Page images
PDF
EPUB

Under date of February 16, 1948, a telegram re the Ives-Fulton bill against discrimination in employment was forwarded to the Members of the Senate and the Congress. This telegram reflected the then sentiments of the men whose names were appended thereto, I having had the privilege of having my name included. As you may know, the President under date of September 18, 1948, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 9981 of July 26, 1948, designated me as a member of The President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. The committee has been functioning since the early part of this year, not having been called together by the chairman until that time.

It is my feeling that I had best forego the opportunity of speaking before your committee while our own committee is in session and engaged in deliberations paralleling to some extent your own efforts.

Were I not a member of that committee, I would be delighted to appear before you.

Best wishes.

[blocks in formation]

The undersigned American citizens believe that passage at this session of the Congress of a national act against discrimination in employment is important to the welfare of the country. We note with satisfaction that the Ives-Fulton bill has been favorably reported out by the Senate Committee on Labor and Education, and we ask you, and through you your colleagues, to use your fullest influence to expedite its passage by both Houses of Congress.

The great majority of employers in the United States, together with their fellow Americans, believe in the principle of nondiscrimination in employment. They know that such discrimination is uneconomic, in that it results in an unsound use of manpower and retards the development of purchasing power. They know it is undemocratic and un-American, being contrary to the principles upon which our Government was founded and upon which it endures. They know, finally, that it weakens the position of the United States in the eyes of the world and in the war of ideas between freedom and totalitarianism.

In our judgment, the Ives-Fulton bill, if enacted into law, will substantially advance the cause of nondiscrimination in employment. It will strengthen the hands of those who believe in its purposes, and it will tend to bring into compliance those few who do not. Our judgment in this respect is based in part upon the successful working of very similar laws in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other States.

We like the reliance which the bill puts upon education and conciliation. On the other hand, we recognize the necessity of governmental sanctions when conciliation breaks down. We do not believe that passage of this bill will eliminate prejudice from America, but it will be an effective step along the road. For this reason, we have formed ourselves into a committee to advocate its adoption. We hope you will do all in your power to help toward this objective.

Mr. POWELL. The committee stands adjourned now until 2 o'clock this afternoon, when we will hear testimony from the railroad brotherhoods.

(Whereupon, at 11:10 a. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The subcommittee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to the taking of the recess.)

Mr. POWELL. The committee will kindly come to order. The first witness, and only witness other than for the railroad brotherhoods, will be Mr. Martin Quigley, president of the Quigley Publishing Co., Rockefeller Center, New York, and cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC. Mr. Quigley, we welcome you. Before you speak, I would like to compliment your organization on the inestimable help they have given us with these hearings and in scheduling the witnesses.

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN QUIGLEY, PRESIDENT, QUIGLEY PUBLISHING CO., ROCKEFELLER CENTER, NEW YORK, AND COCHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A PERMANENT FEPC

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, sir.

My name is Martin Quigley. I am president of the Quigley Publishing Co., Rockefeller Center, New York, and cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you in support of H. R. 4453, the Federal fair employment practice bill.

I am cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC, which is the principal organization working in behalf of this proposed legislation. More than 50 national religious, civic, fraternal, labor, and racial organizations are members of the council. It is interracial and interfaith in character. Among the organizations represented on its board of directors are the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Congress of Inustrial Organizations, American Federation of Labor, American Civil Liberties Union, American Jewish Committee, United Council of Church Women, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Cooperative League of America, American Jewish Congress, and the Independent Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World.

In addition to the national organizations, our council is composed of local units throughout the country which represent groups of members of the organizations I have named. The national and local groups represented by the council number a membership of approximately 60,000,000 persons. Representatives of various of these organizations will appear before your committee.

The bill before this committee does not represent new or radical legislation. It is a moderate and reasonable measure. It is calculated to do nothing more than achieve and maintain that measure of economic justice which is the right of every citizen of this Nation under the principles to which the Nation is pledged. It proposes to deal affirmatively and constructively with a distressful condition which has not yielded-and is not likely to yield-to the slow and uncertain processes of education, adaptation, and adjustment.

