Слике страница

have it, I do not see how we can do it as responsible legislators.

PROPONENTS FAIL TO SHOW AUTHORITY In an attempt to support the constitutionality of FEPC, there was inserted in the record of the Labor Committee hearings a legal brief purporting to establish that the FEPC bills were:

If it were a restraint it could be measured.

If it were substantial it could be measured.

If it were a substantial obstruction or restriction on commerce our gross national product would not be consistently increasing, as the President so recently pointed out in his economic report of Solidly based on the power given by the January 1964, when he stated: "The commerce clause to the Congress.

That statement was based upon the premise that:

The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the regulation by law of intrastate activities which have a substantial effect on the commerce or the exercise of the constitutional power over it.

It should be noted that the proponents of FEPC concede that a substantial effect on commerce must be shown to find congressional authority for its enactment under the commerce clause.

There is no disagreement about this. While the courts have held that the fact that other purposes will also be served does not invalidate the exercise by Congress of its power to protect interstate commerce, it also has held the activities subject to the control of Congress must have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions. Under the commerce clause, Congress is powerless to regulate anything which is not related to commerce and it is powerless to do anything about commerce which is not regulation.

Before the Congress can properly enact this Equal Employment Opportunity or FEPC provision under the commerce clause, it must be clearly established that its enactment is necessary because of a substantial relation to or effect on commerce.

This its proponents have absolutely failed to do.


The FEPC supporters attempted to do so by urging that passage of such a law would increase the Nation's gross national product by permitting nonwhites to make the same contribution to production, given the same educational attainment as whites. They contended that this alleged discrimination is preventing us from reaching our full economic potential and should be removed as a restriction on interstate commerce. However, the record shows the advocates of this contention subjected it to so many qualifications and exceptions that it is reduced to mere abstract theory without foundation and fact.

The validity of this theory was completely destroyed when its chief advocate asked himself the question:

By how much would the gross national product increase if the nonwhite were able to utilize his present potential (as measured by years of education) as full as has the white?

And answered this question by saying: The effect on economic performance does not lend itself to measurement.

If it were real it could be measured.

gross national product has increased 16 percent since 1961."

They go so far as to admit that discrimination in wage scales, if it does exist, as between white and colored, has no effect on interstate commerce by decreasing the gross national product. They said:

On the other hand, there exists a type of discrimination in employment which has little direct effect on output. This is the discriminatory practice in employment sometimes identified as "exploitation"; i.e., paying the nonwhite less than the white is paid for equal work. This type of discrimination results in a redistribution of income favoring the white at the expense of the nonwhite, but with no necessary reduction in total output.

While the proponents have advanced many extended theories and abstract ideas, they have failed to show that alleged discrimination, if it in fact exists, leged discrimination, if it in fact exists, has any substantial effect on interstate commerce. They have, therefore, failed to show any support for equal employment opportunity or FEPC legislation by the commerce clause of the Constitution.

They attempt to circumvent this fatal defect by simply declaring in title VII, section 701(b), of the bill:

The Congress further declares that the succeeding provisions of this title are necessary for the following purposes:

1. To remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce among the States and with foreign nations.

What proof do they show to support such a conclusion? What evidence is there that the obstructions referred to actually exist?

Absolutely none.


the testimony before the Labor the Labor Committee the FEPC supporters attempted to avoid the necessity of furtempted to avoid the necessity of furnishing such proof by contending that:

The question whether the conduct of an enterprise affects interstate commerce is a matter of practical judgment, the exercise of which is primarily vested in Congress by the Constitution.

This postulate that this title is necessary, if allowed to rise to the dignity of a conclusion without substantiating evidence, will have the most far-reaching implication of any legislation considered by the Congress in recent years.

It will reach into the very heart of every business in the Nation, taking with it endless and unnecessary regulation and control that will never be removed.

