Senator BURDICK, Senator Hruska. Senator BURDICK. Senator Tydings. Senator TYDINGS. I only wish to apologize to the Congressman for keeping him waiting. Mr. CONYERS. That is quite all right. I enjoyed what I heard. Senator GRIFFIN. I would like to welcome to the committe my colleague from the Michigan delegation. I do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator BURDICK. Senator Cook. Senator Cook. No questions. Senator BURDICK. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. CONYERS. You are welcome. Thank you very much. Senator BURDICK. The next witness will be Stephen Schlossberg. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. chairman, excuse me, but may I include in my testimony the excerpts from the Carswell speech from which I quoted as part of my testimony at this hearing? Senator BURDICK. I think it is in the record but it will be included without objection. (The material referred to is printed previously in this hearing.) Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. (The Chairman subsequently made the following letter a part of the record:) Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 2, 1970. New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: As the legal and political background of Judge G. Harrold Carswell has been publicly scrutinized, it has become increasingly obvious that he has neither the legal credentials nor the jurisprudential qualifications to meet the exacting standards of excellence rightly demanded of Supreme Court nominees. At a time of great stress on all our democratic institutions of government, we cannot afford to choose a man of less than the highest legal qualifications with a demonstrable sensitivity to critical problems facing our society today. The man considered by the Senate this month will, if confirmed, have a profound effect on the direction of Supreme Court decision-making for years to come. We feel that Judge Carswell's mediocre legal background and public statements make it impossible for us to remain silent about his nomination. Despite his propitious disclaimer of his 1948 statement in support of segregation, his actions since then, both on and off the bench, do not lend credibility to the repudiation. In 1956 we find that while a U.S. attorney, he joined others in Tallahassee, Florida in incorporating a public golf course as a private club to escape the mandate of the Court he now seeks to join. While a District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, three out of four civil rights cases decided by him were reversed. In Steele vs. Leon County Board of Education, a school desegregation case, it took from 1965 to 1967, three years of delays and denials, to grant the relief sought. In testimony before your Committee, Professor John Lowenthal of Rutgers University testified that Judge Carswell took unusual steps to block efforts of those seeking to help enroll black voters in Florida. Only six months ago was he nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights opposed his appointment on the ground that he had as a District Judge been preculiarly hostile to the civil rights of Negroes. An examination of the civil rights cases tried by Judge Carswell, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, from 1958-67 bears that testimony out. The challenge of racism in a democratic society is the most fundamental challenge we face domestically. Both study and sad experience have affirmed that the division between black and white threatens the very fabric of our nation. If legal processes are not able to bring redress of grievances and equal opportunity to all citizens, then increasing conflict and violence will be an inevitable result. The Supreme Court has been a fundamental force in maintaining a belief in legal process as an agent of change. It is the Supreme Court which affords citizens ultimate redress of grievance and it is to the Court that many responsible citiens look for guidance. To consent to the nomination of a man to that Court who has a record of regressive decisions in the most critical area of contemporary law and who in addition has a very mediocre background as a jurist, is an affront not only to blacks, but to all Americans. Judge Carswell has never published in legal journals, has been a member of the Circuit Court only six months and even a previous supporter of Judge Haynsworth, Professor William Van Alstyne of Duke University Law School, does not. believe that Judge Carswell is qualified to be appointed to the Court. We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to minutely scrutinize his qualifications, his judicial decisions, and his judicial temperament. On the basis of what has been made public of Judge Carswell's background and racial attitudes, we believe he does not meet the high standards for a Supreme Court Justice and we oppose his confirmation. We request that this letter be included in the record of the hearings. JOHN CONYERS, Jr. DONALD M. FRASER. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER. DON EDWARDS. TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN I. SCHLOSSBERG, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Stephen I. Schlossberg and I have the honor to be the general counsel of the UAW with headquarters in the great State of Michigan. I am here to testify against confirmation of the nomination of Judge Carswell. It might be useful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the committee, if I were to tell you something of my background. Senator BURDICK. I believe all the witnesses have been sworn. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was born and raised in Roanoke, Va., a city not too far from the great city of Washington. I had the honor to go to the University of Virginia. I have an undergraduate degree from that school, and an LL.B from that law school. I am a member of the Order of Coif and I was a member of the Virginia Law Review and I belong to the Raven Society and Omega Delta Kappa in the University of Virginia. I guess if some one had told me back when I lived in the city of Roanoke, Va. that in the short space of a few months I would twice be coming to the Senate Judiciary Committee to complain of the President's choice of a nominee to the Supreme Court, I would have told them they were mad. It seems incredible to me that in this day and time, in this age in which we live, that we are seeing the same sad and dreary thing all over again, only this time much worse. I say much worse because it seems to me that the President of the United States and the Attorney General have in effect said to the Senate, and through the Senate to the people of the United States, especially to the minority groups in the United States, you did it to me once and I am going to do it to you now. This is an insult. This appointment is an insult in terms of professionalism and in terms of commitment to the Senate of the United States, to the people of the United States, to the Negroes of the United States and to the whites of the United States. It is an insult to the white southeners that I grew up with in Roanoke, Va., and people like them throughout the whole South, because it is not necessary to be indecent and to be a bigot to have a political career in the South, and certainly it wasn't necessary in the 1940's. I graduated from high school in Roanoke, Va. in 1938, and the leaders of the established community in Roanoke did not feel it necessary to use the kinds of words that Judge Carswell felt it necessary to use some years later, to swear allegiance to white supremacy. The very idea that a man who did that and who has lived a judicial and official career tied in with the U.S. Government that has not given the lie to those words, that that man now stands as the nominee before the U.S. Senate for the Supreme Court of the United States. Predictably Judge Walsh and his blue ribbon panel have stamped their approval on this undistinguished nominee. This nominee. The only things I know he has written: I know he has written a segregationist speech 22 years ago, one of the worst I have ever heard. I know he has written some very pedestrian court opinions, because I have read them. I know he helped to write an application for a club, for a country club which would subvert the bill of rights of the U.S. Constitution. He has not written a law review article. He has not written a book. He may have written some checks. I know he wrote a loan application once in which he borrowed, he and his wife, some $48,000 on her $75,000 worth of stock in a plant called the Elberta Crate and Box Co., and I will get to that Elberta Crate and Box Co. in a moment. This man, who graduated from the third best law school in Georgia, I believe there are four, has not grown. To read his opinions is not to read opinions by a scholar, by a jurist, or by one who loves the law and follows the law. It is to read the opinions of a pedestrian man, and a pedestrian man not only in his opinions but in his action on the bench that has shown itself undivorced from those racist sentiments expressed some 22 years ago. The UAW does not oppose him because he is an antilabor judge. We are not that parochial in our opposition to judges. We believe that this union as other institutions in this great country of ours have an obligation to do something about the quality of life, and that means more than just rhetoric. When we stand as this country does at a crossroads between brotherhood and fratricide, it seems to me that when a man stands for confirmation by this great body, by the Senate of the United States, and his civil rights, his human rights record is not only questionable but tarnished, that man cannot be allowed to assume his seat, at least without objection by those who value the quality of this democracy in this country in which we live. That is why we are here. I do not mean to imply that we do not have labor arguments against this man. I read to you now the text of a wire sent by Mrs. Caroline Davis, who is the director of the UAW Women's Department, to the President, to President Nixon. She said: "Along with numerous other women's groups and organizations I want to add most vehement protest to your appointment of Judge Carswell to the Supreme Court. Judge Carswell showed no concern for women or the welfare of children of working mothers when he ruled last fall in the Ida Phillips v. Martin Marietta case. His ruling was that women with preschool children could be denied employment. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. "One can guess how Judge Carswell will decide. I doubt he can view this case objectively in view of his earlier decision in the Phillips case. "His decision flies in the face of your proposed program for the employment of women on public assistance. There are 5 million women working who are widowed or divorsed and are the sole support of families. The majority of these women have small children. This decision of Judge Carswell's is rank discrimination against women, since men with preschool children are not denied employment. "On behalf of the 200,000 UAW women members, I strongly urge you to reconsider your appointment of Judge Carswell for the Supreme Court. Based on his past performance on segregation and this Phillips case, he is not the caliber to sit on the Supreme Court." Turning now to the Elberta Crate and Box Co., I call to your attention an article with the byline of one Carol Thomas, from a paper called the Southern Patriot and I gather that that is the publication of the Southern Conferences Educational Fund. Date line Tallahassee, Fla., and it says, the lead is: Student support for 300 striking workers at the Elberta Crate and Box Co. helped the workers stay out for 42 days. That is the lead. Now I want to read down a little bit. The strikers, almost all black, walked out September 23. Support from about 200 white students at Florida State University was immediate. They joined in several marches from the university to the box company, and then set up picket lines of their own, supporting the workers' picket lines. Several students were arrested. Skipping now Black workers never made more than the minimum wage, no matter how long they were employed by the company-but whites made up to 50 cents more an hour than their black coworkers. A black women reported that her boss said he "wouldn't pay niggers" because "niggers stink". There was no sick leave, sick pay, or retirement pay. "I quit April 15, 1968 after working since 1949," one man said, "I feel that they owe me some retire ment retirement pay. I've made a lot of money for this company * ** I had to get another job when I quit because there was no retirement program." Another man, who retired after 45 years with the company, was refused enough work to keep his company insurance alive. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit the full text of this clipping from the newspaper with respect to the Elberta Freight and Box Co. Senator BURDICK. Without objection it is so ordered. (The article referred to follows:) STUDENTS SUPPORT FLORIDA STRIKERS (By Carol Thomas) TALLAHASSEE, FLA.-Student support for 300 striking workers at the Elberta Crate and Box Co. helped workers stay out for 42 days. It was the first strike in the company's 70-year history. The strikers, almost all black, walked out September 23. Support from about 200 white students at Florida State University was immediate. They joined in several marches from the university to the box company, and then set up picket lines of their own, supporting the workers' picket lines. Several students were arrested. The workers, who are represented by the International Woodworkers of America (IWA—AFL-CIO), said the students brought food and money to the union hall almost daily while the strike went on. The company hired poor white people to replace the black strikers. When the students appealed to them to stay out of the factory, the company filed suit seeking a restraining order to prevent strikers and their supporters from "cursing, abusing, threatening, coercing, or otherwise intimidating" non-striking employees. Union and student leaders were named in the suit. Local president Nero Pender charged that the company was trying to break the strike and “burst the relationship between strikers and students." WORKING CONDITIONS Black workers never made more than the minimum wage, no matter how long they were employed by the company-but whites made up to 50 cents more an hour than their black co-workers. Discrimination takes other forms, as well. "The black workers have to keep on doing something every minute," Flay Rolling said. "The white mechanics stand around and drink cokes when the machines stop. The white mechanics can take a break anytime. Those white mechanics are workers, just like us, but they don't work. They are paid higher than us." A black woman reported that her boss said he "wouldn't pay niggers," because "niggers stink." ... There was no sick leave, sick pay, or retirement pay. "I quit April 15, 1968, after working since 1949," one man said. "I feel that they owe me retirement pay. I've made a lot of money for this company . I had to get another job when I quit because there was no retirement program. Another man, who retired after 45 years with the company, was refused enough work to keep his company insurance alive. Workers got only three holidays a year (Thanksgiving, Christmas and July 4)—and then had to work on Saturdays to make up. They got one-week paid vacations until they had worked for the company for seven years. The kiln crew got 12 minutes for lunch. Other workers got half an hour, without pay. There is no place to eat at the factory and during lunch, workers were not allowed to talk to each other. Each worker was entitled to two six-minute toilet breaks. Physical conditions were uncomfortable-and dangerous. There was no heat in the plant. The workers installed some heaters themselves, but it didn't make much difference because of drafts from broken windows and holes in the floor. "They want some of us to work in the rain-of course, the machines are protected from the weather," one man said. Saws have no shields. Many workers have lost feet and fingers. One worker had his head cut off. THE SETTLEMENT The strikers went back to work after winning a partial victory-an 11-cent pay increase in two years, instead of the three cents that the company had offered them, and the promise of improved working conditions. Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I call attention now, Mr. Chairman, to a clipping that appeared in today's paper, the Washington Daily News, an article by Whitney Young, the distinguished president of the Urban League, |