in key localities, like Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, and New York. Under the auspices of the WRA, local community committees were organized to aid in finding adequate housing and jobs for those of us who desired to leave the centers.

Although it must be conceded that there was a definite manpower shortage at that time, it should be kept in mind that persons of Japanese ancestry were suspect and associated with the ennemy in the Pacific, that most people outside the west coast had never seen a Japanese person, and that housing was critical for the general public.

In spite of these difficulties and many others, including those of local prejudices, the experience of the WRA in its resettlement program demonstrates quite conclusively that a Government agency, if it sincerely wants to do a job, can accomplish relative miracles. The WRA not only did a job of education on local community levels but also found employment and housing for those who desired them, of whom there were more than 50,000.

Nisei and issei for the first time were permitted to work in professions and jobs for which they had been trained. Bookkeepers who had worked at fruit