tion that our policy of nondiscriminatory employment is a permanent and wellentrenched one, under which discriminatory behavior and complaints based on prejudice will not be tolerated. On the theory that an ounce of trouble prevention is worth many pounds of cure, we have found it useful to enlist on our side those whom we thought might lead any serious opposition. As it turned out, we never did have any organized opposition to our policy, or any really serious problems with individuals.

Our integration program was well underway before the Connecticut fair employment law was enacted in 1947. Since then, we have naturally cooperated fully with the State commission on civil rights, the agency administering the law, as have the great majority of Connecticut industries, commercial establishments, and labor unions. The State commission has the power to order hearings. to issue "cease and desist" orders where mediation attempts fail, and if necessary, to petition the courts for enforcement of such orders. The provisions of the law may also be invoked against employees attempting to obstruct adherence of the law.

For all its authority, the commission has had to order hearings in only three instances in 16 years. During that time, 1.137 complaints of discrimination have been processed by the commission, of which 48 percent were found to be based on some degree of discrimination. Excepting the three hearings, all of these were satisfactorily adjusted by mediation. Of the remainder, 44 percent were dismissed because of insufficient evidence of discrimination. The remaining 8 percent consisted of complaints which were withdrawn or were outside the commission's jurisdiction, or could not be processed because the complainant was no longer available.

Our State commission has used its "big stick" scarcely at all; but the know!edge that it is there undoubtedly has helped obtain employment for many victims of prejudice.

The commission does not pretend that it controls all employment discrimination, knowing full well that not all cases of discrimination are reported and that the intent to discriminate, if skillfully concealed, is sometimes difficult to prove. Nevertheless, its activities are just about the most generally effective educational weapons in our State, and are backed by the power to exercise legal compulsion when no other course is possible.

The effectiveness of Connecticut's law through good administration is reflected in comments I have seen from a number of employers within the State attesting to the fact that they have experienced little or nothing in the way of additional personnel problems because of adherence to the law; and that the general walkouts, loss of business, and other dreadful happenings prophesied by the law's opponents have never materialized.

Thus, no dramatic upheaval has followed the enactment of FEP legislation in Connecticut. The businessman's personnel problems have not swollen to mammoth proportions, nor has he been forced to spend the best part of his time in court as an alternative to hiring every minority group member who presents himself for employment. His freedom is not restricted except for his freedom to be biased in his personnel policies. He is not hounded unjustly, as evidenced by the fact that discrimination actually has been found in about half the cases investigated.

In protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens to share equally in em ployment opportunities, the Connecticut law in no way interferes with the equally fundamental right of an employer to buy and retain the services of those who are best qualified to help him run his business. He is never told that he must hire an applicant because the applicant is of the Negro race or of the Jewish faith. He is merely restrained from refusing to hire these same applicants because of their color or religion. He may turn down any and all minority group applicants who come his way if this action is honestly based upon their failure to qualify for the jobs applied for. If the employer has two applicants of apparently equal qualifications, one of whom is, for instance, a Negro, he is asked only to make his choice on the same basis as he would if both applicants are white. Once a minority group member is employed, he may be fired or laid off, if this becomes necessary, in exactly the same way as any other employee. if discrimination plays no part in the reason for the termination. No employer need maintain any sort of percentage or ratio of minority group employees with

in his organization, or extend any special privileges to those whom he has employed.

Businesses which have entered upon an active program of integration have learned, as we have learned, that qualified Negroes or other minority group members can be assimilated into the work force without real difficulty, and that they will pay their way in efficiency and loyalty as well as, and sometimes better than, those who have never experienced prejudice or felt any pressing need to prove themselves.

It is often said that the only long-range full solution to the problem of racial injustice and discrimination is to change the hearts and minds of men. This is true, of course. But it does not, in my judgment, argue against the provision of basic minimum standards of justice and opportunity through laws, particularly when the majority of our citizens agree that such laws are necessary, as I am convinced they now do.

Legislation for fair employment has helped open the door for qualified Negroes in Connecticut, and in the other States which have enforceable laws. They have a better chance to develop new skills and knowledge through working experience which was previously denied them, and to gain, as a race, a real incentive for seeking the higher education which has so often netted them nothing more than work as janitors and laborers.

