The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would be very glad to have them for the record. Mr. RYDER. Recently the Fair Employment Practice Commission asked the Civil Service Commission to make a review or analysis of the cases which had been handled over a period of the last couple of years, since the Committee had been set up, functioning and working cooperatively with us. During the period from October 1941 to January 31, 1944, there wire a total of 1,174 allegations of discrimination on account of race, creed, color, or national origin. In all those cases we, of course, worked with the F. E. P. C. on the basis which I earlier described. Of those cases, 1,031 were on grounds of race, 70 on grounds of creed, 62 on grounds of national origin, and 11 of them not very clearly specified as to what the basis was. has been, generally, the number of cases involved. That Mr. FISHER. You say 1,031 were on account of race. Were they Negro cases? a few Mr. RIDER. They were primarily Negroes. There were Mexicans and one or two others, though they would be more on the ground of nationality, I imagine, than race. Mr. FISHER. You refer to those as instances where that number of people made some form of complaint because they did not get a job or something to do with their work? Mr. RYDER. Either they did not get an appointment or were not selected by the appointing officer, or they objected to some condition or other of employment or to other matters. They made complaints to us frequently on matters not within our jurisdiction, and in those instances we advised the complainants to that effect and also furnished copies to the F. E. P. C. for whatever disposition they might wish to make. Mr. FISHER. During the period of 2 years, when you had 1,174 cases, how many cases of all kinds have you processed in civil service? Mr. RYDER. Those were all processed in the sense that they were closed out from our standpoint. Mr. FISHER. I understand. I am talking about your total number of applications for jobs of all classes during that 2-year period. Mr. RYDER. I do not have that. It would run into several million. Mr. FISHER. Out of several million you have had only 1,174 complaints from people who had their feelings hurt because they did not get a job and complained because they were discriminated against? Mr. RYDER. Yes. Mr. FISHER. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any questions, Mr. Scanlon? Mr. SCANLON. I have no questions. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else you would like to bring tɔ the attention of the committee, Mr. Mitchell? Mr. MITCHELL. We will get the suggested amendments. Mr. LANDIS. Mr. Mitchell, if your Commission were forced to take these recommendations, you would not like that very well; would you? Mr. MITCHELL. For an outside body to tell us how to hold examinations? Mr. LANDIS. This commission that it is proposed to set up. Mr. LANDIS. These 1,174 cases were processed. Suppose they had told you: "Put these 1,174 to work. That is our recommendation. You will have to accept it." What would you think about that? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, the other agencies would put them to work. They would have to direct the agency that was employing these people to put them to work. Mr. SCANLON. As I understand the situation, the Civil Service Commission just holds the examinations and certifies three names to each agency; thereafter the agency selects one of those three persons. Mr. LANDIS. As long as it does not interfere with that, that agency is all right? Mr. SCANLON. The F. E. P. C., as set up in this bill, would carry on an investigation as to whether or not they were discriminated against because of race, creed, or national origin, and the Civil Service Commission would not be authorized to take any action; the action would be against the agency that discriminated or that the person thought was discriminating for some reason other than his qualifications. Mr. LANDIS. I was just wondering. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mitchell, since the establishment of the Fair Employment Practice Committee have you found a relaxation or an improvement in the policies of Government agencies with relation to discrimination against Negroes? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, there is certainly a larger proportion of colored persons being employed today than there were 2 to 3 years ago. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the war would naturally cause that. Mr. MITCHELL. The war would naturally bring that about But I cannot answer your question; I do not think we have any figures that would give that. Mr. RYDER. I know there is no comparative basis that we have to relate our practice now to the situation at an earlier period of time. The CHAIRMAN. But, Mr. Mitchell, you do think-you do not have to answer this question if you do not wish to-that we are going to be faced with this discrimination problem seriously when the war is over, when these men who are now fighting all over the world, regardless of race, color, creed, or any other consideration than service, come back? Do you not believe that there is then going to be a very serious problem to be faced by Government agencies? Mr. MITCHELL. A problem of reduction in force, undoubtedly. Mr. MITCHELL. Undoubtedly serious from the Government's standpoint and very serious for the employees. I do not know that I understand your point beyond that. The CHAIRMAN. My point is this: Do you not think that the establishment of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee will be very helpful when our soldiers return and there will be, evidently, a very much tighter labor market? Mr. MITCHELL. I do not think I can intelligently answer that question, because it is all a matter of speculation. A great many employees now in the Government are going to be discharged from Government service, undoubtedly. I imagine that the veterans are going to have practically a monopoly of the new positions that are created. A very large proportion of colored persons in the Government service now are under wartime appointments. These appointments will end 6 months after the war closes. The CHAIRMAN. Will that not be true of white persons, too? Mr. MITCHELL. I say a large proportion of colored employees because of the increase in the employment of colored persons. They are undoubtedly in that position. Of course, they will have to go if they have war-service appointments. So will the white persons who have war appointments. The CHAIRMAN. There is going to be a great deal of discrimination, of necessity, if there is nothing on the statute books to prevent it. Mr. MITCHELL. I think it is a matter of speculation. The CHAIRMAN. Well, probably it is. Mr. LANDIS. No matter what the color is, the veterans will have the same preference. The CHAIRMAN. I am thinking of the other groups that will be discriminated against-and there will be many of them. Mr. DAY. If a man is a veteran, he will not be discriminated against because of race, color, or creed. The CHAIRMAN. I wonder. Mr. DAY. That would bring it up straight. That would put it straight up, if it came to that. Mr. MITCHELL. If we certified three