We must be ever mindful that we cannot have an enthusiastic force of fighting men if, in our own country, those individuals are exposed to unjust humiliations and privations during their formative years.

I wish to submit for the record the experiences of Mr. Carl Beasley, Mr. Charles E. Jones, and Lt. Octave J. Rainey.

Mr. Beasley was denied living accommodations in the State of Missouri while under orders from his draft board at Pittsburg, Kans.

Mr. Jones, a member of the Air Force, was en route from Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, Tex., to the Ellington Air Base at Houston, Tex., when he was denied food at an American Bus Lines coffee shop in the bus station at Dallas. When he presented himself with two white traveling companions, he was told that he would have to eat his meal in the kitchen.

Lieutenant Rainey was forced to leave a Continental Trailway Bus because he sat down beside a white man in Texas.

A draftee or trainee in a strange community has a right to expect that his Government will provide him with a lodging place without regard to his race. Men of the fighting forces, who must travel on busses or trains and eat in roadside restaurants because they are on official business for the Government, are entitled to full protection against the humiliation of segregation.

Therefore, it must be mandatory that no facility for eating, housing, or travel, may be used by the armed services if racial segregation is required in the use of such facility. The use of any racially segregated facilities must be forbidden by law and this is the time to do it.

Trainees should be free from the insult of segregation in all forms of public transportation. It is disgusting to the men of many military installations who frequently must move from their seats in public conveyances to make room for white passengers, once the bus or car in which they are riding leaves the military area in which they are stationed.

SECOND CLASS CITIZENSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

We are told that universal military training is necessary in order to protect our country against aggressors. It is to be the means of defending democracy in a world where other forms of government may seek to engulf us and civilization as we know it.

If this is the purpose of universal military training, then we must be sure that we understand what democracy really is before we attempt to defend it.

There is no room in a democracy for second-class citizenship in any walk of life.

Certainly, there is no room for segregation and all of the humiliating implications of it in the ranks of those citizens who may be called upon to die.

As with many other elements of our population, some of the colored citizens of the United States have grave doubts about the value of the present plans for universal military training.

Representing one of the largest organizations that seeks to reflect the opinion of thinking citizens on matters of this kind, I am free to say that if universal military training is really necessary for the safety of the Nation, then let us have it.

But if it is necessary, then it must be on a nonsegregated basis. Hence if the young people of our country are not to be protected against humiliations and violence based on race while they are serving in a program of universal military training, we must oppose such training with all of the vigor at our command. Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, sir.

ELIMINATION OF SEGREGATION

I would like to emphasize briefly as I have in the 3 or 4 pages that represent the prepared testimony that I have a thing that we are seeking in this legislation. We, at the time the bill was under consideration in the first session of this Congress urged that there be incorporated provisions which would provide for the elimination of segregation in the armed services.

We also urged that there be provisions for protection of members of the armed services when they are on official duty and going about the

95064-52-33

business of defending the country. We also ask that there be no use of segregated facilities for housing and feeding of our men and women in uniform as they attempt to fulfill the duty that we call upon them to perform.

INSTANCES OF MISTREATMENT OF NEGRO SERVICEMEN

I have set forth in my testimony that I submitted to the House instances in which members of the armed services have been the victims of very serious mistreatment, and I hope sincerely that the members of the committee will read those instances because it is my opinion that they cry for some kind of remedy and some kind of protection.

I would like to cite specifically the case of some soldiers who were down in the State of Georgia as reported by the Associated Press and printed in the Washington Star of October 17; it was a fourparagraph story which had the heading, "Judge frees Negro GI's who objected to slur."

The story says that

two Negroes were freed today from sentences imposed as a result of an argument with a bus driver who they said referred to them as "niggers." In releasing Pvt. Roy Robinson of Montgomery, Ala., and John H. Johnson of Greenville, Miss. after 1 day in jail, Recorders Court Judge Ray R. Rhodenhiser, Jr., told them that they should be proud of their race and they should not object to being called "Negroes." The two soldiers, both on furlough from Camp Gordon, Ga., before going overseas said they were proud of being Negroes but objected to the connotations of the word "nigger" as used in the South. Private Robinson had been sentenced to a total of 112 days in jail, or a fine of $57 and Private Johnson drew 2 days or $26. Judge Rhodenhiser said he did not realize at the time he passed sentence that they were going home on furlough preparatory to going overseas.

