feed. He is around to protect the American people on vital issues from what Senator Russell and others of this kind have termed the "dictatorship of a temporary majority." Presumably "issues that are vital" are issues that Senator Jenner and his collaborators happen to consider vital.

Prefer an oligarchy on bills: 96 monarchs on rules

Senator Jenner refers to the Senate "functioning as a deliberative and unmolested body." It has too often happend that, caught in the throes of a filibuster, the Senate and therefore the entire Congress has ceased to function at all. The operation of the legislative branch has been brought to a halt by the action of a few men defying and defeating a majority in the United States Senate.

Senator Jenner's suggestion, concurred in by the secret bipartisan coalition in the Rules Committee, that the Senate should function as "an unmolested body," resembles Louis XIV's assertion: "L'etat, c'est Moi" (I am the State). Senator Jenner's attempt to establish the Senate as above "molestation" by the American people who elect its Members, pay their salaries and expenses in taxes, and supply the lives, strength, and skill to support and implement the policies enacted by Congress is of a piece with the presumptuousness underlying section 3 of rule 22, viz:

"That the Eighty-first Senate by action taken March 17, 1949, could bind all subsequent Senates to the end of time to the folly of rule 22 by an unconstitutional requirement that any change in any Senate rule can be taken up only when the last filibustering Senator has subsided."

In declaring that the Senate can liberate itself from minority rule only by unanimous consent, section 3 of rule 22 decrees-and Senator Jenner agreesthat each Senator shall be an oligarch on legislation and, as long as his wind holds out, an absolute monarch, a Louis XIV in the making or changing of rules for the birth or burial of legislation.

The sublime arrogance and folly of Senator Jenner's report rises to a Wagnerian crescendo in the declaration that the Senate, above molestation by the people through majority rule within the Senate, "will better serve the welfare of the people of the United States by shielding them from their own harmful intentions."

In those words, members of the parties of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson who subscribe to the Jenner report declare and establish their contempt for the ability and capacity of the people of the United States to govern themselves; they declare their belief that the people are incapable, that majority rule is, as many southern Democrats have stated, dangerous, and that it must be prevented.

Senator Russell gets down to legislative brass tacks

Using Senator Russell's testimony as a preamble to the launching of his own denunciation of democratic majority rule, Senator Jenner makes a subtle and perhaps inadvertent rearrangement of words and meaning:

"In his testimony at the hearings, Senator Richard B. Russell, United States Senator from Georgia, pointed out that there have been many times when the majority, thinking itself right, was relentless to act, even though it was at that time perhaps in the wrong and that history ultimately proved it to be wrong" (S. Rept. No. 1256, p. 4).

Senator Russell's own words are more exact, clearer, less equivocal. Quoting them in order corresponding to the Jenner report's indirect paraphrase:

"The majority always thinks it is right, and is impatient to act, but there have been a great many times when the majority was wrong" (hearings, p. 251). "Of course, deliberation in this day and time does not appeal to some people. It never appeals to any Senator [obviously including Senator Russell] when he knows he has the votes to pass his measure" (hearings, p. 251).

Speaking for himself in his own words, Senator Russell makes it plain that, after all the talk about majority rule as "a trial of brute strength" that would lay the Senate open to assault upon a presumed unselfish and high-minded minority by "Members of the Senate who were utterly without conscience," he is willing to recognize that fact that he or any other Senator wants to get to a vote whenever he has the votes to win and that he or any other Senator wants to delay, avoid, and prevent a vote when he does not have the votes to win.

Stripped of rhetoric, Senator Russell's position-which is Senator Jenner's position and the position of the secret bipartisan coalition in the Senate Rules Committee is that of an entrenched and skillful minority with years of success,

power, and experience behind it, fearful of the American people and their will, fighting with craft, cunning, and determination against the expression of that will through majority rule in the Senate of the United States, as plainly intended by the Constitution of the United States.

1

III. FAIR-EMPLOYMENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE 1939 BUT MUCH GROUND HAS BEEN LOST SINCE THE DEATH OF FEDERAL FEPC; WALL STREET RECOGNIZES THAT FAIR EMPLOYMENT IS GOOD BUSINESS

That progress toward greater equity of income for nonwhite families has been made over the years cannot and should not be denied. In 1939, according to the data of the United States Census Bureau, the median income among nonwhite families and individuals whose major source of income was wages was approximately 38 percent of the income of white families and individuals. By 1950, the median income for nonwhites had risen to 55 percent of the median among whites. TABLE I.-Median incomes, white and nonwhite families and individuals without nonwage income, for the United States-1939 and 1950

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau Current Population Reports-Consumer Income Series p. 60, No. 9, table 14.