Before acting Congress has the responsibility and the duty to be certain that such a conclusion is based upon fact. This responsibility is unusually great in view of the Supreme Court ruling in the matter in American Communications

Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950). There the Court said:

Congress, not the courts, is primarily charged with the determination of the need for regulation of activities affecting interstate commerce. If such regulation unduly infringes personal freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment, the Supreme Court must declare the statute invalid. But insofar as the problem is one of drawing inferences concerning the need for regulation of particular forms of conduct from conflicting evidence, the Supreme Court is in no position to substitute its judgment as to the necessity or desirability of the statute for that of Congress.

ceptable or convincing proof that there The proponents have presented no acis a need for title VII. But even if proof had been submitted it would have to amount to more than mere suspicion or supposition that interstate commerce is affected. It would have to be shown that the effect on commerce was more than incidental or indirect. In National Relations Bd. v. Jones & L. Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937) the Court said:

The scope of the power of Congress over interstate commerce may not be so extended as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them would effectively obliterate the distinction between what is national and what

is local and create a completely centralized


It said further:

If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the Federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people and the authority of the State over its domestic concerns would exist only by sufferance to the Federal Government. Indeed, on such a theory, even the development of the State's commercial facilities would be subject to Federal control.

The proponents who cite parts of this case as authority for FEPC legislation overlook the fact that the Court restated its previous rule that to come under the commerce clause of the Constitution, a matter must have a real effect upon interstate commerce. In that regard, the Court said:

Whatever amounts to more or less constant practice and threatens to obstruct or unduly to burden the freedom of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the commerce clause and it is primarily for Congress to consider and decide the fact of the danger and meet it.

No proof having been established that interstate commerce is substantially affected or unduly burdened, it is clear that the Congress is without authority to enact this FEPC provision under the commerce clause and further consideration of it on this basis should be precluded.


But let us assume, contrary to the facts, that its consideration is warranted and authorized and that the facts do support the contention that this title of the bill will affect interstate commerce. If, as asserted before the Senate Labor Committee, the true purpose is to actually remove restraint on interstate

commerce by removing economic losses plication limited to instances involving that result from:

(1) Inefficiencies in the use of the labor force resulting from failure to utilize fully the existing skills of our population, and (2) failure to develop potential skills fully. Then to actually serve that purpose this bill should make no reference to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It should contain no reference to aliens or atheists. It should simply provide that every person who in any way conducts an activity bearing upon our Nation's economy must use fully the best available skills and operate in the most efficient manner possible. possible. This follows the simple process of logic. It should be clear that the full utilization of existing skills has little, if anything, to do with questions of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Therefore, if commerce is truly affected or burdened because an individual who is more or equally qualified is denied employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, then in order to protect commerce fully the bill should provide that no individual who is less qualified can be hired in preference to any person more qualified for any reason-without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Only by such a provision could we truly "utilize fully the existing skills of our people." If the protection of interstate commerce and the full utilization of existing skills are the real objectives of those who advocate passage of this title, they will readily admit this to be true.

The catastrophic consequences of enacting such a law is, of course, obvious even to the strongest supporters of an allpowerful centralized Federal Government.



Such a law, if enacted, would, of course, make the Federal Government the operator of every business or other activity that affects the national economy anywhere in the Nation. To enforce such a radical, far-reaching, ridiculous, and impractical law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would have to:

Acquire and maintain a working knowledge of every skill in every trade in every section of the Nation.

Monitor the employment and discharge of every employee of every employer in the Nation.

Monitor the promotion of every employee of every employer in any business or economic activity which affects the gross national product.

Acquire and maintain a detailed knowledge of every productive technique in the Nation.

Maintain a constant surveillance over every instance of productive activity in order to insure that the most efficient method is being used so that the Nation will, in compliance with this law, obtain maximum performance by the utilization of the best available skills.