names and a veteran was No. 1 on the list, he could not be passed over, provided the StarnesScrugham bill goes through. The agency has to select No. 1 if he is a veteran or give its reasons why it does not. I can say that the reasons will have to be really bona fide good reasons. We will not decide against a veteran unless the reasons are good. The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful to you for coming here this morning, Mr. Mitchell. If you will submit in writing your suggestions covering the points you discussed in the bills, we shall be very glad to consider them. Thank you very much. Mr. Fisher, do you wish to ask Mrs. Goldberg any further questions before we adjourn? Mr. FISHER. I think not, Madam Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Then, the meeting will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (At 11:15 a. m. an adjournment was taken until Friday, June 9, 1944, at 10 a. m.) TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1944 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Mary T. Norton (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order and the hearings on H. R. 3986, 4004, and 4005 will be resumed. I have quite a few reports here that I think should be included in the record at this time. I have one here that is not very long and I think I would like to read it, because it seems to me that it is very important. It is from the chancery office of the Most Reverend Robert E. Lucey, archbishop of San Antonio, Tex., and with your permission, I will read it into the record. STATEMENT ON BILL TO PROVIDE A PERMANENT FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMITTEE BY MOST REV. ROBERT E. LUCEY, S. T. D., ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, TEX. It has been my privilege to observe at close hand the working of the Fair Employment Practice Committee in this part of Texas. I am convinced that this work is necessary and eminently constructive. It is a work of justice and therefore of peace and democracy. It is an adventure in good government that ought to be made permanent. Any citizen who is opposed to the perpetuation of this great work automatically takes a stand against peaceful labor relations, against the practice of justice in economic life, against honest working people who will stand defenseless before the ruthless power of unscrupulous employers. For such employers the appeal to conscience, to honesty, to the law of God, is futile. The appeal must be to the majesty of civil law. Many employers in this country do not need this legislation to make them honest; many others need it badly. For them hell has no terrors, but the penitentiary is a recognized reality. If the people of the United States are glad to pour out their treasure and their blood in defense of justice and the human spirit everywhere in the world they must also be glad to practice justice at home. It is inconceivable that we should willingly deny to our own citizens that measure of justice which we purchase for others with our blood. The working people of our country are not so docile, patient, and inarticulate as they once were in the matter of unemployment, low wages, and unfair discrimination. Our economic system now faces a vigorous challenge to give fair employment and decent incomes to all honest wage earners. We can no longer dodge the issue or deny its existence. The working people have a right to fair employment and are demanding it. If capitalism does not give them justice they will look for something else and something worse. A permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee will give meaning to that hallowed phrase "Land of the free." We also have a letter here from the Columbus Metropolitan Fair Employment Practice Committee of Columbus, Ohio, which I will have included in the record at this point. 60811-44-vol. 1- -9 (The letter referred to is as follows:) THE COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN FAIR Hon. MARY T. NORTON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN NORTON: The Columbus Metropolitan Fair Employment Practice Committee has learned with genuine satisfaction that the Labor Committee of the House of Representatives has scheduled public hearings on the Scanlon-Dawson-La Follette permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee bill. While we cannot be represented personally at this hearing, we wish to express our emphatic endorsement of this bill. The Columbus Metropolitan Fair Employment Practice Committee is a civic body composed of official representatives of 38 labor, civic, welfare, and religious organizations representing an aggregate membership of some 50,000 citizens. It is our considered judgment that passage of this bill is imperative at this time. The experience of the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practice has demonstrated conclusively the continuing activity of the Government on behalf of minority group workers. We would be pleased to have this endorsement entered in the record of the Labor Committee hearings. Yours very truly, J. S. HIMES, JR., We have here a telegram from the Vallejo Committee for Interracial Affairs of Vallejo, Calif., which we will have included in the record at this point. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) Representative MARY NORTON, VALLEJO, CALIF., June 9, 1944. Chairman, House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. Urge you militantly strive for passage of Scanlon-La Follette-Dawson bill for permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee. Present policy against discrimination must be permanent and extended to cover all employment. Any discrimination in employment because of race, religion, nationality is violation of constitutional guaranties and represents threat to democracy. THE VALLEJO COMMITTEE FOR INTERRACIAL AFFAIRS, We also have a letter from the Executive Office of the President, Committee for Congested Production Areas, and I would like to have that letter included at this point; also the statement. (The letter and statement referred to are as follows:) Hon. MARY T. NORTON, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Chairman, Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C., May 24, 1944. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MRS. NORTON: I have received your letter of May 19, 1944, enclosing copies of H. R. 3986, 4004, and 4005 to establish a Fair Employment Practice Commission to make permanent the present Committee on Fair Employment Practice. After a review of the proposed act in the light of our activities during the past year, I do not feel that I could make a contribution to the hearings. As you will note in the enclosed letter to the Chairman of the Committee for Congested Production Areas of May 10, 1944, our activities have been directed toward providing needed community facilities and services in certain congested production areas. Our objective is to improve living conditions for war workers so as to lower absenteeism and turnover in the war industries in these areas. Since, as you can see, the activities of my staff are only indirectly related to the problems for which the proposed Fair Employment Practice Commission is to be |