Mr. EPSTEIN. Oh, definitely the same way; there was no direct law on the subject but it would have been done in an indirect way. It could have been accomplished that way. Senator, I have not more than 7 or 8 minutes here in which to focus all of the statements which I have here, and I would be glad to discuss any of the questions and their backgrounds. The range geographically of the organization which I represent here and its regional and State councils and municipal councils, is from Boston to Los Angeles and San Francisco, and from Minnesota to the southwest Jewish Community Relations Council, which includes Texas and, I should like to advise the Senator, Louisiana. The delegates from these local, State, regional, and national agencies in their plenary session of this organization held last March and representing approximately 90 percent of the Jewish people in this country unanimously resolved in favor of the speedy enactment of Federal legislation designed to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry, and the framework of the Constitution itself. We believe that in calling upon the Congress of the United States to eliminate discrimination among employees or those seeking employment in the factories and workshops of the Nation, we are urging the elimination of a threat not only to the security of the Nation's minority groups, but also to safeguard the very security of America itself. We have noted the apparent unanimity with which religious leaders of all faiths have appeared here to denounce discrimination in employment as an immoral affront to the innate dignity of man. Civic leaders have joined with them in testifying to the undemocratic and unAmerican character of such discrimination, a repudiation of the truths which are distinctive in the immortal Declaration of Independence and in the framework of the Constitution itself. The United States Supreme Court itself, even when the so-called nine old men were still there was not unaware of this encroachment upon the tradition and heritage of American freedom, because in the case of New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Company (303 U. S. 552, at p. 561), speaking through Mr. Justice Roberts, the Court held: Race discrimination by an employer may reasonably be deemed more unfair and less excusable than discrimination against workers on the ground of union affiliation. And in that case may I state, Senators, that the Supreme Court reversed a lower court and sustained the right of free speech by Negro groups in a community where they were the dominant purchasers, to picket a grocery store in order to compel the employment of Negroes, and I suggest that perhaps in those States of which Senator Ellender speaks this bill may provide a much more salutary domestic peace than what might ensue in the rapid enlightenment of such a large body in their population. It may not seem surprising, and yet it is gratifying, that labor leaders have also united in demanding an end to employment discrimination, and we find particular satisfaction in noting that a former chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the present head of an organization having great weight in the mass media of the motion pictures, Mr. Eric Johnston, saying: True economic progress demands that the whole Nation move forward at the same time. It demands that all artificial barriers erected by ignorance and in tolerance be removed. To put it in the simplest terms, we are all in business together. Intolerance is a species of boycott and any business or job boycott is a cancer in the economic body of the Nation. I repeat, intolerance is destructive; prejudice produces no wealth; discrimination is a fool's economy. Our statesmen also remind us that in our relations with other countries, discrimination is a handicap; that the tenets of our democratic civilization are in clear conflict with the philosophy of totalitarianism, and that in that conflict the discrimination which may be practiced in a so-called democratic civilization may well become the Achilles heel in the choice between these two conflicting ideologies where in desperation peoples in other lands may look for guidance in making their choice. I ask the Senators not to forget that between two-thirds and threefourths of humanity is either black or brown or yellow and not white and that the meanings of education and progress are marching with amazing rapidity. In becoming a signatory to the Charter of the United Nations, and in the ratification of that Charter by the United States Senate, we have undertaken a solemn obligation to promote without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion the respect for and the observance of fundamental freedoms. Indeed, our Secretary of State recently in Moscow and to an audience attuned to other concepts than ours, said: To us a society is not free if law-abiding citizens live in fear of being denied the right to work or deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Discrimination and particularly discrimination in employment has moved around from its position as a back yard domestic issue into the full exposure of a front porch problem where the world observes. It is not without significance also that last year at the hearings before both Senate and House committees, among the witnesses estimated to represent some 60,000,000 Americans there was not one who rose to defend this practice and who did not challenge the fact that it was an unmitigated evil. I should like to point out a few instances, detailed analysis of which is contained within the statement which I have heretofore, pursuant to the rules of your committee, filed, evidencing a growth of discriminatory practices in the communities in the