Now, gentlemen of the committee, if that incident had occurred in Washington or Atlanta, or any other large metropolitan area, I am certain that the judge taking into consideration that there was an exchange of words between a bus driver and some men in uniform, probably would have reprimanded them but certainly would not have sentenced them to long jail terms as was the case here.

This indicates that we do not have a uniform code of protection under the law for these young people in various parts of the country who are serving us as members of the armed services.

Therefore, there should be something in the legislation which would provide that kind of protection. We explored this question extensively with the armed services and have come up with the recommendation that we made in the first session of this Congress. That was an amendment to the criminal code. Apparently that is the best language that can be used to reach this problem. We certainly hope that this committee will include that language or some better language if the committee can think of it, which would provide for the protection of members of the armed services.

I would like also to read to you one of the other statements that is referred to in my testimony, and that is the statement of Pfc. Beulah Johnson who is a member of the Air Forces, who tells about her experience when she was down in Houston, Tex. This is a very recent occurrence, occurring on January 17. She says:

I was on my way with a group of white WAFS to Maxwell Air Base in Montgomery, Ala., from Lackland Air Base, San Antonio, Tex., where I had 21⁄2

months training. We left San Antonio, Tex., at 8:10 a. m., and arrived in Houston at 9 a. m.

Our plane was due to leave at 2 p. m. and when time came for lunch Private First Class Blackburn who had charge of our meal tickets was told that they had a place for colored to eat and that I would have to eat there. Private First Class Blackburn told me that they told her I would have to go in a back door to the kitchen and eat there.

I refused to eat in the kitchen of the Dobbs' House cafeteria and went back to a seat in the waiting room. Pfc. Patricia R. Baker, one of the white women in the company, refused to eat in the main restaurant because they would not allow me to eat with the rest of our company. She also came back to the waiting room. The red cap had brought me some hamburgers and I shared them with her. This was all the lunch we had because we resent discrimination.

I was seated in a discriminated section of the waiting room of the airport here in Houston, Tex., because a red cap directed me as if he was obeying orders to do so.

That statement was substantiated by the signatures of five of her white companions who were along with her at the time.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, this is a frightful thing in our country that a matter of that kind could occur. The meanest and the lowest employee of the Soviet Embassy-and I say this realizing that Russia is supposed to be the enemy we are preparing to fight-the meanest and the lowest white employee of the Soviet Embassy could go into that restaurant in Houston, Tex., sit down and eat a meal without being molested. The same thing probably would be true if the head of the North Korean Army went in. He probably in full uniform could be served.

But here our own citizens, because they happen to be colored will not be served in a public restaurant. It is not a luxury that these people ask for. These are people on official duty who merely ask for the right to be fed while going about the things that they are supposed to do.

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON SEGREGATION

Now, gentlemen, I would like to say this, also. We are in a presidential election year. We are grateful in the United States at this time that President Harry Truman has taken the actions that he has taken for the purpose of integrating the armed services of our country. If you look over at the paintings in the United States Capitol you will see that when Perry was fighting the battle of Lake Erie there was a colored man along with him, and at that time the Navy of the United States was integrated. Through the years that policy changed to a program of segregation and it was not until President Truman came on the scene that it was revised and has become a program of integration so that people can serve together in dignity and harmony. But this program hangs by the slender thread of one man's term in office. At least two of the major candidates who are seeking office as the President at this time-Senator Kefauver seeking nomination on the Democratic ticket, and General Eisenhower who is seeking nomination on the Republican ticket-are on record in favor of segregation. Senator Kefauver actually voted for an amendment which would have provided for segregation in the armed services in the Eighty-first Congress. General Eisenhower. appearing before this committee and in response to a question by the chairman, Mr. Russell

Chairman RUSSELL. I want to correct your statement there. Senator Saltonstall was the man who asked those questions.