The first FEPC was instituted by Executive order in June 1941. It was a wartime measure. Bills to establish a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission were introduced in 1944 in both Houses of the Seventy-eighth Congress, and again in the Seventy-ninth Congress. Hearings were held by both Senate and House committees, reports of which are available. The bill appeared again in the Eightieth Congress where, in the Senate, it had the sponsorship of four Democrats and four Republicans. These bills have been reported favorably by Senate and House committees. The Congress has not yet had an opportunity to vote upon them.

FEPC legislation was endorsed and requested in the President's message to Congress February 2, 1948. It was pledged in the platforms of both major political parties at their latest national conventions. It was an important issue in the Presidential campaign of last fall, and the election of Mr. Truman may only properly be interpreted as meaning that great numbers of Americans support the civil-rights program to which he is pledged.

We urge the passage of this legislation because discrimination in employment is an assault against the God-given right to earn a decent livelihood. We urge it because discrimination in employment is increasing, as will be shown by statistics to be presented by other witnesses; because discrimination is bad for the Nation's business; because discrimination is an embrarrassment in the conduct of our foreign relations; because it is unjust and immoral, and contrary to the American creed of equality of economic opportunity; because it violates the pledges made to members of the armed forces, whose sacrifices contributed importantly to the preservation of the freedom this Nation now enjoys.

This bill, H. R. 4453, is essentially the same as the legislation introduced and voted upon favorably by House and Senate committees in previous Congresses. It establishes a commission which is authorized to investigate charges, attempt to eliminate discrimination by conference, conciliation and persuasion, issue complaints, hold hearings, subpena witnesses, make findings of fact, issue cease-and-desist orders, order reinstatement or hiring, with or without back pay, and finally, if necessary, to seek enforcement of its orders in court.

The provisions of this bill are embodied in laws now operating in several States, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. They have been found to be workable and effective in correcting the conditions sought to be remedied. Indeed, numerous groups, including employers and employer-associations who initially opposed this legislation, are now vigorous proponents of it. They state that it has not hampered the operation of their companies in any way; that it has produced better labor relations and better customer relations.

The National Council for a Permanent FEPC urges favorable action upon this bill by the members of this subcommittee and by the full House Labor and Education Committee. We believe the bill should be brought to the floor of the House for a vote and passed. We believe that, with our practice of the American way of life now under the closest scrutiny by those elsewhere in the world who are being urged to choose between ours and other systems, we must adopt affirmative measures to vindicate our declared devotion to human rights and social justice.

The simplest, most basic requirement for the maintenance of human rights and social justice is the right to equality of opportunity in earning a livelihood, without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Mr. POWELL. I thank you, Mr. Quigley, for your statement. I have just two or three questions that I would like to ask. The first is of a personal nature, and you do not have to answer it if you do not want to. I notice in your statement you emphasize the moral aspect of this bill. What faith or denomination do you personally have?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I am a Roman Catholic.

Mr. POWELL. Therefore, as a churchman, as a member of the laity, you think the problem involved here is a moral one?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I believe the problem here involved is essentially a moral one, and the moral approach to the problem is the approach that interests me most.

Mr. POWELL. There is another question I would like to ask you. In your position as national cochairman, I would like to ask you as to

your position on this. It has been charged off and on through the years by opponents of this legislation that this is a communistic attempt to put over a law. I have before me a statement which comes from one of my colleagues, Representative deGraffenried, of Alabama, in which he makes the same charge as was made by Representative Bennett, of Florida, and also Representative Rankin, of Mississippi. Will you just state, on any basis of your knowledge of FEPC, as the national cochairman of the FEPC Council, and your knowledge of the way it began, whether you believe FEPC is communistic or not. Mr. QUIGLEY. Í profess to have some knowledge of the subject of communism and some familiarity with the ways and methods of Communists. I am familiar, generally speaking, with the origin and development of the movement for righting the problem that this bill deals with, and I have seen no evidence-and I have been sufficiently close to the matter to see any evidence that was in sight-I have seen no evidence of any Communist implications whatsoever in this undertaking.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you. One last question is this: There have been other semiproponents of this measure who have said that the South would accept it more readily if there was no enforcement power. I have my own views on that, but I would like to have your views on the feasibility of having the enforcement power that we do have in this legislation.