United States since the war. Reports were obtained in a survey of trends and discriminatory employment as practiced against Jews from 15 cities, including approximately 80 percent of all the Jewish people in the United States. These included cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Kansas City, San Francisco, and so forth. A copy of that survey has, I believe, been presented for incorporation into the record, together with the formal statement. Help-wanted advertisements during corresponding weeks in 1946 and 1945 were studied in eight cities and evidenced an increase of 195 percent in discriminatory advertisements for 1946 over 1945, despite a decline in the total volume of help-wanted advertising. Two hundred forty-one private employment agencies in twelve of the largest cities were visited. Out of 107 agencies in New York City and in Newark, N. J., where State laws were in effect, only 2 included any reference to religion in registration forms. On the other hand, 89 percent of the agencies outside of these two cities include questions concerning religion, and two-thirds of these same agencies reported that it was more difficult to place Jewish workers. In Chicago an actual statistical analysis of discriminatory job orders was made by a large commercial agency showing that 60 percent of the executive jobs, 50 percent of the sales jobs, 41 percent of the male clerical, and 24 percent of the female clerical opportunities were closed to Jewish applicants, and 83 percent of all orders placed carried discriminatory specifications. It is understandable that the data which has been submitted with my formal statement refers exclusively to discrimination against Jews because the agencies which are the constituent members of the organization I represent have been dealing at first hand directly only with that aspect of the problem as concerns their own people. We know, however, that in more aggravated form these discriminatory rebuffs are being shared by millions of Americans whose color or national origin also act as disqualifying causes. Now, a suggestion has been made, as reported in the press, by Senator Smith that States should be permitted after the enactment of such a bill, should it be enacted by the Congress, to withdraw from the enforcement provisions or sanctions of the measure, leaving only the educational provisions available. Senator SMITH. Only the legal sanctions; the compulsion of having the hearings will be there. Mr. EPSTEIN. That is what I mean, the compulsion. Senator SMITH. That still does not quite state it correctly because I would still leave in the bill Mr. EPSTEIN. Conciliation, persuasion. Senator SMITH. Yes; and discrimination would be punishable. What I am getting at is whether the decision of the Commission should be enforced by the arm of the law, whether we could not get further with the educational processes. Mr. EPSTEIN. You will observe in this law a step by stepSenator SMITH. I helped to draft it; I am quite familiar with it. Mr. EPSTEIN. Before you get to the actual enforcement of the legal sanctions Senator SMITH. That is right. Mr. EPSTEIN. There are innumerable steps in the course of which you may and we hope will probably reach the desired end. Senator SMITH. Right, and you have the power of subpena and all those things so that the hearings cannot be bypassed. Mr. EPSTEIN. As Daniel Webster said, a bill without the actual possibility of ultimate enforcement-I paraphrase his language-is just perfectly good advice. I merely want to point out what I consider to be basic legal objections to the Senator's discussion. Aside from moral and social lack of justification, it would seem to run squarely afoul of the provision of the United States Constitution. One can reach this conclusion very readily by applying the same reasoning to such measures as the pending Taft-Hartley bill dealing with labor problems, if States were to be permitted to withdraw from its sanction provisions leaving others to which it might be applicable. Aside from the economic chaos which would ensue, the fact that the United States Government, the United States Congress itself, could not enact a measure which would deny equal protection of the law to employers and employees alike throughout the 48 States of this Nation, should delegate to the States or the power to States to create such an act in the enforcement of the law, it seems to me an objection that overrides all of what I would consider possibly a conciliatory gesture for those States who may wish to escape the provisions of this law; and it is within the ultimate power of exercising the legal sanction that lies the great educational force in all such laws. Senator DONNELL. We will have to stop right here. We will have a 5-minute recess. You may continue, Mr. Epstein, when we are back in session. (At this point a short recess was taken in the hearing.) Senator DONNELL. Very well, Mr. Epstein, proceed. Mr. EPSTEIN. I have heretofore referred to the application of the theory that Senator Smith has suggested as a possible amendment to this bill if it were applied to the Taft-Hartley labor bill and what complete chaos would result economically in addition to which it would indicate how clearly it would run afoul of the equal protection of the Constitution of the United States. I might add that the same reasoning applied to the Fair Labor Standards Practices Act which established minimum wages and maximum hours and would exemplify the complete illogic as well as the unsoundness of the proposal. One of the great philosophers of history. Dr. Arnold Toynbee, has concluded that no great nation ever succumbed to the pressure of competing ideologies or forces unless it first weakened itself by selfinflicted