Connecticut is 1 of 23 States which now have fair employment laws. Nineteen of these States, including Connecticut, have laws that are enforceable. The remainder depend entirely on conciliation and persuasion for compliance, and this, in effect, largely cancels out the laws' usefulness. In these States, and in those which have no legislation, employers are still free to deny equal opportunity for employment to Negro citizens. If there is no longer time to wait out, as a nation, the injustice of segregation, or the denial of voting rights to Negroes, then the question which must now be in the minds of Americans everywhere is whether we have not also run out of time to watch, wait, and hope while millions of Negro Americans are denied a fair opportunity to work and earn a living.

While fair employment, and the economic justice it represents, may be only half the battle for America's Negroes, it is the greater half. Improvement of the Negro's economic lot can help breed social improvement and reduce the high price we pay for slum-bred crime, disease, and poverty. Fair employment practices reduce the tragic waste of latent human ability by opening training, apprenticeship, and other education programs to all qualified applicants, regardless of color. Fair employment permits the Negro to join with us in the creation and consumption of goods and services, which are the Nation's true wealth. And as his income grows, he will have his best opportunity to achieve social, environmental, and educational equality as well. Equal economic opportunity will help erase the difference between white and Negro Americans-a difference born not of the Negro's color or his origin, but of the effect that color and origin have had upon his relationship with others, upon his opinion of himself, upon his outlook, his culture, and his aspirations.

In past years, like many individuals and groups concerned with fair employment, I believe that the time was not then ripe for Federal fair employment legislation. Instead, I advocated legislation for States where the majority of employers voluntarily practiced equality of job opportunity. The hastening of the voluntary process I had hoped for has not come about. It seems to me now that the time for waiting has passed. Only a Federal law, I am convinced, can accomplish in the field of fair employment what must be done, and done now, for all American Negroes, and other minorities.

This country, with its traditions, stands for individual freedom. Until now, this has included freedom to discriminate in employment. But this freedom so seriously impairs the greater freedom of equality of opportunity, we should no longer condone it, in my judgment. If freedom is to mean anything, then all our citizens should be free to develop and employ the God-given talents and abilities they possess. They cannot do this if they are denied the right to fair employment, either by businesses or unions. I earnestly hope the Congress passes the proposed fair employment legislation.

STATEMENT OF WALTER H. WHEELER, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PITNEY-BOWES, INC., STAMFORD, CONN., PRESENTED BY JOSEPH J. MORROW

Mr. MORROW. Thank you, Senator Clark.

I am Joseph J. Morrow, vice president for administration at Pitney-Bowes, Inc., a southern Connecticut manufacturer of postage meters and other business machines.

As the officer responsible for employment and employee relations at Pitney-Bowes, I have been the administrator of our positive program to employ Negroes in the company. I have worked with groups like the National Urban League and the National Conference of Christians and Jews in their efforts to enlarge and equalize employment opportunities for all minority groups.

Walter H. Wheeler, Jr., chairman of the board and chief executive of Pitney-Bowes, has asked me to submit this statement in his behalf since illness prevents his delivering it in person.

The statement is based upon our experience with Negro employment at Pitney-Bowes, which has had an active program for integrating Negroes, since World War II, within a State which has had a Fair Employment Practices Act since 1947.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Morrow, that act has been recently amended, has it not?

Mr. MORROW. It has in the beginning, when the act was more or less copied after the New York State act and in New Jersey and Massachusetts, not too much financial help was given to the commission and now it is in much better shape and doing a better job.

Senator CLARK. Was not one of the more recent amendments to permit the initiation of proceedings by the commission rather than waiting for a complaint?

Mr. MORROW. Yes. That is right.

Senator CLARK. In your opinion, has that change worked well?

Mr. MORROW. Oh, very much. People do hesitate to complain, I think, to make a positive complaint. quite frequently, by the time the commission gets to work the complaint is in other parts and maybe in a different circumstance, and I think particularly with small companies they may hesitate to make complaints, or in labor unions where there is considerable autonomy within the union.

Senator CLARK. Is your plant unionized?

Mr. MORROW. No. It is not, sir.

While equal opportunity is a well-established company policy, the views expressed in this statement regarding S. 773 necessarily represent only Mr. Wheeler's personal opinion and mine.

Pitney Bowes is a medium-size office equipment manufacturing concern located in the industrial city of Stamford, where we employ about 2.300 people in the office and factory.

Another 2,500 employees are located in about 10 branch sales and service offices throughout the country. Our 1962 sales totaled about $84 million. We have agencies in most parts of the free world, and subsidiaries in England, Canada, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Brazil.

We had never consciously followed any prejudicial employment policies, from the early beginnings of our company. But, on the other

hand, we had not-until the last war-realized that we ought to take a more positive and aggressive attitude in helping to solve this social problem.