Almost all of these requirements will, in fact, be necessary even if the bill passes in its present form, with its ap

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The employer will no longer be responsible for conducting his own business. He will instead be shackled to the bureaucratic whims of an all-powerful and constantly present Federal Government that continually looks with suspicion upon every act of management involving personnel or procedure. The employer, already burdened with limitless Government forms and regulations, will have to assume even more administrative burdens.

The hiring of every employee and the discharge of every employee will be done at the peril and risk of being overruled by the Commission or the courts. Every promotion will stand the possibility of being nullified or delayed pending the outcome of long and involved investigations, Commission hearings, and possible court actions.

The finality of any action by an employer in matters of personnel may be unknown for long periods of time and he will not know whether or not a discharged employee will have to be reinstated, whether a newly appointed employee can remain on his payroll, and whether or not the organizational structure of his particular business will be overturned because of an alleged violation of this title.

It is inconceivable and unthinkable that business enterprises-small, medium, or large-should be subjected to such regulation and control, and that such a great opportunity should be opened up for the smallest and most irresponsible inspector or agent to take undue advantage of an employer and subject him to the penalties and more than legal penalties; the abuse and uncertainty, blackmail and coercion-that would be permitted under this title.

In brief, it would be a monstrous, unworkable, impractical, and unbearable burden on a major segment of the business and industry of the Nation.

In addition, the Government could move in on the employer or owner of a small business or enterprise and ta away from him his basic, fundamental, and elemental rights as a private citizen. Let us remember that we are not

talking about regulating a public facility, a public operation, a public contractor, or a public enterprise of any kind. We are talking about going into small businesses employing as little as 25 persons which are purely privately owned enterprises. These are operated by people who have invested their savings of a lifetime, and who have gone into debt to finance the business.

What is sought is to have the Government enter with a club of some kindthe club of a Government in faraway Washington—to cuff him over the head daily-not once every year, as in the payment of taxes, but daily-to regulate the hiring, discharging, and promotion of his employees. I do not know how a Senator could conduct the affairs of his office if he had to operate under the provisions of the FEPC section.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. If it is proper that some Government bureaucrat should have the duty and function of coming into a person's place of business and telling him whom to hire, whom to promote, and whom not to promote, would it not be fair to say that white people are entitled to consideration as well as colored?

Mr. STENNIS. It certainly would. One would get into an impossible field if he tried to regulate everything in that way.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Eventually, should it not work both ways-in other words, the whites should be considered for promotion, as well as the colored? If a Federal bureaucrat were to tell an employer whom he should promote and whom he should not promote, and were to decide which ones should be promoted and which ones should not be

promoted, which ones should be fired, and which ones should be hired, how would an employer be able to operate his

business at all?

Mr. STENNIS. I do not see how he could.

When I was a young boy, I used to marvel at the way the crews operated the sawmills. The sawmill company employed some of the finest workmen to ride on the carriage which moved back and forth from the saw blade. Those

were colored men. Other very skilled colored men were used to sharpen the saw. As I recall, approximately twothirds of the employees of those companies were colored men. Some complaints were made to the companies; there were complaints that they employed too many colored people. But those men were skilled, and they worked hard, and did a fine job, and helped the companies make profits.

But if the management of that company had been encompassed with all the contention and all the rows that could develop day by day under the provisions of this bill, the company never would have had a chance to give any of its employees, either the whites or the Negroes, a real opportunity to work and to improve and to be promoted on merit. Certainly they could not do this if they had Federal inspectors and enforcement officers looking over their shoulders.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Would not this bill be an invitation to any employee subject to the FEPC provisions to call upon the FEPC in various ways, including by means of allegations that his talents were being overlooked, that he was not being used to the best of his abilities?