Income gains and losses since 1939

Credit for this significant improvement must be given to many forces and groups: The shift from a depression economy to full employment; the movement by Negroes to the large northern cities where wage rates are higher and where Negroes find greater opportunity in higher paid industrial, clerical, and professional occupations; the work that has been done in both the North and the South by unions such as the UAW-CIO, fighting for equal job opportunities for all. And then there is the wartime Federal FEPC, and the work done by some of the States since World War II.

This increase from 38 percent to 55 percent in an 11-year period shows, however, not only how far we have come; it shows also how much further we still have to go before economic parity is achieved.

Any feeling of complacency about the situation is reduced by examining what has happened since the end of World War II and the elimination of FEPC. There is strong reason to believe that since 1945 we have actually lost a great deal of ground in the fight for true economic democracy.

Completely comparable figures cannot always be put together from the available data. However, the United States Census Bureau does supply data that show what has happened to the ratio of incomes among white and nonwhite families, those most likely to be affected by FEPC and similar measures. According to the Bureau of Census, in 1945, when war and FEPC activity were at their height, the ratio of nonwhite to white family incomes also reached an all-time high. That year median income among white urban families was approximately $3,085. Among their nonwhite neighbors, the median income was $2,052. For every dollar of income received by a white family, the Negro or other nonwhite family received about 662 cents.

By 1950, median income among white families had risen to $3,813. The median among nonwhites had risen much less-to $2,312. Instead of the approximately 67 percent of the median income among white families, the nonwhites now received less than 61 percent. Negro families fell behind in the race with prices.

We want to draw attention again, as we did last October, to the fact that the nonwhite families not only fell behind in the march toward economic justice; they also fell behind tragically in the race with prices. From 1945 to 1950, while median incomes rose 13 percent for these families, the Consumers Price Index shot up 34 percent.

1 See legal brief submitted by the UAW-CIO to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, October 3, 1952, hearings, p. 147-158.

TABLE II.-Median incomes, urban white and nonwhite families, 1945-50

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports-Consumer Income. Annual releases for the years shown.

Situation better in northern cities but disparity of income exists everywhere In all fairness, it must be pointed out that the situation was probably significantly better in the northern cities than in the southern cities. Census data for 1949 show that the ratio of nonwhite to white incomes among urban families in the United States as a whole was approximately 58 percent. In not one of the major southern cities for which the Census Bureau supplied comparable data was this ratio achieved. As shown in the accompanying table the ratios (exclusive of the metropolitan areas listed) range from a low of 48 percent in Memphis to a high of 55 percent in Washington, D. C.

TABLE III.—Median family income in 19491 and cost of the city worker's family

1 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1950 Census of Population-Preliminary Reports. (series PC-5, issued in 1951).

2 U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review, February 1951, p. 152. Data shown is for October 1949.

3 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports-Consumer Income. Feb. 18, 1951, tables 1, 2, and 7. Note: In 1949, 54.5 percent of urban families were single-earner families. NOTE. The median income of families having 1 earner and 2 children under 18-the kind of family for which the city worker's family budget is set up-would probably run slightly above the median income shown in this table.

Additional poignancy is given to these income figures for white and nonwhite families alike when they are compared with the cost of living-as measured by the Department of Labor budget for a city worker's family of four people-in these same cities and areas. It can be seen from the above table that, while the median incomes among white families do come up to the cost of the budget in

some cities, in others not even the relatively better paid white families can enjoy even the standard of living described in that budget. The level of living imposed on the average nonwhite family whose income is less than half of the income of white neighbors, has too often been commented on to need additional stress here. Wall Street finds that economic justice is good for business

This committee has often heard advocates of FEPC appeal for such a measure on the grounds that it would be good business as well as morally just. We are driven to emphasize that economic justice has a dollar value, that it strengthens not only our moral position in the world but our business economy as well. We have argued this case, not only for FEPC but for unemployment compensation, international security programs, and other such measures.

Each time, the opposition has accused us of whatever happened to be the timely popular scare word for un-American ideas. However, when the chips are down even those who fight our proposals have to admit that the supporters of such reforms were right all along. They have to admit that what is morally right provides a bulwark against depression for workers and for the businessman as well and is economically and politically right.

We offer two examples which help to make this point. The first is a quotation from the Monthly Letter on Economic Conditions and Government Finance, published by the National City Bank of New York. In listing the bulwarks against the very real threat of economic collapse in 1949, this publication stressed personal savings among the people, unemployment compensation, farm price supports, and even the European recovery program, the forerunner of the present Mutual Security Program. Apparently New Dealism, long vilified, had finally demonstrated its value in terms that Wall Street can understand and appreciate. The full quotation follows:

"Another source of trouble in the past (during periods of business decline) has been the decline in the liquidity of business and individuals, resulting from increases in debt. When short-term liabilities are excessive, and when cash is short and assets cannot be sold to pay debts without severe loss, business and people are in trouble. But cash and cash equivalent assets of the economy nowincluding $52 billions of redeemable United States savings bonds held by individuals are immensely larger than before the war, and have grown much more than personal and business debts have grown. These assets are reserves of purchasing power for those who hold them. Together with corporate reserves against inventory loss, they strengthen the general situation immensely. Farm price supports, unemployment compensation insurance, and the ERP support of exports are also additional cushions and props." [Italics supplied.] Dividends of fair employment are shared by all

Now, when American economists are again speculating whether buying power will again prove too small to support full employment as defense pipelines are filled, comes the Wall Street Journal to testify that an approach to the fairemployment practice we are here discussing has already helped to create billions of additional purchasing power among the Negro families of America and to direct the attention of American businessmen to the $15 billion market that now, for the first time, exists among these people.

What is responsible? The better opportunities that Negroes find in the big cities, says the Wall Street Journal, and it lists improved job classifications, better education, higher earnings.

We do not feel, as the Journal does, that this represents a "special market." Home ownership, radio and TV sets, food, airplane travel, and headache remedies these are some of the products and services the Journal mentions. The only thing "special" about them is that so many American families-because their skins are not white must ask the special help of their Government to achieve their full right to obtain them.

(The Wall Street Journal article is attached to this statement as exhibit A.)

IV. THE SHAMEFUL, COSTLY RECORD OF POSTWAR JOB DISCRIMINATION IN ONE STATE Since prewar patterns of discrimination in employment were allowed to assert themselves again when World War II ended, it is no accident that State employment service agencies are now reporting exactly the same situation that the Federal FEPC discovered when it began its activities in 1941. Because it is rele

1 Monthly Letter on Economic Conditions and Government Finance, June 1949, pp. 62-63, National City Bank of New York.

vant and important evidence, I want to read from a statement made by the executive director of the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, Mr. Harry C. Markle, before the State Affairs Committee of the Michigan State Legislature on April 18, 1951. Mr. Markle was reporting on the experiences of the Michigan State Employment Service, which is part of his agency, in the. placement of minority-group workers in the Detroit labor market area. I am sure a similar story would have to be told no matter what area was being discussed, unless that area is under an effective antidiscrimination law.

Mr. Markle points out that, as wartime antidiscrimination policies came to an end, discrimination specifications in request for workers coming to the State employment service began to mount:

"By June 1948, about 65 percent of all job openings in the Detroit labor market had written discriminatory specifications, and others with no written specifications most frequently presented rejection at the gates."

In 1948 the agency had almost 23,000 unfilled requests for workers that excluded workers of certain racial, religious, and nationality groups..

Letters tell human cost of exclusion from job opportunities

The human cost of such discrimination is told in letters received by the Commission, and letters received by Gov. G. Mennen Williams, and referred by him to the Commission for action.

Here is an excerpt from a letter referred to the Employment Service during the height of World War II, September 1943:

"I am married and have a child. My husband left for the Army Saturday and I have no one to care for the baby or myself. I haven't any place to live. * * *

"I tried to get a job in defense plants because I thought after my husband! was in the Army I would get consideration but they are hiring just white women in these factories.

"If my husband was here then I wouldn't worry about work. So if it were possible for him to come home and take care of his family then we could live happy, but with him away and a Negro can't get a job because of color, I and the baby can't go on.

This is from a letter written after World War II was over:

"I've noticed the various papers are filled with male help wanted, like during the war. Well I happened to be in the Army at that time, since January 1942 up until February 1948 so I was out on that deal, not only myself by many others. "I've been in those lines in which over 1,000 people were employed. It was always the white fellow behind me that got the job. I've been in over 15 different lines, and it's always the same thing."

This letter is dated March 12, 1951:

"Governor WILLIAMS: I want you to know I am a colored man and I went to World War (No. 2) and I have to walk and walk trying to get a job and they will not hire me.

"They will hire a white man and will not hire a colored man. They send all to war together but it is a difference when they get back to United States of America.

Unemployment rate shows present discrimination

Additional evidence of the tragic toll taken by discrimination is the fact that, proportionately, unemployment among the nonwhite workers is greater in Detroit than among their white fellow workers. This is also true nationally. Among those who have prepared themselves for white-collar jobs, the shortage of opportunity is more drastic than among unskilled workers. At the time of Mr. Markle's statement, only one white-collar job in his file was open to a nonwhite worker. Mr. Markle comments: "As we proceed down the rungs of job opportunities from the skilled through to the unskilled there is some appreciable improvement in the proportion of positions open to nonwhite workers. Unfortunately there is also an increase in their proportion of the supply. While nonwhites represented 39 percent of the skilled applicants and 45 percent of the semiskilled, they numbered 63 percent of the unskilled."

Idle men and women, unfilled jobs, the Nation's loss

The cost of defense production can only be guessed, but figures like the following, which are contained in Mr. Markle's statement, may help us to make that guess:

In March 1951, in the 7 major offices of the Detroit labor market area there were 508 unfilled job openings for unskilled male workers; at the same time, the