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. I 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.

Mr. SEE. I don't know what year it was adopted. I am a member of the brotherhood, I guess, 35 years, and it was a part of the brotherhood law when I was first a member.

Mr. POWELL. That convention was in 1884?

Mr. SEE. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. Do you personally favor such a policy now?
Mr. SEE. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. Why?

Mr. SEE. I think a change would cause considerable disruption within our own ranks.

Mr. POWELL. Do you think it is a good policy to have organizations in our democracy that are not democratic?

Mr. SEE. Well, I think it would be a matter of personal opinion, as to whether we are democratic or not.

Mr. POWELL. I am using as my basis, first, the statement of the Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who says that this law is necessary so that the world will know that we are practicing democracy, and, second, the statement of the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Tobin, who very emphatically came out for this law in a communication that I had inserted in the record this morning, and who will so testify later in the hearing (at least he has indicated he will make a statement Thursday), and then the President himself, Mr. Truman, has publicly proclaimed it, as well as all Presidential candidates. In fact, this bill that we have before us came from the White House through the Attorney General, Mr. Tom Clark. Do you think your view of democracy is a little bit better than the view of say, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, or the Attorney General?

Mr. SEE. No, Mr. Powell; I did not say that. I said it was my view. Mr. POWELL. That is what I said.

Mr. SEE. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. You feel your view is better than theirs or you would not hold it, is that right?

Mr. SEE. I like it better; yes.

Mr. POWELL. You like it so much better that in World War I the brotherhood went so far as to say that if Negroes were allowed to work wherever they had the talent or opportunity you would strike? Mr. SEE. I did not know that.

Mr. POWELL. You did not know that?

Mr. SEE. No, sir.

Mr. POWELL. May I bring that to your attention? Let us take World War I first. This comes not alone from your organization, but part of it is from the Locomotive Firemen's magazine, August 15, 1917, pages 11 and 12. They point out in this statement:

The following important circular on this question was issued August 9, 1917, by Acting President Shea to all general and local chairman and recording secretaries of subordinate lodges.

During the early part of June 1917, information reached the international president that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad management contemplated employing Negro firemen. It was stated the company was importing Negroes from the South under contract for this purpose.

President Carter, before going away on his leave of absence, prepared an article on this question, which appeared in the June 15 issue of the magazine, and which explains the situation in detail and very clearly shows that the purpose of this movement. We trust every member of this brotherhood has read this article; if not, they should do so in order to learn for themselves the purpose of the railroads in their desire to employ Negroes as firemen on the roads where they are not now employed.

While in New York during the month of July, a meeting with the Commission of Eight, I received information to the effect that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad had called some of our local chairmen to ascertain the attitude of this brotherhood in the event Negroes were employed to fire engines. Upon receiving this information, I wired General Chairman A. B. Miller of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad the following:

Have just been advised that the Baltimore & Ohio roundhouse foreman at Cleveland approached local chairman lodge 10 relative to his attitude in event Negro firemen were placed on locomotives as firemen. Suggest that you immediately file vigorous protests with your general manager against the employment of Negro firemen and you shall have the support of this organization to prevent the advent of Negro firemen on your road. Insist upon an early reply and advise me. Grand Chief Engineer Stone is taking the matter up with his chairman."

On and on it goes, until we find a resolution which states:

Resolved: That it will be the policy of the B. of L. E. that Negroes will not be permitted to fire locomotives on any railroad that does not now employ them as such, and will request that on such roads as do now employ them, that they be confined to the districts as defined for them at the present time, and that the percentage of Negro firemen on divisions where they are employed jointly with white firemen be not increased.

That came from the advisory board. Then it goes on:

To the foregoing, I—

the president

replied, in part, as follows:

"This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 2d instant with the enclosed copy of letter addressed jointly to Brothers Sheppard and Dodge and myself which embodies resolutions adopted by your advisory board on July 26 defining the position of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers regarding the employment of Negro firemen on railroads where white firemen are now exclusively employed, also on roads where it is now the practice to employ a certain percentage of Negro firemen jointly with white firemen."

On and on this article goes and states that they will vigorously protest, that they cannot justify Negroes being employed where white men seek employment, and point out that the entire organization is in back of this protest that he is making, and he sent the same communication to the New Haven & Hartford Railroad.

That situation came out of the fact that in World War I we needed more railroad workers than in normal times because of the war, but the president of the brotherhood, despite the fact that the Nation needed these workers came out vigorously and said he and the men backing up the resolution would not accept any Negroes in any capacity working with them. That is in World War I.

In World War II, the same thing took place. On December 11, 1942, a general letter went out from the headquarters to all of the men of the brotherhood about this same question and stated that again. they would not work if Negro men were placed in their positions on the railroads. In fact, the wartime FEPC went into this problem and started it, and through the methods of conciliation and mediation, and so forth, without, however, power to enforce it, tried to get the brotherhoods to accept the proposition of Negro workers during World War II. The brotherhoods ignored the request of the wartime FEPC. Now these are the facts before us: In time of war, when we needed workers in every phase of our American industrial life that, the brotherhoods would not bend one bit and said they were not going to accept Negro workers in time of war, even though our democracy and homes were at stake. Do you claim that is a better form of democracy?