Mr. MITCHELL. You were present, as I recall. In any event, the question was asked and General Eisenhower said he felt that the colored people, if placed in competition with white troops on an integrated basis, would not be able to get promotions that they were entitled to have. Experience in the Air Force where approximately 450 colored men have won promotions on the basis of merit in competition with others belie that statement. However, General Eisenhower has not corrected it and presumably he still stands for a kind of streamlined segregation in the armed services of the United States. We believe, gentlemen, that in the whole field of civil-rights legislation, and particularly in this area the burden of deciding whether we shall wipe out the blot of segregation that extends from the cradle to the grave in the lives of the colored citizens of the United States should not depend on the moral courage of one man. We believe that the Congress should accept its responsibility and incorporate in the legislation the safeguards that will prevent those things from happening.

EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ALL CITIZENS IN UNIFORM

In closing, I would like to say this, gentlemen, with all of the sincerity I can command. I know that there are deep, deep differences of opinion between some of the members of the committee and the organization that I represent. But if we are faced with a threat of world communism and I don't doubt or question that we are-and if those forces should today move up the Potomac River and walk into this door, they would herd us all alike into the patrol wagon and carry us off to the slave camps together. They would not have any color line in those slave camps.

Therefore, while we are free and while we are preserving this precious heritage that does not recognize the color of a man's skin, let us decide that when we call upon the citizens of the United States to don the uniform of our country, that we will give them equal protection.

Chairman RUSSELL. Are there any questions?

Senator HUNT. I have none, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. If not, we are glad to have had you.

Chairman RUSSELL. The next witness scheduled for hearing by the Committee

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF SENATOR KEFAUVER

Mr. WILLISON. On behalf of Senator Kefauver, may I make a few comments on the statement of Mr. Clarence Mitchell?

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you represent Senator Kefauver?

Mr. WILLISON. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. With his knowledge?

Mr. WILLISON. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. He is a member of the committee and unless there is objection from a member of the committee, you may make it. If he were here, he would, of course, be entitled to make any

comments.

Mr. WILLISON. Yes, and he is not here, he would like me to make these few comments on the statement made by Mr. Clarence Mitchell.

Senator BRIDGES. Give your full name and title so we will have it on the record.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE WILLISON

Mr. WILLISON. I am George Willison of Senator Kefauver's staff. The comments of Senator Kefauver are as follows:

The question of nonsegregation in the Armed Forces has been debated and decided by the Congress. One of the chief aims and desires of my entire life has been to better race relations. In this instance, I frankly thought that the result of passing this legislation might harm rather than better race relations. However, the majority of the Congress decided otherwise.

The law apparently has worked well and I don't propose to change it.

As for Senator Lehman's amendment my vote in this instance was cast along with a large majority of the members of the Senate of both parties, including, I note, Senator Taft. I agreed with them that these matters were already sufficiently covered by law.

Thank you, sir.

AMENDMENT ON UNIT SELECTION BY COLORED PERSONNEL

Chairman RUSSELL. As the author of the amendment referred to, I wish to say that no one could properly regard it as being discriminatory against anyone. It properly belongs in the highest category of genuine civil rights proposals. It did not provide for compulsory segregation.

It extended to members of the Negro race exactly the same rights given to members of the white race. Under its terms a member of either race, if he wished, could elect to serve in a unit composed only of members of his race. If any man did not so elect, he could could be assigned to a mixed unit.

The amendment embraced the very fundamentals of civil rights in a democracy in that it extended to every American citizen, upon his being called upon to serve in the Armed Forces and risk his life in his country's defense, the privilege of election as to the composition of the unit in which he would serve.

I make this statement only to indicate that I have no apologies for having offered the amendment which has been discussed.

As compared with many bills spuriously labeled, this was a true civil rights measure. It would not have denied a single citizen any right and, in my opinion, it is a sad commentary on the confusion which has been created over false issues in the field of civil rights that it was rejected by the Congress. It should have been adopted. The next witness is the National Fraternal Council of Churches in the United States. Is there a witness here?

The Rev. Andrew Fowler is director of the National Fraternal Council of Churches, U. S. A.

You may proceed, Reverend Fowler.

STATEMENT OF REV. ANDREW FOWLER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FRATERNAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, U. S. A., INC.

NATURE OF OPPOSITION TO UMT

Reverend FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, several officers and members of the Na