Mr. STENNIS. Of course. No doubt the Members of the Senate would then receive much mail in which discrimination against such employees was alleged, and Senators would be asked to look into those cases. I think that would be the natural result of a law similar to this bill.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INOUYE in the chair). Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. NELSON. For purposes of clarification, will not the Senator from Mississippi agree that section 7 specifically provides the procedure to be followed in a State which has its own fair employment practices law? Is it not clear that section 708 (a) and (b), on page 43 of the bill, under the title "Effect on State Laws," makes it certain that in States which now have in their statutes effective fair employment practices practices sections, agreements shall be made between the Commission and the Fair Employment Practices Authority in the State, for the purpose of the enforcement of the State law?

Is it not also very clear from page 44, beginning in line 2-I refer to the words:

No person may bring a civil action under section 707(c) in any case or class of cases referred to in such agreement.

And I say this so there will not be any misunderstanding by those who read the RECORD, although I realize that perhaps the Senator from Mississippi has already covered this point in the course of his speech-every State which has an effective FEPC law will sign an agreement with the Commission, and therefore there will be absolutely no change whatsoever respecting the operations of the fair employment practices law in that State, as compared with the situation today, because it will be enforced at the State level by the State's own Fair Employment Practices Commission, and the State law will be enforced; and as long as that agreement is in existence, no person will be able to make a complaint to the Federal Government and come to the Federal Government for any help in that connection? Does the Senator from Mississippi agree that that is a correct statement of the law?

Mr. STENNIS. Frankly, I must reply by saying to the Senator from Wisconsin that I believe he could obtain a more accurate interpretation of that part of the bill from someone else. I have read it, and I have a few remarks to make about it

[blocks in formation]

Mr. STENNIS. Very well; the SenVery well; the Senator from Wisconsin states that as a fact.

Mr. NELSON. Of course I do not expect the Senator from Mississippi to answer legal questions on the spur of the moment.

sin, both as to public accommodations and as to the FEPC, this bill would have no effect at all. As to States which do not now have such a law, of course this part of the bill would be operative in those States.

standard, the State can avoid any Federal interference with operations in that State in respect to that kind of conduct. I think that is important. In other words, no State must come under the Federal law. A State may enact its own

Mr. STENNIS. Wisconsin has such a public accommodations law and its own

law; has it not?

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Mr. STENNIS. So, I believe it is a fair interpretation to state that the Senator from Wisconsin wishes to have the Wisconsin law remain just as it now is; but as for States which do not now have such a law, he wishes to give them a law of his own making. That is about the substance of his position; and I do not say that in an unfriendly way. But I believe it is fair to state that the Senator from Wisconsin does not want to have the Wisconsin FEPC law impaired by this bill. Is that correct?

Mr. NELSON. The Wisconsin FEPC law is stronger than the law proposed in this bill; and the Wisconsin public accommodations law is much stronger than

the Federal law now proposed. So, the bill would have no operative effect in


Mr. STENNIS. And I assume that I am correct in stating that the Senator from Wisconsin wishes to have that situation continue. Is that correct?

Mr. NELSON. When I was Governor, I attempted to make some improvements in the law. The first Wisconsin public accommodations law was passed in 1885; and during the following 79 years we have continued to improve the law. If the Federal Government had a better one, I would be glad to recommend that our State adopt it.

I am now informed that 26 States have an FEPC law. So, as to those 26 States and as to the 32 States which have public accommodations sections in their laws, if they are adequate to meet the situation, they would not be affected by the bill. That is the only point I wished to make clear.

Mr. STENNIS. I have read those provisions. I really believe that the opinion of someone else in regard to them would be worth more to the Senate and to the Senator from Wisconsin, than my opinion would be, although I wish to comment on lines 5, 6, and 7, on page 44.

I point out that I am not criticizing the Wisconsin law. If it suits the people of Wisconsin, it certainly suits me for Wisconsin to have it. I am sure it is a good law, and that it was strengthened by the Senator from Wisconsin while he was Governor of that State.

My point is that the Senator from Mr. STENNIS. I am not prepared on Wisconsin does not desire to have the that point.