Mr. Wheeler served as New England regional director of the War Production Board during World War II, and became acutely conscious of the employment problem for minorities as a result of the War Production Board's program to break down prejudice and utilize our full existing manpower.

He resolved to estabilsh an active program for the employment of Negroes at Pitney-Bowes, and plans were accordingly made for implementing such a program. The program and the reasons for it were fully and frankly explained to supervisors and employees alike.

Management's firm determination to carry out the program was also made clear, and advice was obtained from social service groups like the National Urban League and our own Stamford community center for Negroes. The first skilled Negro employees were strategically placed, because their success at their jobs was, at the time, important. And a basic attitude toward Negro employees was established: No difference would be made in the treatment of Negro and white workers in the handling of complaints, promotions, or washroom and eating facilities.

While our experience at Pitney-Bowes is undoubtedly not unique, it does illustrate how at least one integration program was developed and succeeded. We have not yet accomplished nearly as much as we would like to accomplish, either in our Stamford plant or our field sales and service offices.

But we have made progress. We have employed skilled Negroes in practically every area of our business: in the plant, in engineering, in accounting, in public relations, and in secretarial positions, including a Negro secretary to a top executive.

Our policy of merit employment is as firmly established now, after almost 20 years, as it was in the beginning. And we are trying constantly to widen its scope and effectiveness.

We have made it plain to everyone in the company that our policy of nondiscriminatory employment is permanent and well entrenched, and that discriminatory behavior and complaints based on prejudice will not be tolerated.

We found it useful to enlist on our side those whom we thought might lead any serious opposition. At it turned out, we never did have any organized opposition to our policy, or any really serious problems with individuals.

Our integration program was well underway before the Connecticut fair employment law was enacted in 1947. Since then, we have naturally cooperated fully with the State commission on civil rights, the agency administering the law, as have the great majority of Connecticut industries, commercial establishmetns, and labor unions.

The commission has the authority to order hearings, to issue "cease and desist" orders, and, if necessary, to petition the courts for enforcement.

Nevertheless, in 16 years, it has ordered hearings in only three cases. During that time 1,137 complaints of discrimination have been processed, 48 percent of which were found to be based on some degree of discrimination.

All except the aforementioned three cases were satisfactorily adjusted by mediation. Forth-four percent were dismissed because of insufficient evidence of discrimination. The remaining 8 percent were either withdrawn, or were outside the commission's jurisdiction. or could not be processed because the complainant was no longer available. Our State commission has used its "big stick" scarcely at all, but the knowledge that it is there undoubtedly has helped obtain employment for many victims of prejudice. The commission does not pretend that it controls all employment discrimination, knowing full well that not all cases are reported and that discrimination is sometimes difficult to prove.

Nevertheless, its activities are just about the most generally effective educational weapons in our State, and are backed by the power to exercise legal compulsion when no other course is possible. I have seen comments from a number of employers in the State attesting to the fact that they have experienced little or nothing in the way of additional personnel problems because of adherence to the law, and that the general walkouts, loss of business, and other dreadful happenings prophesied by the law's opponents have never materialized.

Businesses which have entered upon an active program of integration have learned, as we have learned, that qualified Negroes or other minority group members can be assimilated into the work force without real difficulty, and that they will pay their way in efficiency and loyalty as well as, and sometimes better than, those who have never experienced prejudice or felt any pressing need to prove themselves. It is often said that the only long-range full solution to the problem of racial injustice and discrimination is to change the hearts and minds. of men. This is true, of course.

But it does not, in my judgment, argue against the provision of basic minimum standards of justice and opportunity through laws. particularly when the majority of our citizens agree that such laws are necessary, as I am convinced they now do.

Legislation for fair employment has helped open the door for qualified Negroes in Connecticut, and in the other States which have enforcible laws. They have a better chance to develop new skills and knowledge through working experience which was previously denied them, and to gain, as a race, a real incentive for seeking the higher education which has so often netted them nothing more than work as janitors and laborers.

Only 19 States have enforcible fair employment laws, and millions of American Negroes are still denied a fair opportunity to work and earn a living. Economic justice may be only half the Negro's battle but it is the more important half. His social progress and his ability to contribute to the economy will depend upon the rate of his economic progress.

In past years, like many individuals and groups concerned with fair employment, we believe that the time was not then ripe for Federal fair employment legislation. Instead, we advocated legislation for States where the majority of employers voluntarily practiced equality of job opportunity.

The hastening of the voluntary process we had hoped for has not come about. It seems to us now that the time for waiting has passed. Only a Federal law, we are convinced, can accomplish in the field of