Mr. QUIGLEY. It is my belief-and I attempted to make reference to it in my statement-that the slow process of education enlightenment, adjustment, adaptation, all of those processes are not sufficiently quick, or as certain of definite effect, or the remedy now needed to deal with the problem as it presently exists.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you ever so much, Mr. Quigley.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you.

Mr. POWELL. We have before us now the representatives of the four brotherhoods. Before the first one comes forward, I would like to say that this is in no way and cannot in any way be construed as an attack on the trade-union movement, to ask the brotherhoods to come here today.

It so happens when President Truman, on May 25, 1946, on a Saturday afternoon, called a joint session of the Senate and House to ask for immediate power to stop the threatened railroad strike, that there were 14 men out of the entire House of Representatives who voted with the brotherhoods. They were Bishop of Illinois, Buffet of Nebraska, Coffee of Washington, Crosser of Ohio, De Lacy of Washington, Green of Pennsylvania, Kee of West Virginia, Marcantonio of New York, Neely of West Virginia, O'Brien of Michigan. Savage of Washington, Smith of Ohio, Celler of New York, and the chairman of this committee.

My stand on the union question is well known, and is unchangeable, and I want the men who are going to testify today to know that before they come forward.

In the second place I would like to say that the various presidents have sent vice presidents to represent them, and it will be a waste of time if these witnesses are not able to speak with complete authority concerning the brotherhoods which they represent. So when the witness comes forward, if he cannot speak with complete authority concerning his brotherhood, the chairman will have to ask him to step

down, and we will have to arrange a suitable date when someone who can speak with authority can be present.

Our first witness is Mr. Harry See of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

TESTIMONY OF HARRY SEE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN

Mr. POWELL. Mr. See, you represent Mr. Whitney?

Mr. SEE. That is right.

Mr. POWELL. The president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen?

Mr. SEE. That is right.

Mr. POWELL. And you can speak with authority on every question? Mr. SEE. As far as I know, I can: yes.

Mr. POWELL. What you say can reflect the policy of the brotherhood and its official view toward whatever questions and answers take place here?

Mr. SEE. That is right.

Mr. POWELL, Mr. See, there have been charges made before this committee the other day by Mr. Charles Houston, specifically, representing the Negro railroad men and today by Mr. Theodore Brown, representing the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, that the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen excludes members of all races except the Caucasian race.

Mr. SEE. That is right.

Mr. POWELL. Is that true?

Mr. SEE. That is true.

Mr. POWELL. In consideration, therefore, of this legislation, specifically the President's bill which is before us, H. R. 4453, the Railroad Trainmen, upon the basis of its policy, would be against the Fair Employment Practice Act?

Mr. SEE. No, sir; that is not right.

Mr. POWELL. All right, will you kindly enlarge on that?

Mr. SEE. The brotherhood has taken no position either way with reference to this bill, or similar bills which I understand are in Congress.

Mr. POWELL. No position either way?

Mr. SEE. No position either way.

Mr. POWELL. I have before me an official document from the Department of Labor concerning reports on national legislation as they affect the various brotherhoods, and I want to ask you a few questions about these documents, on the basis of the history of the brotherhood.

The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen was organized in 1883 as was the Brotherhood of Railroad Brakemen of the Western Hemisphere and so continued until 1886, is that right?

Mr. SEE. I don't know about the Western Hemisphere. I know it was the Brotherhood of Railroad Brakemen.

Mr. POWELL. Then in 1886 it changed its name to the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Mr. SEE. That is right. I am not sure about the year, but it was about that time.

Mr. POWELL. In 1884 was the first annual convention. At that time. you adopted a constitutional provision which restricted membership to whites only.

« PreviousContinue »