Mr. NELSON. I wish to state, as my interpretation, and I think it is correct, for I have conferred with constitutional lawyers that as to both the FEPC section and the public accommodations section, if a State has an enforcement agency, an agreement shall be signed, and then the State law shall be enforced at the State level, with no Federal Government connection. That applies to 32 States, as to the public accommodations section. As to the FEPC section, I am not now certain. But in WisconBut in Wiscon

provision changed substantially, and
certainly he does not wish to see it down-
graded. He does not desire to have a
Federal law replacing the statute on the
statute books of Wisconsin. At the same
time the Senator really wishes to have
Federal law apply to another State that
does not have an FEPC law; is that not

Mr. NELSON. I should like to clarify
the point by saying that any State in
the Nation may pass its own FEPC law
and its own public accommodations law.
If those laws can meet any reasonable

fair employment practices law. It can enact its own voting laws. If such laws met a reasonable standard of fairness, no Federal Government agency would have an opportunity to intervene.

Mr. STENNIS. I should like to ask the Senator a question on that point. If the bill should become law and Mississippi should adopt its own FEPC statute, does the Senator maintain that the law of the State would control?

Mr. NELSON. That is correct.

Mr. STENNIS. And the Federal FEPC law would not control?

Mr. NELSON. Yes. On lines 4 and 5 appears the modifying sentence, of which the Senator is aware:

The Commission shall rescind any such agreement when it determines such agency no longer has the power or is no longer effectively exercising the power.

But if there is a reasonable statute and a reasonable exercise of the power under the statute, I would interpret that language to mean that Mississippi, or any other State could have its own law with no Federal interference.

Mr. STENNIS. If the legislature of Wisconsin or the legislature of Mississippi should change its law related to the subjects about which we are speaking, it would come from under the agreement and be subject to the Federal law. Is that correct?

Mr. NELSON. It would depend upon how the law might be changed. A State could come back under the Federal law.

Mr. STENNIS. If the proposed legislation were passed, it would more or less freeze the law in Wisconsin and in other States that have a similar law, and it would put the Federal statute in all the other States.

Mr. NELSON. It would amount to some kind of Federal minimum standard.

Mr. STENNIS. I should like to ask the Senator another question. What kind of discrimination in Wisconsin is the Senator talking about? Is it discrimination against religion, race, national origin, or what?

Mr. NELSON. It is race and religion. Mr. STENNIS. In Mississippi I have never never heard of that question being raised in relation to a Jew, gentile, Greek, Catholic, Protestant, or any other such group. I have not heard that question raised. I have heard it raised about Jewish people in other States. In Mississippi there are some fine Jewish people. When I was a youngster, I had to go a thousand miles from Mississippi before I ever heard of any such thing as discrimination with reference to Jewish people. The Senator is talking about an altogether different kind of discrimination from what I am discussing.

With all due deference I ask the Senator how it can be reasoned that the Senator has more knowledge about how to write an antidiscrimination law for Mississippi than I do, since he comes

from a State which has 1.9 percent of colored people, while Mississippi has 42 percent?

Mr. NELSON. I did not reason that way. The Senator must have read something into my remarks.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is proposing, through this bill, to impose such a provision upon us. The State which he represents would get out from under the law immediately, if I understood him correctly. How did the Senator reach the conclusion that he can write a better law for Mississippi than I can?

Mr. NELSON. I did not say that I could.

to pass an FEPC bill which the Commission would approve in order to be released from the Federal regulation?

Mr. NELSON. The objective of the law is to assure constitutional rights to all people of our country without regard to race, color, or creed; and to the extent that those rights are being denied in that those rights are being denied in any part of the country, the measure would be an interference with whatever would be an interference with whatever authority was denying that right. That That is correct.

Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the Senator's question. He has made a contribution to the debate. Our discussion has brought out clearly what we are up

That is the kind of problem that people outside seek to create for us by legislation. They do not share our problems.

