The women's status bill is an "affirmative response to the United Nations Charter and it is in harmony with the procedures being worked out by the Commission on the Status of Women at Lake Success; it commits Congress to future legislation; and it provides standards and a precedent for the States to follow if they so desire. It will be interesting to see how many legislators who have previously given lip service to the amendment will now turn with relief to this more realistic attempt to deal with statutory discriminations against women.-Margaret Perry Bruton; The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1947. * * * * * Recognizing the need for a discriminating approach to solution of the problems connected with the legal status of women, this (women's status) bill declares it to be the policy of the United States to make no distinctions on the basis of sex * ** * except such as are reasonably justified by differences in physical structure, biological, or social function The really difficult task, however, is to enlist the support of the States in the movement to abolish unjustified legal discriminations against women It is proposed, therefore, to establish a commission on the legal status of women to review discrimination based on sex * * * and recommend changes To our way of thinking, that is the intelligent method of procedure. Voluntary conformity with a general policy would enable the States to effect changes in their laws with such variations as local conditions make desirable. It would, moreover, avoid a kind of Federal interference peculiarly obnoxious to State governments—so obnoxious in fact that we doubt whether three-fourths of the States could be induced to support an amendment entailing such a destructive invasion of their legislative domain.-Washington Post, February 24, 1947. * * Senator Taft and Representative Wadsworth of New York have introduced a bill which declares it to be the legislative policy of the United States to make no distinctions on the basis of sex except such as are reasonably justified by differences in physical structure, biological, and social function. The bill also provides for a Presidential Commission to study and review the and to recomIt is heartening to * * economic, civic, political, and social status of women mend legislation necessary to correct inequities see constructive leadership given in this important matter by members of both parties and by Senator Taft and Representative Wadsworth. It is to be hoped that all the women's organizations-including the National Women's Party which has sponsored the controversial equal rights amendment-will join forces in support of this new approach to an old problem.-New York Herald Tribune, April 2, 1947. Mr. REED. Without objection, the material referred to will be made part of the record. Thank you, Mrs. Young. (The material referred to is as follows:) These national organizations have endorsed the women's status bill (H. R. 2007): Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. American Association of University Women. American Association of Social Workers. American Civil Liberties Union. American Federation of Labor. American Federation of Women's Auxiliaries of Labor. American Federation of Teachers. Americans for Democratic Action. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freighthandlers, Express and Station Employees. Communications Association of America. Congress of Industrial Organizations. Congress of Women's Auxiliaries of the CIO. Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America. Girls Friendly Society of the United States. Glass Bottleblowers Association of the United States and Canada. International Coordinating Committee of the UAW Auxiliary. International Ladies Garment Workers Union. International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO. League of Women Voters of the United States. National Council of Catholic Women. National Federation of Postoffice Clerks. National Federation of Settlements, Inc. National Federation of Telephone Workers. National Maritime Union, Women's Auxiliary. National Women's Trade Union League of America. National Board of the YWCA of the United States of America. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO. United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union. United Packinghouse Workers of America. United Rubber Workers of America, CIO. United Steelworkers of America, CIO. Women's National Homeopathic Medical Fraternity. Women's Society for Christian Service of the Methodist Church, eastern division. These national organizations are opposed to the equal rights amendment : Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. American Association of University Women. American Association of Social Workers. American Civil Liberties Union. American Federation of Labor. American Federation of Women's Auxiliaries of Labor. American Federation of Teachers. Americans For Democratic Action. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freighthandlers, Express and Station Employees. Communications Association of America. Congress of Industrial Organizations. Congress of Women's Auxiliaries of the CIO. Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America. Girls Friendly Society of the United States. Glass Bottleblowers Association of the United States and Canada. International Coordinating Committee of the UAW Auxiliary. International Ladies Garment Workers Union. International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO. League of Women Voters of the United States. National Consumers League. National Council of Catholic Women. National Council of Jewish Women. National Council of Negro Women. National Farmers Union. National Federation of Postoffice Clerks. National Federation of Settlements, Inc. National Maritime Union, Women's Auxiliary. National Women's Trade Union League of America. National Board of the YWCA of the United States of America. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO. United Public Workers of America, CIO. United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union. United Office and Professional Workers of America. United Packinghouse Workers of America. United Rubber Workers of America, CIO. United Steelworkers of America, CIO. Women's National Homeopathic Medical Fraternity. Women's Society for Christian Service of the Methodist Church, eastern division. MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN Dr. Edith Abbott, University of Chicago. Emily Greene Balch, Wellesley, Mass. Mrs. Charles Bang, Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. Mary McLeod Bethune, Washington, D. C. Dr. Sarah Gibson Blanding, president, Vassar College. Dean Dorothy Book, Boston College of Social Work. Dr. Elizabeth Brandeis, University of Wisconsin. Mrs. William J. Carson (Julia M. H. Carson), Rye, N. Y. Mrs. Edward P. Costigan, Denver. Mrs. Minnie Fisher Cunningham, New Waverly, Tex. Prof. Harriet S. Daggett, Louisiana State University Law School. Mary W. Dewson, Penobscot, Maine. Hon. Helen Gahagan Douglas, Washington, D. C. Mollie Dowd, Birmingham, Ala. Hon. Genevieve B. Earle, New York City. Dean Harriet Elliott, Women's College, University of North Carolina. Gertrude Ely, Bryn Mawr, Pa. Mrs. Harold Fendler, Los Angeles. Margaret Fisher, Atlanta, Ga. Mrs. Thomas Fleming, Jr., Pasadena, Calif. Mrs. Blanche Freedman, New York City. Mary L. Garner, South Bend, Ind. Mrs. Alexander B. Geary, Wellingford, Pa. Mrs. Charles W. Gilkee, Chicago. Mrs. Rosa Gragg, Detroit. Dr. Julia Green, Washington, D. C. Mrs. Stuart E. Grummon, Redding, Conn. Judge Marion Harron, Washington, D. C. Mrs. Elinore Herrick, New York City. Mrs. Sidney Hollender, Baltimore, Md. Margaret Hughes, Springfield, Ill. Alice Hunt, Providence, R. I. Mrs. Gardner Jackson, Washington, D. C. Mrs. Mildred Jeffrey, Detroit. Mrs. Olin Johnston, Kensington, Md. Mrs. Winifred Johnston, Washington, D. C. Brownie Lee Jones, Richmond, Va. Judge Dorothy Kenyon, New York City. Mrs. William Kittle, Minneapolis. Dr. Marjorie Knauth, New York City. Mrs. Thomas F. McAllister, Grand Rapids, Mich. Mrs. Malcolm McBride, Cleveland. Mrs. Emily F. Mead, Philadelphia. Frieda Miller, United States Department of Labor. Mrs. Sylvania Mariner, Britton, Okla. Lucy Randolph Mason, Atlanta, Ga. Dr. Elizabeth Morrisey, College of Notre Dame of Maryland. Mrs. Edgar Ansel Mowrer, Washington, D. C. Mrs. C. R. Mueller, Highland Park, Mich. Agnes Nestor, Chicago. Dr. Mildred Northrop, Bryn Mawr College. Mrs. Maude Wood Park, Portland, Maine. Mrs. Louise Grant Smith, St. Louis. Anna Lord Strauss, Washington, D. C. Ann Webster, Santa Fe, N. Mex. Mrs. Joseph Welt, Detroit. Mrs. Robert P. Wetherall, president, Pennsylvania League of Women Voters. Mrs. Jessie Williamson, Berkeley, Calif. Mary Winslow, Washington, D. C. N. Ruth Wood, St. Louis. Mrs. Chase Going Woodhouse, New London, Conn. Mrs. Quincy Wright, Chicago. Mrs. Florence Wycoff, San Francisco. Mrs. Sanborn Young (Ruth Comfort Mitchell), Los Gatos, Calif. Mrs. Ralph A. Young, Washington, D. C. Mrs. Richard Zwemer, Westfield, N. J. These lawyers and legal scholars-regardless of party, and regardless of political or economic views-oppose the so-called equal-rights amendment and endorse the statement set forth herein, on the legal implications of the proposed amendment, prepared by Prof. Paul Freund, of the Harvard Law School: Clarence Manion, dean of the College of Law, University of Notre Dame, Indiana. Silas Strawn, former president, American Bar Association. Charles Warren, constitutional lawyer, and author of The Supreme Court in United States History, Washington, D. C. George Maurice Morris, former president, American Bar Association, Washington, D. C. Marion J. Harron, judge, Tax Court of the United States. Walter Gellhorn, professor of law, Columbia University Law School. Glenn A. McCleary, dean of the law school, University of Missouri. Dorothy Straus, lawyer, New York City. D. W. Woodbridge, acting dean, Department of Jurisprudence, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va. Marvin C. Harrison, lawyer, Cleveland, Ohio. M. R. Kirkwood, professor of law, Stanford University Law School, California. Joseph Padway, general counsel for the AFL, Washington, D. C. Leon Green, dean of the law school, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. Dorothy