MINORITY VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE CLARE

E. HOFFMAN, OF MICHIGAN

The bill is based upon certain findings of fact and a declaration of policy. If the findings be erroneous, or the declaration of policy unsound, the bill should be recommitted.

FINDINGS

The reason given for the adoption of this proposed legislation is that, due to discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, and ancestry, less than a full measure of employment (a) has caused industrial strife; (b) forced large groups of our population into permanently substandard living conditions, which, in turn, has (c) created a drain upon the resources of the Nation, (d) a permanent threat to industrial peace and to a standard of living necessary to the health, efficiency, and well-being of workers.

To give Congress jurisdiction to enact legislation to end the discrimination, it is charged that such discrimination in industries engaged in commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce, causes the spread of such discrimination and a diminution of employment and wages to such an extent that it impairs and disrupts the market for goods and obstructs commerce.

The bill then states the obvious fact that individuals should have the right to work without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry; but it pointedly ignores the equally obvious fact that individuals have the right to work without discrimination because of membership or nonmembership in a labor union.

DECLARATION OF POLICY

The declaration of policy is somewhat like the false front on the country store, in that, instead of being a two-story measure to end discrimination against the worker, it wholly ignores the discrimination which permits the levying of a tax upon the overwhelming majority of workers, bars thousands of others from the more lucrative jobs, and makes no effort at all to eliminate, even in wartime, the principal cause of industrial strife which has cost millions of man-days of work.

The foregoing is true for the reason that, while the bill avers that it is the policy of Congress to protect the right to work without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry, it makes no attempt to end the discrimination practiced because of lack of union membership.

It takes no more than a moment's consideration to show that the bill is not one to end discrimination against workers as a class, for, under it, a black, yellow, or brown individual, be he Jew, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, or infidel, if he be a member of a union, is protected, while, though he be white, a Jew, Catholic, or Protestant,

10

but not a member of a union, he may seek employment in vain. Even his Government will in many cases issue an order requiring him to become or to remain a member of a union.

REASON FOR PROPOSED LEGISLATION

In truth and in fact, while the avowed purpose of the bill is to end discrimination, give equality of opportunity, in employment, another objective is to bring about, through Federal legislation, a social intermingling (and some advocate intermarriage) among the races.

Others support the bill because it is believed that, by so doing, the political support of the Negro as a race can be obtained for certain candidates or partisan measures. Neither major party is without sin in this last respect.

THE BILL'S SUPPORTERS

Good citizens, sincere in their convictions, in a hurry to see all Negroes in possession of jobs, homes, and as well educated and financially established as is the average white, believe this legislation will do for the Negro what others think can be accomplished only by time and education.

Others, professional reformers, without convictions of any kind, see in the bill an opportunity to reap a rich financial reward through the exercise of their professional talents as creators of unrest and the advocacy of controversial legislation.

Still others supporting the bill-and reference has been made to them are so-called "smart" politicians, who think that the holding out before the Negro, not only of the justifiable hope of equal opportunity for employment, but the vision of an immediate Utopia, where all men will intermingle, intermarry, will secure for them the support of the Negro voter.

While the bill by its terms is all-inclusive, practically it offers additional opportunity to the members of but one race, the Negro.

The Negro, because of the circumstances under which he was brought to this country and because of conditions beyond his control which have since existed, has not, as a race, made the same advancement as have members of other races.

Today, few indeed are those who would deny to the Negro equality of opportunity; but there are many who have the future welfare of the Negro at heart, who desire to assist him in every way, who are firmly convinced that, while he should be given equality of opportunity, yet moral and social inhibitions and inborn race prejudices cannot be wiped out by legislation.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, a majority of our people by a constitutional amendment attempted to end the excessive use of spirituous and intoxicating liquor. That noble experiment should make us cautious in attempting to accomplish by legislation that which only education and tolerance can bring about.

The fate of this bill should be decided, not upon any false premise but upon a consideration of how the Negro can best be given equality of opportunity, not only for employment but for education and the exercise of his religious freedom.

Since the war between the States, the advancement of the Negro in economic and educational fields has been marvelous. Through the practice of tolerance, through education, a sure and sound progress will be made and the goal desired by Negro and by white alike will finally be reached.

The forcing of the issue through legislation by sincere but misguided individuals, by professional reformers and soap-box orators, by cunning politicians, will, in my judgment, delay the attainment of a greatly desired end.

METHOD

Both major parties have promised, and our people desire, an end to the creation of additional bureaus, commissions, and agencies.

Experience under New Deal agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of Price Administration-yes, and even our recent experience with General Hershey, Director of the Selective Service System-has demonstrated that the departure from constitutional procedure, the issuing of rules, orders, and directives as the substitutes for laws and the decisions of courts, does not aid in giving our people equal justice under law.

It took the Anglo-Saxon race hundreds of years to obtain, establish, and, to a large degree, perfect the judicial system, which still, in spite of attempts to destroy it, is the most efficient method of administering justice between individuals ever created.

This bill creates another commission. It legalizes an executive agency which, in its own official family, has disregarded the principle of equality of opportunity, of representation.

If this bill is made legislation, the taxpayers will have thrust upon their already overburdened shoulders not only an additional tax burden, but an agency under which the individual's right to a trial by jury will be denied him.

THE ALTERNATIVE

If a majority of the Congress believes that legislation against discrimination should be enacted, then our time-tried and time-proven system, which guarantees to the individual due process of law, should be adopted, and the protection of the rights which this bill proposes to give should be entrusted to the judicial branch of our Government.

If so entrusted, a judge, learned in the law, free from political influence, will interpret the act; a jury will pass upon the facts; the accused will not be subject to a punishment imposed by some bureaucrat, by some partisan, by some crackpot, whose sole qualification is loyalty to a theory, ignorance of realities.

Discrimination, if such exists, can be prevented, adequate redress given, through the use of the judicial machinery already in existence. No additional cost, except perhaps for the payment of some additional clerical and stenographic assistance, would be imposed.

At present, there is a deplorable lack of confidence in the fairness, the integrity, the efficiency, of administrative agencies. The courts still retain the confidence of the people.

Entrusting the administration of any legislation which it is deemed wise to adopt to the judicial branch of our Government is imperative if we are to retain our constitutional rights and processes.

The possibilities for the exercise of tyranny under the interpretation and administration of this bill, or any other legislation of its nature, are so apparent that the creation of an executive agency to interpret and administer it would be but another transfer of a portion of the power of the judicial to the executive branch of the Governmentanother step toward dictatorship.

Respectfully submitted.

O

CLARE E. HOFFMAN.