In addition to this, if opponents of this legislation to guarantee the right to work are convinced that laws are superfluous, it is our feeling that they should establish their argument by repealing many of the laws in their own districts which have the effect of guaranteeing the opposite. 4. In the fourth place, Mr. Chairman, we believe that this bill provides for perfectly fair treatment of all parties. It assures that the complainer and the complained against shall have their proper chance to state their case, not only once but as often as there may be reasonable grounds for obtaining renewed consideration. Restraints are placed equally on the activities of labor unions and on those of management. There is no suspicion of class interest in the functioning of the Fair Employment Practice Commission, as described, for it treats everyone and every group alike. Only the guilty will get hurt, and in the public interest they must be. We wish to make this very clear. We would not, as a church group, endorse any legislation which, in our opinion, differentially affected the legitimate interests of the classes. Our endorsement therefore carries with it our conviction that labor unions, when they practice discrimination based on color, creed, or ancestry, should be subjected to the same punishments as the employers. 5. Finally, we believe that the enactment of this bill is a moral necessity, as well as an expedient and prudent measure. It is surely God's will that men shall work and shall have opportunity to exercise most fully His gifts to them. He who would deny their right to do so places himself in opposition to the divine ordering of human life and society. That it is expedient and prudent is as self-evident. Intergroup antagonisms have grown in pitch. There are wide cleavages between some of us and others. So long as this is the case, there will be the temptation to exploit these differences by those whose political objectives are subversive to our cherished form of government. The responsible people can act now, and are ready to act. If by some mischance they do not, it will be no great wonder if the irresponsible seize their opportunity. My committee believes, Mr. Chairman, that a deeply concerned and informed Congress will quickly enact this bill as a part of conservative statesmanship. We urge this Congress to do so without delay. And we pledge to you, as a church group, we shall do everything in our power to support the Fair Employment Practice Commission in its operations; for we shall consider, that having directly appealed to you for it, we share with others the solemn obligation of helping to create the respect for it that is due any truly American institution or law. Thank you very much for permitting me to testify in behalf of my committee. Senator CHAVEZ. Thank you, Dr. McPeek. Any questions, Senator Aiken? Senator AIKEN. No. Senator CHAVEZ. Senator Capper, do you care to ask Dr. McPeek any questions? Senator CAPPER. NO. Reverend MCPEEK. A question, Senator, was asked here a moment ago relative to the extent of the discrimination in the North. Senator CHAVEZ. That is right. Reverend MCPEEK. If it pleases you, I shall be glad to read a few paragraphs from Dr. Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma, which is considered a very authoritative source in this matter, or I can cite the pages to you and they can be reviewed by you. Senator AIKEN. I would like to have that information. I did not follow up my questioning any further because I did not want to stir up any unnecessary feeling between sections, but I have had the feeling that discriminatory practices were not confined wholly to the South. Reverend McPEEK. You are perfectly correct, sir. Senator AIKEN. If you have any information on that, I would like to see it. Reverend MCPEEK. I would be glad to submit to you later on the citations here. I think they will disclose, because they are based on census studies, the facts in the case relative to differential positions. Senator CHAVEZ. You may submit it for the record if you desire. Reverend McPEEK. Thank you. Senator CHAVEZ. The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10:30. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee recessed to 10:30 a. m. of the following day, Thursday, August 31, 1944.) FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE ACT THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1944 UNITED STATES SENATE, ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Dennis Chavez (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Chavez and Aiken. Senator CHAVEZ. The committee will come to order. Monsignor Ryan. STATEMENT OF RT. REV. JOHN A. RYAN, D. D., NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR PERMANENT FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. Senator CHAVEZ. Monsignor, I believe we sent you an invitation to appear before the committee to express your views on the pending legislation which is for a permanent F. E. P. C. Right Reverend RYAN. Yes. Senator CHAVEZ. Will you kindly identify your self for the record and then make your statement? Right Reverend RYAN. I am Rt. Rev. John A. Ryan, D. D., professor of political science of Trinity College, and social ethics of the National Catholic School of Social Service, and I am representing the National Council for Permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission. Senator CHAVEZ. Thank you. You may make your statement to the committee. Right Reverend RYAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: For the last 42 years, I have taught the principles and rules of morality to various groups of students, comprising priests, seminarians, nuns, laymen, and laywomen. It is from that point of view, the point of view of moral right and moral wrong, that I wish to advocate briefly the enactment of the bill which is the subject of this hearing. Among the grievances suffered by certain minorities in our population the most grave and the most fundamental are those which we call economic. There are many occupations from which the Negro is excluded because of the color of his skin. Sometimes the offender is the employer; sometimes it is the employees. When an employer refuses to hire Negroes because he dislikes to have them in his presence or to come into constant contact with them, his reason is clearly racial, or if you prefer, psychological. When an employer excludes 35 all Negroes because he has found some of them unreliable his motive is economic, but he acts unfairly when he penalizes a whole group on account of the faults of individuals. When he refuses to employ Negroes because his white employees will not work beside them, his motive is economic, and in the circumstances it may be excusable. When his refusal is dictated by the assumption that Negroes should be kept in menial occupations, his conduct is uncharitable and contemptible. In all these cases, the human dignity of the Negro is outraged and the virtues of justice or charity, or both, are violated. The Negro worker is not treated as a man possessing a natural right to reasonable intercourse with his fellows, nor as a brother having the same needs and claims as the white employer and the white employee. Sometimes the Negro is excluded from certain occupations by the rules and practices of labor unions. This is even more reprehensible than exclusion by employers; for the wage earners have themselves been the victims of oppression by stronger economic classes. It must be noted, however, that the majority of those unions which refuse to admit Negroes are moved, not by racial prejudices, but by practical economics. The unions desire to keep the jobs for their own members or for their relatives and friends. This is clearly illustrated in the case of the 2,400 Negro firemen in the South who, through an agreement between the railroad managers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, have been denied promotion to the position of engine drivers. Even the economic motive does not justify the exclusion of Negroes from employment. Job scarcity should be dealt with in some other way than through the exclusion of a whole class. The sooner the unions discard this practice, the sooner will they bring about a rational and ethical solution of this very real difficulty. My conclusion, then, is that those discriminations by the unions are nearly always against charity and frequently against justice. The most recent and one of the most flagrant instances of job discrimination was perpetrated a few weeks ago on the lines of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. Practically all the employees of that concern went out on strike against the promotion of less than 10 Negro employees to the position of motormen on the busses and streetcars. It was particularly flagrant because it deprived several hundred thousand citizens of transportation and prevented the production of an enormous amount of vital war materials. Apparently the responsibility for the strike was shared in a secondary degree by the officials of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. In passing I should like to bring to your attention a historical event that I think contains a lesson in this whole situation of racial and other intolerances, when 100 years ago, in the same city of Philadelphia, there occurred a much more deadly and devasting race conflict than the one that occurred in Philadelphia a few weeks ago. That conflict was carried on not against the Negroes but Irish Catholics. In the course of the rioting at least one Catholic Church and several Catholic convents were burned. Now, it is not certain but it may well be that two of the leaders of the recent strike, bearing distinctive Irish names, are descendants of persons, Irish Catholics, who suffered in that rioting in Philadelphia a century ago. At any rate, the thing |