wounds. By the enactment of this bill, S. 984, the Congress of the United States can do much to heal the wounds of our democracy which have been and are continually being inflicted by racial and religious discrimination in all forms of opportunity, and particularly in the opportunity of earning a livelihood and thus enable this great Nation to move forward with unimpaired strength in the vanguard of a world seeking peace. I would ask, Senator, that the full statement which I have heretofore filed in addition to these remarks be made a part of the record of this committee. Senator DONNELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. (Mr. Epstein submitted the following brief:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HENRY EPSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL, JUNE 19, 1947 The National Community Relations Advisory Council is a coordinating body of national and local Jewish community relations agencies. Its national member organizations are: The American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish War Veterans, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Also affiliated with it are 24 regional, State, and local community councils throughout the country. These are: Akron Jewish Community Council Baltimore Jewish Council Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Boston Brooklyn Jewish Community Council Cincinnati Jewish Comunity Council Jewish Community Council, Cleveland, Ohio Detroit Jewish Community Council Public Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Indianapolis Los Angeles Jewish Community Committee Milwaukee Jewish Council Minnesota Jewish Council Jewish Community Council of Essex County, N. Y. New Haven Jewish Community Council Jewish Public Relations Council for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Philadelphia Jewish Community Relations council Jewish Survey and B'nai B'rith Community Committee of San Francisco Jewish organizations are agreed on this issue of equality of job opportunity. Meeting in plenary session last March, delegates from the communities affiliated with the NCRAC, embracing approximately 90 percent of the Jews in this country, by unanimous resolution called for the speedy enactment of Federal legislation to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. And, believing with Daniel Webster that "a law without a penalty is simply good advice," they called for a law with adequate enforcement powers. Discrimination is no new phenomenon to the Jew. For centuries he has found the doors of certain industries and occupations closed to him, and the present distribution of Jewish workers reflects in large measure the history of past exclusions. Every so-called minority knows the meaning of discrimination. Only recently, however, has the world learned the lesson that racism blights the oppressor no less than its victims. For the rise and fall of Hitler has vividly demonstrated that a national policy of discrimination is a certain road to ruin. In calling upon this Congress to eliminate discrimination from the factories and workshops of our Nation, therefore, we are urging that you eliminate a threat not only to the security of our country's racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, but that you take steps to safeguard the security of America itself. ence. Religious leaders of all persuasions have appeared here to denounce discrimination as immoral and unjust and as an affront to the innate dignity of man. Civic leaders have testified that discrimination is un-American and undemocratic, a denial of those self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration of IndependLeading jurists have ruled that discrimination deprives minorities "of their constitutional right to earn a livelihood" (Carrol v. Local 269, 133 N. J. Eq. 144, 147); and the United States Supreme Court itself, noting that laws prohibiting discrimination against labor union members had quite properly been sustained, has held that "Race discrimination by an employer may reasonably be deemed more unfair and less excusable than discrimination against workers on the ground of union affiliation" (New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U. S. 552, p. 561). To these expressions of conscience and idealism have been added the considerations of practical self-interest. Sociologists have shown how the poverty born of discrimination breeds disease and slums and crime, how it stunts the body and warps the mind, and they have counseled its prohibition as a matter of elemental self-interest. Economists have advised that we must focus our sights on achieving maximum purchasing power if we are to maintain a healthy economy, pointing out that the States with the lowest per capita income are those in which discrimination is most severe and widespread, as evidence that when large numbers of persons are prevented from working on jobs for which they are fitted by education, training, and skill, the purchasing power and standard of living of the total community sinks accordingly. Labor leaders have united in demanding an end to discrimination in employment because they know full well that it depresses wages and creates divisions inimical to the trade-union movement. Businessmen, too, have come increasingly to recognize that discrimination does not pay; that it is uneconomical, cutting down the size of markets, increasing the cost of production, and raising the burden of taxation. Eric Johnston, former chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce, succinctly stated this point of view when he said: "The withholding of jobs and business opportunities from some people does not make more jobs and business opportunities for others. Such a policy merely |