I should like to ask the Senator, who comes from a State in which 42 percent of the people are colored, and 58 percent are white, whether he can visualize a State with 1 or 2 percent colored people and 98 percent white having any real race problem so far as the Caucasian and the Negro races are concerned.

Mr. STENNIS. I do not think so. As the Senator from Louisiana has said, everyone knows this problem is more acute where there are the larger percentages of colored people. I am surprised, in a measure, that the States Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- which have FEPC laws are not willing dent, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I speak with great against. respect to the Senator.

Mr. NELSON. The point I am making is that the State of Mississippi, under that section of the statute, could avoid any relationship with the Federal Government whatsoever with respect to the questions of public accommodations and FEPC by passing its own laws. We enacted one such law in Wisconsin in 1885. There has been discrimination in Wisconsin. There still is. I can remember, as late as after the Second World War, seeing signs at resorts in my State, which people in many States have seen, stating, "gentiles only." There is not a single sign like that left in the State of Wisconsin, because our law forced compliance with the statute and eliminated that kind of discrimination.

There is discrimination in every single State in the Union. There is no doubt about it. There are bigoted people in every State in the Nation. No State takes first prize for being the only State without bigotry or discrimination, because, deplorably, we find it in every State in the country.

My point is and I am only trying to make it clear for the record-that the Senator from Mississippi and the spokesmen from many States are saying that they do not want Federal interference. All I am saying is that if a State should enact a statute that provides public accommodations and a reasonable FEPC law, the Federal Government will not be able to have anything to do with that State in that respect.

Mr. STENNIS. That is a good suggestion, but the Senator would interfere with us enough to make us pass an FEPC law which would meet the approval of the Commission. Otherwise, the Federal law would apply.

Mr. NELSON. That is correct.

Mr. STENNIS. So we would have to

put our necks in the noose provided by

the Senator before we could avoid being subjected to the terms of the law proposed by the Senator.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Wisconsin referred to a provision relating to the public accommodations section similar to that in the FEPC title. The Senator from Mississippi has not seen that provision and did not know that there was such a provision in relation to public accommodations. There may be. Will the Senator check and see if there is; and if there is, call it to my attention?

Mr. NELSON. I was depending on memory. I hope I did not misstate the contents of the bill. I shall examine it.

Mr. STENNIS. Now is the time to correct the record, if correction is necessary.

I yield to the Senator from Louisiana. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, a situation arose in the construction of highways in Louisiana recently which will help to illustrate the problems that the bill would tend to create.

About 80 percent of the construction workers working on highways in Louisiana are colored. It is usual to have the colored people working together in one group and the white men working together in another group. That is how gether in another group. That is how the people there want it. Neither the colored people nor the white people have objected to that arrangement. They get along better, work more effectively, and do a better job when they work in that manner. The colored people work together in one group and the white people work together in another group.

The Federal Government would like to come down to Louisiana and integrate all those workers on the theory that there is something wrong with white people working among people of their own kind and colored people working among people of their own kind. They are paid the same wage scale. The colored people have 80 percent of those jobs. ored people have 80 percent of those jobs. Yet someone likes to suggest that there is discrimination involved because the people are working among those of their own kind.

Mr. NELSON. The Senator suggests that it is my law. I thank him very I believe the Senator knows-and we much. know it-that the work group would not Mr. STENNIS. I mean the bill which be as effective if it were compelled to inbe as effective if it were compelled to inthe Senator supports. clude a salt-and-pepper mixture of the races as it would if left the way it is. Yet that is the kind of activity in which someone seeks to impose Federal judgment—which would be in error, by the way-on a prejudiced basis, in trying to assume that there is something immoral about people trying to be among their own kind of people.

Mr. NELSON. A State would have to comply with the standard set. Of course, any arbitrariness on the part of the Commission would be subject to court review, as the Senator, who has been a judge, knows.

