ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

ably have not had the opportunity to study it at length, but, generally speaking, in this field of fair-employment practices, I think most of us recognize that one of the major problems is in the Southern States. I think that is a statement that would be generally agreed with, although, of course, there are problems also in some of the Northern States in the industrial areas as well.

In the event that such a law were on the statute books, I am just wondering what effect you think it might have, we will say, in a given industry in the Southern States. I realize this is a general question. But I wonder if you have thought that through and would give the committee your opinion as to the possible effect of such a law.

Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Nixon, of course I would just be speculating, but I am under the impression that if such legislation were passed and became effective overnight, pandemonium would break loose. would have a terrific number of claims of discrimination, and it would take all of the efforts of the entire agency for the following 6 months to try to straighten out just a few of those claims in almost any area of the South. I do not believe it is workable. I believe the whole procedure will be too cumbersome and will cause serious disruption in industrial areas.

I also believe-and this is honestly my opinion-that it would cause a certain tenseness in our relations which does not exist at the present time.

Mr. NIXON. Tell me what steps, if any, are being taken at the present time-say, in your State-to meet the problem of discrimination as it exists today?

Mr. BATTLE. I believe that education is one of the most progressive and most proper methods of eliminating ill-feeling between the races and eliminating discrimination, and I believe that we have made and are making quite a step forward in that respect. Efforts are being made by leaders of both races. They include citizenship tours, which the Negroes are participating in on their own, and the whites are participating in on their own. They come here to the Capitol and go to the United Nations, trying to become better citizens and trying to understand national and international problems. There are meetings of public-spirited groups going on all the time, trying to understand our problems better and trying to solve them. There are quite a few steps we are taking.

Mr. NIXON. In other words, you recognize that the problem exists, but you have doubts about the method proposed to meet it, as I understand it.

Mr. BATTLE. I have strenuous doubts about such legislation working for the good of all concerned.

I believe it would heighten the tension in the South.

Mr. NIXON. Do you feel that the Commission which would be set up under this bill would be able to carry out the provisions of the bill in a State or district like your own? I am speaking now of the practical problem of enforcement.

Mr. BATTLE. Of course, it could be carried out, but it would certainly take, as I indicated in the statement here, methods of enforcing obedience to such legislation that I hope we never have to resort to and that none of us wants to resort to. That is one of the reasons I think we should not pass legislation which will have that reaction.

Mr. NIXON. I think one thing that should be said in regard to this legislation is that the criminal sanctions are quite mild which have been set up in it, and I think that, probably, as I read the questions and answers which have been prepared on the legislation by the sponsor, the reason that was done was that it was recognized that there would be a considerable problem of enforcement. And for that reason, firmer steps could not be taken.

Mr. BATTLE. I might say in that connection that the opposition would come mainly on principle rather than because of any sanctions or penalty involved. It is the principle of the Federal Government setting up a Federal agency which can bypass the State governments and the local governments and can come into a man's little business, which he has always felt was his own, and tell him who he should or should not hire, in effect.

Mr. NIXON. Your thought, then, is that in the event this law were passed by the Congress, the people in your district which, shall we say, is a typical district in the South

Mr. BATTLE. An enlightened district.

Mr. NIXON. Would not be behind it from the standpoint of public opinion, and for that reason you would have difficulties in putting the law into effect; is that the sense of your statement?

Mr. BATTLE. The sense of what I am saying is that our law enforcement people, in doing their duty and their job conscientiously, would try to enforce the law, but they would be trying to enforce a law which they themselves did not believe in and which the people whom they are trying to force it upon do not believe in, and it would be almost impossible to enforce.

Mr. NIXON. You think the great majority of people in your district would be of the same opinion that you are, as far as that is concerned? Mr. BATTLE. Very emphatically so.

Mr. NIXON. Do you think that over a period of time, the attitude of the people toward legislation of this type might change, through, we will say, education and other methods that are being used to bring the problem to the people?

Mr. BATTLE. You mentioned education. I think Federal aid to education will do more for better understanding and better race relations and will help our situation much more than any legislation of this type could ever do.

Mr. NIXON. You favor that?

Mr. BATTLE. I favor Federal aid to education, without Federal controls. And I think that would be a big step forward, and I think it would help us a great deal.

Mr. NIXON. That is all.

Mr. POWELL. I would just like to say one last thing. I appreciate your point of view that this bill has two things that might mitigate your situation. One, this bill does not in any way say anything about segregation. It just mentions discrimination.

Mr. BATTLE. That would be a help so far as my people are concerned in backing up the law.

Mr. POWELL. And the second thing is that section 7 on page 11 of the bill, gives us the exact words which might answer a previous objection of yours.

Mr. BATTLE. What line is that?

Mr. POWELL. Line 3. It reads:

Provided, That the Commission is empowered by agreement with any agency of any State, Territory, possession, or local government, to cede to such agency jurisdiction over any cases even though such cases may involve charges of unlawful employment practices within the scope of this act, unless the provision of the statute or ordinance applicable to the determination of such cases by such agency is inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this act or has received a construction inconsistent therewith.

That would definitely tie in, and give the State the jurisdiction. Mr. BATTLE. It would tie in. It would be a mighty weak tie-in, when you say that the Commission is the one that is empowered by agreement with an agency of any State, and so forth. The Federal agency is the one that would make the decision as to whether or not it will consult local governments or turn it over to them. And I can see a Federal agency coming down to Birmingham and saying, "All right, boys. We will turn this problem over to the city commission to settle."

If that is the way you are going to do it, why not just forget the law to start with, which I think would be a good thing to do?

Mr. POWELL. Thank you.

