페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Mr. BIEMILLER. The resolution which I read was adopted at the merger convention of the AFL-CIO which was held in New York City in December of 1955.

Senator TALMADGE. How many members attended that convention ?

Mr. BIEMILLER. My offhand recollection is that there were roughly 2,000 delegates. The delegates represented all of the international unions which were affiliated with the AFL or the CIO.

Also represented were the city central bodies and the State federations of labor and the State and local industrial union councils of the old CIO.

Senator TALMADGE. The 2,000 delegates, then, determined the policy for the 15 million ?

Mr. BIEMILLER. This is the normal procedure. These are resolutions which, as you well can understand, Senator, come up from the bottom. Many times they come from a State federation or city central body or international union.

Senator TALMADGE. Were the locals circularized or did they vote in any way?

Mr. BIEMILLER. The resolutions are available in advance, but it was the delegates in convention which voted on the policy.

Senator TALMADGE. No resolutions were sent the members ?
Mr. BIEMILLER. No, sir.

Senator TALMADGE. You spoke about majority rule. Does not the Constitution of the United States, in many cases, operate to the very opposite of majority rule?

Mr. BIEMILLER. İt guarantees minority rights which are protected by the Constitution; yes.

Senator TALMADGE. You would not be in favor of States having Senators according to their population rather than on the basis of two each, would you?

Mr. BIEMILLER. I recognize this is one feature of the Constitution that can only be amended by unanimous consent of the 48 States. Normal amendment procedures do not operate as far as the two Senators from each State are concerned.

Senator TALMADGE. Well, if you could do it, assuming that you could, would you favor changing the representative number of Senators representing the States ?

Mr. BIEMILLER. The AFL-CIO has never taken any formal position, of which I am aware, on this subject, Senator.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions, Senator Javits?
Senator JAVITS. Yes.

I would like to ask this question of you, if I may: The 96 Senators. do not send a referendum to their constituents, do they, as far as you know, when they want to vote on something?

Mr. BIEMILLER. Not that I am aware of.

Senator Javits. And there are a lot fewer than 2,000, and they represent a lot more people. Mr. BIEMILLER. That is correct. .

Senator Javits. Have there been any resolutions adopted on rule 22 by the local bodies of the AFL, State or city?

Mr. BIEMILLER. There have been some. My offhand recollection is that the resolution which was finally adopted by the AFL before merger originally came out of a State federation of labor.

Most of our resolutions, as I stated a moment ago, normally come from some State or local body or from some international union. They

are not resolutions introduced by the Federation's officers. They come from some other source.

I might also add, as I have in answer to Senator Talmadge's question, that every resolution that the AFL-CIO merger convention passed was passed unanimously. There was no dissent to any resolution that was passed there.

Senator JAVITS. Another witness testified before you started, and I shall not detain you but a minute, Mr. Biemiller, about the question of denying any persons a job because of their color.

Do you have any facts or figures on that in the AFL that you could submit to us?

Mr. BIEMILLER. We would be very happy to submit to you some data on that subject.

Senator JAVITS. If you would submit it to me, I could then submit it to the Committee. Mr. BIEMILLER. I would be very happy to, sir.

(The information referred to, subsequently supplied by Mr. Biemiller, is as follows:)

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,

Washington, D. C., July 15, 1957.
Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: During my testimony on Senate rule XXII before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Rules, you requested that I give you examples of denial of equal employment opportunities for Negroes.

The following examples relate both to the exclusion of Negroes from employment entirely, and to discrimination against Negroes after they have been employed in lesser jobs.

Until recently, separate seniority provisions which resulted in discrimination existed at the following plants :

Sinclair Refining Co., Houston, Tex.
Magnolia Petroleum Co., Beaumont, Tex.
Gulf Refining Co., Port Arthur, Tex.
Hayes Aircraft Corp., Birmingham, Ala.

Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Marietta, Ga. Discriminatory practices, while they are more common in the South, are not restricted to one region. Complaints are on file relating to the following plants :

Fisher Body plant, division of General Motors Corp., Mansfield, Ohio

Fisher Body plant, division of General Motors Corp., Willow Springs, Ill. These are, of course, but a tiny group as compared to the number of businesses where discrimination exists or has existed.