Mr. STENNIS. Would not the Senator call it interference if we were forced

to submit to Federal law, while at the same time they are trying to impose a Federal law upon us. I am disappointed. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Minnesota. We have missed him on the floor today. I know he has been very busy on other matters and has not been neglecting his duties, but I am glad he is back.

Mr. HUMPHREY. We have had able lieutenants present. We learned to do that from our southern friends. I was not absent long, always within close range.

Mr. STENNIS. Perhaps the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Georgia were in conference.

Mr. HUMPHREY. We would like to have been.

One thing has particularly puzzled me in the discussion over these past days about the attitudes of the opponents of this bill. I recognize the differences in our experiences, but what has always puzzled me is what I experienced during the 1 year or so that I spent in the State of my good friend from Louisiana. I noticed that a colored lady would literally bring up a white family, sharing with them the most intimate and cherished The children were as experiences. friendly and close as they could be. So long as she was taking care of the children and helping the mother of the house and acting like a member of the family, there was no attitude that she did not belong but rather her place in the family was coveted; but outside of the job, it was complete and total segregation. I never could understand that attitude.

In the northern community where I live, in Minneapolis, there is much less genuine sociability than I saw in the South. I could never understand what seems to be such a glaring paradox. In the Southern States many Negro women literally bring up a family of white children, take care of them from immediately after birth, prepare their food, take care of all their needs, willingly, and openly supply the little babies with an abundance of genuine love and affection, and continue these close and cherished relationships until the time they are teenagers and even beyond. Yet when this same woman would go uptown or try to go into a drug-store to have a Coca Cola or a sandwich, she is told, "You cannot come in here. You cannot buy and eat a sandwich here, you must keep out."

I would appreciate it if someone would tell me why a colored lady could literally love their children, coddle them, bring them up, put them to bed, wake them in the morning, take care of their every need, feed them, be like a good and loving mother to them, and yet when she goes uptown she is told, "You cannot come in here." Yet that same woman had cooked the food for the white family sometimes but an hour or two earlier. So it is evidently not a matter of a reverse Midas touch.

I would like to have a sociological or psychological explanation of what seems to me to be a great contradiction.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. STENNIS. May I comment just briefly in answer to the Senator and then proceed, because the Senator from Mississippi has taken some time?

Let me say to the Senator from Minnesota that, wise as the Senator from Minnesota is in so many things, and long as he has lived, if he cannot understand some of the basic relations that occur in

I read this morning that Alabama was to be a target of such agitation. Thousands of people are going to be brought in there. I heard last week that Mississippi was going to be a target.

I wish the Senator from Minnesota would use his influence in some way to stop that, and not by legislation. I know he cannot stop it by the latter method.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I know there is no finer man in this body, or no more compassionate or kind man, than the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. Mr. HUMPHREY. My comments were not directed in any sense as a criticism of him, but the pattern has always been an enigma to me. I understand there are differences in patterns. I know that in sections of the North there are differences in patterns that come about as a result of differences in ethnic background. But we are now living in a period in which people have an oppor

human nature, I cannot expect, in the tunity to travel which they never had

few minutes I have remaining to me, to make him understand.

I remember as a little boy reading the Bible and reading about the conflict between the Jewish people and the Philistines, for example. Now there is a conflict between the Jewish people and the Arabs. I never did understand such conflicts. I do not understand them yet.

There is no conflict between the col

before. They move across State lines.
They move across international lines.
They have a better education. Vast
numbers were taken into the armed
services. They have had new experi-
ences. The old patterns bother them.

For example, it bothers some of these
good people to be told, after they have
traveled across the Nation, that, because

of color, they cannot come into a par-
ticular public place. It does not bother
them that they cannot go into one's
home, because that is a matter of private
choice and that private sphere is not
disturbed by this bill.

A little 5-year-old girl attended kindergarten. There were no monthly reports sent out but it was understood there would be periodic conferences between the teachers and the parents. When the time came for a conference, the mother of the little girl went to the teacher, who said, "Your little girl has a good mind. She is quick enough to learn, but she is not scoring high marks on making social adjustments."