Kenyon, lawyer and former judge of municipal court, New York City. E. Blythe Stason, dean of the law school, University of Michigan. Morris Ernst, lawyer, New York City. William Draper Lewis, former dean, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia. Charles C. Burlingham, lawyer, New York City. Patrick O'Brien, probate judge of Wayne County, Detroit, Mich. Godfrey Schmidt, professor of law, Fordham University, New York City. Robert H. Wettach, dean of the School of Law, University of North Carolina. Isabel Simons, lawyer, Highland Park, Ill. Patrick Nertney, lawyer, and chairman, Detroit Chapter, National Lawyers Guild, Detroit, Mich. Harry R. Trusler, dean of the College of Law, University of Florida. Douglas B. Maggs, professor of law, Duke University School of Law, and former solicitor, United States Department of Labor. George Burke, former general counsel, OPA, Ann Arbor, Mich. Gerard Reilly, lawyer, and member National Labor Relations Board. William H. Holly, United States district judge, Chicago. Roscoe Pound, former dean, Harvard Law School. Everett Fraser, dean of the Law School, University of Minnesota. Monte M. Lemann, lawyer, New Orleans, La. Albert J. Harno, dean of the College of Law, University of Illinois. Lowell Turrentine, acting dean, School of Law, Stanford University, California. Willard Hurst, professor of law, University of Wisconsin Law School, Frances Swietik, dean of Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, Wis. N. Ruth Wood, lawyer, St. Louis, Mo. Henry B. Witham, dean of the Law School, Indiana University. C. M. Finfrock, dean of the School of Law, Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Sayre MacNeil, dean of the School of Law, Loyola University, Los Angeles. Frank Donner, counsel for the CIO, Washington, D. C. E. Merrick Dodd, professor of law, Harvard Law School. Harry Shulman, professor of law, Yale University Law School. The following statement on legal implications of proposed Federal equal-rights amendment has been endorsed by deans and professors of 21 leading law schools and by eminent attorneys, jurists, and constitutional lawyers, including former presidents of the American Bar Association and the general counsel for the two great labor organizations. The proposed amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: "That equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress and the several States shall have power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "This amendment shall take effect three years after the date of ratification." If anything about this proposed amendment is clear, it is that it would transform every provision of law concerning women into a constitutional issue to be ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States. Every statutory and common-law provision dealing with the manifold relation of women in society would be forced to run the gantlet of attack on constitutional grounds. The range of such potential litigation is too great to be readily foreseen, but it would certainly embrace such diverse legal provisions as those relating to a widow's allowance, the obligation of family support and grounds for divorce, the age of majority and the right of annulment of marriages, and the maximum hours of labor for women in protected industries. Not only is the range of the amendment of indefinite extent, but, even more important, the fate of all this varied legislation would be left highly uncertain in the face of judicial review. Presumably, the amendment would set up a constitutional yardstick of absolute equality between men and women in all legal relationships. A more flexible view, permitting reasonable differentiation, can hardly be regarded as the object of the proposal, since the fourteenth amendment has long provided that no State shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, and that amendment permits reasonable classifications while prohibiting arbitrary legal discrimination. If it were intended to give the courts the authority to pass upon the propriety of distinctions, benefits, and duties as between men and women, no new guidance is given to the courts, and this entire subject, one of unusual complexity, would be left to the unpredictable judgments of courts in the form of Constitution decisions. Such decisions could not be changed by act of the legislature. Such a responsibility upon the courts would be doubtless as unwelcome to them as it would be inappropriate. As has been stated, however, the proposal evidently contemplates no flexibility in construction but rather a rule of rigid equality. This branch of the dilemma is as repelling as the other. It appears to be accepted by what is currently the most authoritative statement on this amendment-the report of the House Judiciary Committee, House Report 907, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, on House Joint Resolution 49, dated July 12, 1945. The majority of the committee appears to recognize that under the amendment the many laws protecting the safety and welfare of women in industry would necessarily fall. The committee states: "To say the least of the matter, many of the large organizations |