Rather than document each of these cases in detail, I will refer you to the President's Committee on Government Contracts, Jacob Seidenberg, Executive Director. This Committee, as you know, is charged with effectuating the policy of the President in eliminating discrimination by Government contractors. Details on many of the cases listed above may be found in the Committee's files.

I hope this information will satisfy your needs. Please feel free to call upon us again if necessary. Sincerely yours,

ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,

Director, Department of Legislation. Senator JAVITs. Finally, I would just like to point out one detail: You referred to the Douglas resolution as permitting a simple majority.

Mr. BIEMILLER. I referred to a suggestion which Senator Douglas had made.

Senator Javits. Yes.

Mr. BIEMILLER. The resolution requires a constitutional majority, as I recall, and I believe this was an effort of Senator Douglas to meet the opposition half way, and being reasonable people, we recognize that sometimes compromises have to be made in these matters.

Senator JAVITS. But your organization recommended a simple majority?

Mr. BIEMILLER. A simple majority, both in resolution and in President Meany's and Secretary Schnitzler's statements to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

Senator JAVITS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Biemiller.
Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator TALMADGE. The next witness is Mr. Hancock, of the American Protective Committee of San Antonio, Tex.

STATEMENT OF AUSTIN F. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN

HERITAGE PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE, SAN ANTONIO, TEX. Mr. HANCOCK. American Heritage Protective Committee of San Antonio, Tex.

I want to say, as a prefix, the gentleman who just preceded me spoke of democracy many times. No such word as “democracy” can be found in our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

This is to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, by Austin F. Hancock, chairman, American Heritage Protective Committee of San Antonio, Tex.

The American Heritage Protective Committee of San Antonio, Tex., with its some 10,000 members, contributors, supporters—with hundreds of thousands cothinkers are pleased to accept and to appear before your Special United States Senate committee to endorse the aims and purposes of your committee and its principles to help safeguard our Constitution, States rights, Bill of Rights, civil rights, and our American heritage.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Hancock, would you mind giving us the number of members and contributors separately?

Mr. HANCOCK. I haven't got them, but we have more members than we have contributors, contributors by our books. I will give you one before I leave.

Senator JAVITS. Could you give us the number of members and contributors? You say you have members and contributors.

Mr. HANCOCK. Contributors, about, between 6,000 and 7,000.
Senator JAVITS. And the rest, you say, are supporters?
Mr. HANCOCK. Supporters.

We are totally against limited debate in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Also, we are forever against any public official, wherever located, who knowingly violates his or her oath of office to protect and to defend our United States Constitution, Bill of Rights and States rights, and our American heritage.

Every public official who knowingly violates his or her oath of office should be promptly and forever disbarred from again holding public office in all America and its possessions.

Our American Heritage Protective Committee was organized in the Menger Hotel, San Antonio, Tex., the night of May 25, 1950, with some 500 real Americans present when various officers were nominated and elected, including certain members of our committee.

At that historical meeting our elected honorary chairman, a noted attorney and author of Chicago, Hon. Thomas Creigh, said, among other things, in praising the United States Constitution:

It is the greatest piece of work that has ever been struck off at one time by the hand of man.

Hon. Roy Sanderford, Belton, former Texas senator, opened his talk by declaring:

To preserve the noble heritage for which this organization fights, you cannot succeed without going to the very heart and into the very depths of politics. We must fight, politically and otherwise, against the appeasers, the Communists, the Reds, the fellow travelers, who are found in every rank of government and business-yes, even in some of our best pulpits; we must condemn these men who are daily being coddled and appeased by our Government leaders because they want their vote to keep them in office.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Hancock. Any further witnesses? (No response.) Senator TALMADGE. If there are no further witnesses, we stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 25th of June, that is tomorrow, at 10 a. m., when we will meet in room 155.

There is a further meeting scheduled for Friday, June 28, at 10 a. m.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, June 25, 1957.)

« 이전계속 »