The mother said, "I cannot understand that. My little girl is friendly. She plays with her playmates in the neighborhood. She is liked by all of them. She loves them, too. They come to see her, and she goes to see them. Tell me what she has done or failed to do."

The teacher said, "The children were playing house. Your little girl was goplaying the game of building a house and ing to be the mother, and Jimmy was going to be the father. Some of the other little children were going to be the children of the mother and father. We thought we were going to start off all right, but then your little girl would not agree to play the mother in this little game because she would not agree to have Jimmy as the father."

So the mother said, "What was so objectionable about Jimmy?"

The teacher said, "I do not know, except that he is a little Negro boy."

We cannot criticize that little girl-
Mr. HUMPHREY. No, we cannot.
We should criticize the elders.

Mr. STENNIS. We cannot criticize a

ored and white in the South on the basis of social patterns and on the basis of individuals, but the social patterns are different there than in other sections. They have been different a long time. They will be different for a long time in the future. I cannot explain such relationships to the Senator, but they exist, and they cannot be changed by legisla- barracks with his white neighobrs, wants mother did not know she was playing

[blocks in formation]

If a colored man who has gone to
Korea, and who has slept in the same

to visit a person in a State where there
is segregation, it bothers him that he
cannot. He may come from Chicago,
where, by the way, there

are more

Negroes than there are in most Southern
cities. If he goes to visit someone in
the South, it bothers him that the rules
of segregation apply. Here is a man who
is treated as an equal when he is serv-

talked about the Negro women. When I ing his country far away from home. He

first came to the Senate my children were small, and as I left the driveway of my home and drove onto the highway, the last scene I saw at my home was that of the colored woman I left in charge wiping the tears from her eyes because the children were leaving.

If we could be left alone to look to our

own type of leadership, we could solve our problems in the South. If the prochance, we would continue to make headway. We have come a long way in the short time since slavery.

If the colored ministers and the colored teachers, a great number of whom we have trained in our State, were left free to lead their own groups, and if we could encourage those leaders and have the leadership get back to the helm of those people, they would pick up and move. But progress is being retarded by all this agitation.

sleeps in the same barracks, and eats in
the same mess halls. He receives equal

opportunities and responsibilities. But

he is told, "No."
when he gets back to his own country,

I know there are certain cultural pat

little girl who is 5 years old. With all deference to the little Negro boy, he is not to be blamed for anything. I suppose his conduct has been good. But something came up in the little girl's mind so that she did not want that to happen. I do not know what the mother told the little girl. Apparently, her such a game.

nesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], but other Sen

Senators-not the Senator from Min

ators-accuse Members of both the

House of Representatives and the Senate from the South of being political segregationists, and so forth. I will tell who the greatest segregationists are.

They are the mothers of this countrythe mothers of these little girls. That is illustrated in the true story I have just

told. I cannot adequately explain these

things, but I know life.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Those are the cial environment. There is no question facts of life. These are the facts of so

about that.

Mr. STENNIS. We would not try to

terns. I can understand that. All I am
and have traveled and have had some
saying is that once people have learned
degree of education, they break out of pass a law to change a little girl's mind,
these patterns. The question is, Are they

going to break out of them by violence
or through law? That is the question.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator has
raised a question. I know he is a man of
interest and of compassion in questions
of humanity. He asked me to illustrate
something which is largely unexplaina-
something which is largely unexplaina-
ble, but I will try to give the Senator
an illustration. This I can vouch for,
an illustration. This I can vouch for,
because it happened in a non-Southern
State within the past few weeks.

would we?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Not at all, but we hope we can establish by law the protection of certain rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution. There are certain privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution. We are trying to enact a law, so that people will have equal voting rights, so that there will be no enforced segregation in public facilities. We are not enforcing integration. We are merely saying that there shall not be a law

« ПретходнаНастави »