Mr. BATTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POWELL. Is Representative Howell present?
Mr. HOWELL. I am here, sir.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES R. HOWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. HOWELL. I have a brief statement here that I would like to read, and then I shall be glad to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Charles R. Howell, a Member of Congress from the Fourth District of New Jersey, and a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, to which this subcommittee will make its report and recommendations. Since I had a rather substantial part in the passage of our New Jersey fair-employment legislation, as a member of the New Jersey House of Assembly, I feel somewhat competent to testify on the bill which you are now considering.

Our New Jersey act, which follows the general pattern of H. R. 21and I assume that the current bill is not too different, from what you have said, except that I notice it leaves out the provision for regional councils, which I think possibly might have some merit-places a greater emphasis at the conciliation and education level, as contrasted with the use of the penalty provisions of the act. It has worked well in New Jersey. Members of minority groups-Negroes in particular— have been employed in many industries which previously were closed to them, and in many higher positions for which they were substituted. I have heard of no employers who felt that they were being imposed upon, especially after they had given it a trial, and after they realized that the law did not compel them to hire persons who were not fitted, but that it only asked that they not turn down, or fail to upgrade, applicants who had the necessary skills and ability solely on account of their race, color, or religion.

So far in New Jersey, after nearly 4 years of operation, unless there had been a very recent case which escaped my attention, it has not

been necessary to resort to formal hearings or use of the penalty provisions. All cases have been adjusted at the conciliation level. It is necessary, however, to have the enforcement powers in the background to obtain the cooperation of employers and others covered by the act. Evidence that this type of law has worked well in our State is provided by the fact that our legislature at its recent session and without one dissenting vote has placed the enforcement of its other general civil-rights laws against discrimination in public facilities and so forth, which have been on the books for many years, under the division against discrimination, which is handling the enforcement of the Fair Employment Act so successfully.

In my opinion, fair-employment legislation is the most fundamental and important phase of the civil-rights program. Guaranty of employment opportunity in accordance with one's ability, education, and talents can accomplish more than anything else in the solutions of the problems of Negroes and other minority groups.

There is very little incentive for members of minority groups to become more educated and more useful and more responsible members of the community if they continue to be denied the right to be employed in positions for which they are qualified by education, training, and natural ability, solely because of their race, color, or religion. The right to be employed and to contribute to the full extent of their abilities will provide Negroes and other minority groups with a real incentive to develop and become more responsible, more useful, and more acceptable citizens.

This legislation has worked well in New Jersey and in several other States and cities. It can work elsewhere, even in the South, if administered wisely.

I think if we revert for a moment to the situation which has been suggested by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Battle about how it would work if tried in the South, we may be fearing more there than actually exists. I think if it could be understood by the people who will be affected by the law, both the potential employees and members of minority groups and by the employers, that it does not require them to hire Negroes or Mexicans or Chinese or anything else just to have them represented among their employees, that it does not give the Negro or anybody else the right to be employed unless he actually has the qualifications for the job and is acceptable in every other way, but it just says that you cannot turn him down because he is a Negro, a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever the case might be-I think if that is gotten across to both the employer groups and potential employees, a lot of the misunderstanding about the law would be done away with and it would not be as hard to sell to the people in some of the Southern States.

That is the end of my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Howell.

I personally accept your opening remark, that we do not have in this bill the regional council proposal. I think it would be very wise if this committee, reading the bill over, would consider adding that to the bill.

I would just like to ask you one question, not to embarass you. There was a time not so long ago when, in the North, people of my minority group thought that New Jersey was a pretty tough State.

In the past 2 years, New Jersey has surpassed even New York State with civil-rights laws which are broader, much more stringent, and that go deeply to the heart of the problem, which have been passed by the people going to the polls and have been passed by both Houses of your legislative body. And the reaction of the people to this new civil-rights atmosphere in New Jersey is of what nature? Has there been a violent reaction any place, especially in south Jersey? What has happened?

Mr. HOWELL. I do not think there has. It was anticipated that there would be a much more violent reaction to it. Of course, I would admit that there are a number of people who have inborn prejudices, who like to talk about those things and rebel to a certain extent, but Í think the general acceptance by the public has been very, very good, and the result has not been that the situation has caused any great difficulty to adjust to. We have a good, workable fair-employment law. We have provided an acceptable and workable way of enforcing our general civil-rights laws. We have done away with discrimination in our National Guard and militia. That is, at least we have decided to do away with it, and we are making a start to implementing that.

I was agreeably surprised to find as the result of a questionnaire that I sent out in my district, that people are very, very substantially behind most of the items in the President's entire civil-rights program. I was most agreeably surprised at the extent of their acceptance of it. It was rather overwhelming. I do not think it has created any great problem, and I think we have done a fair thing that is going to be of great help.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. No questions.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. Burke?

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Howell, I appreciate your very fine statement, particularly as it applies to the experience that you have had in your own State. One of the things I think you have done for us is to point up that this bill, like the type of law that you have in your State, is not a law that says to the employer, "You shall not hire certain people." It merely says that race, color, creed, and national origin, or whatever it might be, shall not be either a qualification or a disqualification, or a bar to employment; is that not your point? It boils right down to that?

Mr. HOWELL. That is right. I think there is one point of misunderstanding among the public generally and even some people who might conceivably know better, that that is not involved. You do not have to hire a certain number of Negroes or a certain number of Jews. You do not have to hire any of them unless some who are eminently qualified apply and you have positions available to put them into, and then you only have to hire them if they are at least as qualified or better qualified than others that you might have under consideration. Mr. BURKE. The only thing is that you cannot set up divisions between the people on the basis of race, religion, and so on, as a bar to employment.

Mr. HOWELL. That is right.

Mr. BURKE. That is all.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »