Employment Service had 874 nonwhite applicants for unskilled jobs in its active

file.

The Service listed 423 unfilled jobs for semi-skilled workers; its files contained the names of 523 nonwhite applicants for jobs in this category.

At the skilled level, there were 719 openings, but the agency concluded on the basis of experience that there was no use making referrals from its list of 148 nonwhite applicants for such jobs.

While employers continued to report a critical need for workers to fill jobs in all categories of skills, they continued to insist that only white workers need apply.

Anticivil rights clique tries to bar FEPC forever

The wartime FEPC was a step toward a democratic solution of the American dilemma. The Fair Employment Practices Commission was created by the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a measure necessary for the successful prosecution of World War II, and was acquiesced in by the Congress until, with the end of that war, the power of the anticivil rights minority decreed its death. A year earlier, this group had inserted an amendment to the independent offices appropriation bill for 1945 (Public Law 358, 78th Cong., act of June 27, 1944) which attempted to prevent the use of appropriated funds for an FEPC at any time in the future, just as the same clique has tried to bind future Congresses by the last clause of rule XXII.

The real FEPC issue as stated by a conservative organ

The opponents of FEPC talk in terms of moral issues, of principles, of everything except the main issue that they fear the economic and political effects of economic betterment of the Negro. This is no secret. In the conservative David Lawrence's United States News and World Report of February 11, 1949, we find the following remarkable exposition of the real issue:

"And, in the backs of their minds, some of the southerners see the old division between the Negro and the white worker wiped out in the South. An undivided southern working force would be easier to unionize. And an organized working force in the South could spell the same disaster for southern conservatives that organized labor has worked out for the conservatives in the North.

"The South's political system is staked upon the battles of the present Congress, and of these the fight against a ban on filibusters is the key engagement. If the rules are changed to ban filibusters, southerners have little hope of winning their fight. Restrictions that hold down the vote are important to the South's one-party system. And southerners fear the Negro vote and unionization.

"Negroes are insisting on more pay, a larger part in all kinds of work, and shorter hours. Negro women are demanding more pay and less work, or, in view of the better pay of their husbands, they are not working. This is deeply resented by the white South, long conditioned to Negro help for little pay.

"In this situation, old-line southern politicians are fighting with their backs to the wall. If white and Negro workers in the South manage to work together and get to the polls, they can send a new kind of southerner to Washington. He would speak for the poorest people in the Nation and might make the New York and Chicago New Dealers look like pikers. The southerners want to use the filibuster to halt this stand."

Problem is national, solution should be national

Our union has done much to insure minority groups fair treatment on the job, but our ability to solve the problem is limited. The basic trouble arises at the hiring gate; we shall continue to fight for the inclusion of fair hiring practice clauses in our contracts with employers. But the best we can do will not meet the national need.

Just as our union and other unions interested in fair play for minorities can have effect only within limited areas, the State laws-of which the New York law is a model-can have only limited effect. The process of getting individual States to pass antidiscrimination laws is just too slow. Why should Negro families continue to eat less and wear less and sleep in worse housing and die 6 to 10 years earlier than white workers for the next 10 or 15 or 20 or 50 years while we try to do in 48 separate places what needs to be done at one place and time? The problem is a national one; the solution should be a national one.

It is now 5 years since UAW-CIO President Walter P. Reuther appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, to testify on legislation to establish a Fair Employment Practices Commission. We have gained nothing in permanent Federal legislation to insure fair treatment

for minorities. We must have a legislative method by which the majority of the Senate can act quickly. The Senate must get itself out of the dead end of Filibuster Alley. As the President's Committee on Civil Rights said in its 1947 report, five long years ago "the time for action is now."

V. Either Ives bill (S. 551 or Humphrey bill S. 1732) would provide effective FEPC: Humphrey bill permits subcontracting to State or local agencies As to the two FEPC bills themselves, we endorse both and would be glad to have either become law. The Humphrey bill (S. 1732) seems somewhat better because its section 7 (a) explicitly states that the Commission has power to prevent unlawful discriminatory) employment practices and declares such power to be exclusive, not to be affected "by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, code, law, or otherwise" and also permits ceding cases to State or local agencies whose authority is not inconsistent with that assigned by the bill to the Federal Commission.

It may be that the Ives bill provision for seven members instead of the 5 members provided in the Humphrey bill is preferable, in that a larger number would make possible more expeditious handling of cases. We are inclined to favor this provision in the Ives bill.

We are not disposed to attach much weight or importance to the fact that the Ives bill was introduced promptly at the beginning of the first session of the Eighty-second Congress, while the Humphrey bill was not introduced until 5 months later, on June 25, 1951, a few weeks after the late minority leader, Senator Wherry, had made a great play of his demand for Senate Rules Committee hearing on proposals to change rule 22 of which he was coauthor.

It is our view that those Senators who voted against Vice President Barkley's ruling March 11, 1949, that the old rule 22 applied to all business before the Senate and those Senators who voted 6 days later, March 17, 1949, for the new and present rule 22 poured FEPC and other civil rights legislation down the drain by handing control of the Senate over to a filibustering minority.

Votes behind the sponsorship of the two FEPC bills

With the filibustering minority' secure under rule 22, sponsorship and speed in introducing an FEPC bill, in pressing for a meaningless change in rule 22 and in urging hearings on FEPC bills that have no apparent chance of getting to a roll-call vote in the Senate do not mean a great deal in and of themselves.

We note that S. 551 is cosponsored by 12 Republican Senators, 4 of whom voted against the Barkling ruling, 6 of whom voted for the present rule 22 which makes a roll call on S. 551 practically impossible. Senators Langer, Capehart, Jenner, and Martin voted against the Barkley ruling (which was overturned by a vote of 41-46). Senators Saltonstall, Hendrickson, Capehart, Jenner, Martin, and Smith of Maine voted for the present rule 22. Senator Ives, the prime sponsor of S. 551, and Senators Morse, Lodge, and Tobey voted for the Barkley ruling and against the present rule 22.

Subsequently, Senator Saltonstall testified in favor of the Wherry resolution to change rule 22 so as to permit cloture by a two-thirds majority of those voting.

Senator Hendrickson has stated that he regrets his 1949 vote for rule 22 and, as a member of the Senate Rules Committee, filed separate views unequivocally endorsing majority rule in the breaking of filibusters.

Senator Lodge, ranking minority member of the Rules Committee, who did not attend the January 29 meeting nor give his voting proxy to another committee member, filed separate views endorsing majority rule in the breaking of filibusters.

Senator Ives, who is not a member of the Rules Committee, testified before that committee in support of his resolution to change rule 22 to permit cloture on bills but not on rule changes by vote of a majority of the entire membership of the Senate. He expressed fear that a simple majority of those present and voting might permit the making of important decisions by a minority of the entire membership of the Senate. The arithmetic of votes in cloture attempts and on other hotly contested issues suggests that this possibility is remote.

The eight Democrats sponsoring S. 1732 and Republican Senator Morse, who is the only member of his party to be a cosponsor of both S. 551 and S. 1732, have a flawless record on the Barkley ruling and the vote on rule 22. Senators Humphrey, Douglas, Magnuson, Morse, Murray, and Neely were right on both votes. Senators Benton, Lehman, and Pastore were not then in the Senate.

While partisan competition is a good thing, it might have been better to have continued earlier bipartisan cosponsorship of a single FEPC bill and to have concentrated partisan competition in getting enough votes to break a filibuster and/or rule 22 so that the members of the Senate could, for the first time, vote for or against FEPC itself.

At this late hour in the life of the present Senate, with the political conventions and the campaign only 90 days away, we suggest a bipartisan liberal coalition to fight the bipartisan coalition that supports rule by the veto power of a filibustering minority.

We urge your committee to report out a bill for an effective FEPC with all possible speed, but in doing so, to put in your report the facts of legislative and political life under rule 22, so that there will be a clear understanding, when this Senate adjourns, as to where the body of FEPC is buried, who killed it, how, and why.

That will be a contribution to the cause of FEPC, of civil rights, the establishment of majority rule in the Senate of the United States, and a democracy made stronger within and among the nations of the world.

EXHIBIT A

[From the Wall Street Journal, February 23, 1952]

NEGRO MARKET IT EXPANDS SHARPLY AS ECONOMIC WELFARE OF NEGRO PEOPLE IMPROVES

HEAVILY CENTERED IN CITIES, THEY HAVE AN INCOME OF $15 BILLION A YEAR INCREASE IN HOME OWNING

(By Felicia Anthenelli, staff correspondent of the Wall Street Journal) CHICAGO. Some United States businessmen think they're standing on the shore line of a whole new ocean of business-and are backing their judgment with hard cash.

What they think they've discovered is a special market among Negroes. Not all businessmen would agree it exists separately from all markets. But it's an idea which retailers and manufacturers might find worth exploring.

The total Negro population now numbers 15 million, with an aggregate income of about $15 billion yearly. And it's been improving its economic status at a rapid rate in the past decade, largely as a result of large-scale migrations to the big cities.

TREK TO THE CITIES

In Chicago, for instance, the number of Negroes jumped 80 percent from 1940 to 1950, compared with a mere 9 percent increase in the white population. Some other cities which have shown large gains: Los Angeles, 115 percent; Detroit, 109 percent; Cleveland, 75 percent; New York, 62 percent; Washington, 48 percent.

One indication of the increased interest in the possibility of getting more Negro customers can be seen in increased advertising in Negro publications. For example, the March issue of Ebony, the slick Life-like magazine for Negroes, boasts 12 new national advertisers. Among them are such diverse concerns as Philco, Morton's Salt, Van Camp's, Nunn-Bush, and Magic Chef.

In New York, the Amsterdam News, a Negro newspaper, recently added to its advertisers such diverse companies as George A. Hormel & Co., maker of meat products, Whitehall Pharmacal Co., which produces Anacin, a headache remedy, and British Overseas Airways Corp.

Says Clyde Hunt, Amsterdam News advertising director: "The firm which recognizes the special aspects of the Negro market and works with them is proving most successful in selling the market."

"DON'T TALK DOWN"

What are these special aspects?

John H. Johnson, publisher of Ebony, offers his advertisers the use of a film, Selling the Negro Market, which graphically present some of his ideas on the subject. For one thing, it advises, "Don't talk down to him, or patronize him. Don t mention Joe Louis or Jackie Robinson, unless you know he's interested in sports. Don't pigeonhole him into any class. Talk on a level with him, and call him mister or by his first name, according to local custom."

Joseph B. La Cour, general manager of Associated Publishers, Inc., a cooperative group representing Negro newspapers throughout the country, adds: "Many avenues of spending are closed to the Negro, or are impractical for him. As a result, he spends more of his income on such consumer goods as clothing and food and home furnishings."

EVIDENCE IS ABUNDANT

Statisticians have no trouble trotting out abundant evidence indicating that the Negro's economic status-and buying potential-is sharply improving. Official census figures indicate that the average Negro family income climbed 192 percent between 1940 and 1950-compared with an earnings increase of 146 percent for the average white family.

It is estimated that Negro urban home ownership increased nearly 130 percent between 1940 and 1950.

Negro college enrollment is up 2,500 percent from 1930, and the Negro has improved his job classification and, along with this, has moved up the wage scale. The census reports a 227-percent increase in Negro clerical workers from 1940 to 1950; a 77-percent increase in craftsmen and foremen; a 33-percent rise in professional and technical workers; and 87-percent rise in sales personnel.

TAILORED FOR THE JOB

Manufacturers reaching for this rising market through Negro publications tailor their ad copy specifically for the job.

Many advertisers in the Negro media use Negro models. Pet Milk Co. of St. Louis began using Negro media in 1946; and, while the company says it is impossible to measure the results in actual figures, C. J. Hibbard, advertising director, says the campaign "has been very successful." Their ads often feature the Fultz quadruplets, famous Negro babies of Reidsville, N. C., who have been raised on Pet Milk. It also portrays the "happy family"-pictures of a Negro bus driver, for example, with his family, Pet Milk users.

Dean Milk Co., a large Chicago dairy, realized last year that Negro people are almost never mentioned in the ads unless they are sports or movie stars. It took pictures in local stores showing the average Negro consumer talking to the Dean Dairy Maid, and ran them in the Chicago Defender, a leading Negro newspaper. Dean sales on Chicago's South Side shot up considerably as a result.

QUAKER IN HARLEM

Pillsbury Mills has been running full-page ads since June 1950, featuring its best-selling Best Flour. It ties the ads in with the Negro market by having Ebony's own food editor, Freda de Knight, a graduate of Paris' Cordon Bleu gourmet cooking school, visit Ann Pillsbury's kitchen, giving readers baking hints. Quaker Oats Co. sponsors two Negro radio programs in Harlem, one of them Larry Fuller's Harlem Frolics, to push its cereals and corn-meal sales. It also does a lot of outdoor advertising in the South, aimed at Negro buyers. At one time it also had Negro disk jockey, Jon Massey, of Washington's WWDC, push its Aunt Jemima self-rising flour by having him visit Negro supermarkets each week, and conduct radio interviews with customers.

Mr. REUTHER. We are happy to have the opportunity to appear here to emphasize the importance and the need for fair-employmentpractices legislation. We believe this hearing gives us that opportu nity to stress the current need and we appreciate this opportunity.

We believe that today the need for fair-employment-practice legislation is greater than ever before. I should like to point out that five costly years have gone by, heartbreaking years, when this committee under Republican leadership last held hearings on the subject of discrmination. Five years is a long time. A lot of people have paid the penalty for discriminaton and loss of jobs, denial of jobs, and denial of upgrading, as we call it in the automobile industry, of getting promotions that they deserve on the basis of their ability.

I do not come here today to present all of the facts and the need and arguments for FEPC, in which this committee I am sure is really

interested, in fair practice, antidiscrimination, and implementation by the enactment of legislation.

Frankly, Senator Humphrey, I think, despite all the people who have testified since this current hearing has started and the other testimony that has been presented, the problem today really is not building the case for discrimination. Frankly, witnesses have been coming down to Washington for more than 10 years, testifying eloquently with statistics, stories, telling the human side of the problem of discrimination. So, I believe the case for fair-employment-practices legislation is well documented. In fact, I believe in the libraries of our land, and including the Congressional Library, the shelves are bulging and bending with documentation for the need for fair-employment-practices legislation.

I do not want to pretend, Senator, that I am going to open up and make a revelation of the need for fair-employment practices. I believe it has been documented year after year after year. I would like, however, in the spirit of this hearing, to bring some current information to put alongside of this long, long list of testimony.

Senator HUMPHREY. May I just say at this point that, as you are justly pointing out, it has been 5 years since the Senate committee held any hearings. However, in the Eighty-first Congress the House did hold extensive hearings, and some of us from the Senate went there to testify. At that time, if you will recall, the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee did report out a fair-employment-practices bill, not without hearings, as we said, but without repetition of the same hearings that went on in the House. We took their record; analyzed their record; we discussed it in committee, and we finally reported out a bill.

Of course that bill is what set off a filibuster and at that time, as you know, we were unable to apply cloture, so we had to drop the legislation.

It has been my desire as chairman of this subcommittee to make this legislative record, which I agree is somewhat repetitious, and I do not thing anyone is going to produce any great, astounding new evidence as to the need. But we have tried to keep our information up to date so that there is in the Eighty-first and Eighty-second Congress a library of information concerning discrimination in employment and concerning the efforts of State and local governments and individual and private organizations to combat this discrimination and to correct it.

I am not such an impractical idealist as not to realize the difficulties that we face, but I can assure, Mr. Reuther, that we are not playing games with this legislation. We are going to report a bill out of this committee and we are going to get it on the Senate Calandar and we are gone to ask that it be called up on the Senate Calendar and we are going to see how people vote. That is our purpose; not to get exercise around here and get volumes of testimony.

Mr. REUTHER. I appreciate that.

Senator HUMPHREY. I want that for the record.

Mr. REUTHER. Not only your words today but your actions in behalf of fair employment legislation are very clear.

I thing the Senate committee acted well in not repeating the last time the voluminous hearing but acting on the basis of the testimony before the House.