May 31, 1950
The work done in connection with the fair employment practice legislation has been under the direction of the Acting Secretary.1 Since he has commented on this matter and will undoubtedly do so at the Board meeting, no statement on this is included in this report.2
A strong effort is being made to amend the Railway Labor Act to permit establishment of the union shop and dues check-off system in that industry. The Labor Secretary and Mr. Joseph Waddy, General Counsel for the International Association of Railway Employees, the Association of Colored Railroad Trainmen and Locomotive Firemen and the Colored Trainmen of America, testified jointly against S. 3295 before the Senate Labor and Education Committee on May 18, 1950.
We affirmed our belief in and support of the union shop as a matter of principle but we advised the committee that, if this legislation passes in its present form, it will place colored railroad employees completely at the mercy of discriminating unions and hostile employers.
In response to a question by Senator Forrest Donnell we pointed out that since 1920 approximately nine thousand jobs have been lost by colored firemen, brakemen, switchmen, and flagmen. We traced the loss to a plan of strategy devised by the Railroad Brotherhoods.3
We requested an opportunity to be heard by the House Committee considering this legislation but the hearings were closed before we were permitted to testify. We have protested this action to the chairman of the committee, Congressman Robert Crosser, and he has promised to reopen the hearings in order that we may present our case.
Secretary Maurice Tobin of the Department of Labor has responded to the Association’s protest against continued importation of foreign workers for agriculture, particularly, in California where the Secretary advises that,
“The recommendation for employment of foreign labor in the Imperial Valley was made, by the United States Employment Service, only after the California State Employment Service had determined that domestic agricultural workers were not obtainable in sufficient supply to meet the demands of agricultural employers.”
At the meeting of the Federal Advisory Council on December 16, 1949, we suggested that the Employment Service make use of the Farm Labor Union, AFL, and other farm organizations in recruiting agricultural workers. Mr. H. L. Mitchell, President of the National Farm Labor Union, has advised that this recommendation has been put into effect on a limited scale in California. It has resulted in a much better plan of recruitment where it has been tried but where it is not yet extensive enough to affect the overall picture. Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, representing the growers, have vigorously protested against this plan. So far, it has not been abandoned.4
An interesting sidelight in the California situation is developing at Bakersfield. Apparently, a large number of colored people who live in what is called the Cottonwood section are registering to vote. We are advised that an effort is under way to challenge their registration even though most of them have been residents of the area for years.5
We have been working on a very interesting matter affecting a colored veteran in Moss Point, Mississippi. He is seeking back pay for a period when he was denied reinstatement by the International Paper Company of Moss Point, Mississippi, after he returned from the armed services. He also charges that when he was reemployed, as provided by the Selective Service Act, the company placed him on an undesirable job.
We have taken this matter up with the Veterans Reemployment Service and the Department of Justice. The United States Attorney in Jackson, Mississippi, has informed us that during the June term of the United States District Court, which convenes in Biloxi, he will make an effort to obtain a settlement on this matter. He also advised that he will keep us posted on further developments in the case.
It would appear that this case would be very useful in establishing a precedent in instances where colored men have been denied prompt reinstatement on returning from duty in the armed services.
The Sioux City, Iowa, Branch has advised that it has now drafted an FEPC ordinance which is to be introduced in the local City Council. The ordinance is based on similar legislation in other cities.
A proposed ordinance on non-discrimination clauses in construction contracts in Baltimore, Maryland, was scheduled for introduction but political groups and one social welfare organization have combined to prevent the introduction of the ordinance. They have suggested that it be delayed until September. The NAACP is opposed to the delay because we recognize that this is a move designed to kill the ordinance.6
Sometime ago, a group of individuals planning a housing conference in Washington requested that the NAACP join with them in having a public meeting. Since the Association is not satisfied with the present racial policies of the National Housing Agencies, the Labor Secretary suggested that the request be submitted to the Acting Secretary.
The organizations did not submit the request but listed the Association as a sponsoring organization in materials distributed at the conference held on Saturday, May 20, 1950. I am advised that during the conference, a representative of one of the organizations suggested that the group go on record against segregation in housing. This suggestion was not adopted.
This item is included in this report in order that the record will show that the sponsors of the conference apparently did not avail themselves of an opportunity to get the NAACP’s official agreement to sponsor the conference. It appears that this conference group plans to function on a more or less continuing basis. It is suggested that the relationship between the conferees and the NAACP should be clarified.
At the suggestion of the Labor Secretary, the President of the D.C. Branch, Reverend Stephen Spottswood, called a meeting on Thursday, May 4, 1950, to make assignments of various organizations to contact individual congressmen for the purpose of defeating H.R. 5968.
This bill proposes to transfer six swimming pools in the District of Columbia from control of the Department of Interior to control of the District of Columbia’s Recreation Board. The bill, which is sponsored by Congressman McMillan of South Carolina, seeks to make possible the continuation of segregation in the swimming pools now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior. The pools are scheduled for opening on June 7th and 14th on a non-segregated basis.7
A great many persons and organizations are interested in defeating H. R. 5968. The Labor Secretary agreed to contact congressmen from Illinois, Minnesota, and California for the purpose of getting them to vote against the bill.
The Labor Secretary, sometime ago, prepared a letter to branches for the signature of the President of the D. C. Branch. This was an appeal for signatures on a discharge petition (No. 19) designed to bring the D. C. Home Rule Bill out of the Rules Committee.
At that time, the Labor Secretary was advised that the Home Rule Bill had some doubtful aspects which might make it unacceptable to colored people. One of these, we were advised, was a provision that the Recorder of Deeds Office would be transferred from the Federal Government to control of the District of Columbia. However, it appears that our D. C. Branch is convinced that this legislation should pass and it is the view of the Labor Secretary that the D. C. Branch should be supported in its efforts. Accordingly, we are again seeking cooperation of branches in certain areas to get their congressmen to sign the discharge petition.8
It is gratifying to report that the Senate Finance Committee has reported out H. R. 6000 with domestics and certain agricultural workers included. While the coverage of agricultural workers may not be as extensive as desired, the way is open for getting in a considerable number of colored persons, who because of their occupations have been excluded.
The House has passed a bill in a form which includes domestic workers but not agricultural workers.9
The Labor Secretary appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee in opposition to H. R. 7595 on May 3, 1950.10
The committee counsel wanted to know whether the Association had been forced to withdraw the charter of the Hawaiian Branch because it was infiltrated by communists. The Labor Secretary advised the committee that it was administratively impossible to supervise the activities of that branch because of the distance involved, and, for that reason, the charter was withdrawn. The committee was advised that the issue of communism had nothing to do with the withdrawal.11
During the month, the Labor Secretary was the speaker at a NAACP meeting in Fredericksburg, Virginia; the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches; the St. Peter Claver Interracial Forum, the Maryland Vocational School; and a breakfast meeting on civil rights at the Willard Hotel sponsored by the Church of Brethren.
The Labor Secretary attended meetings at the Statler Hotel for the National Conference on Citizenship and at the State Department for the National Citizens Committee for United Nations Day.
The Labor Secretary also challenged a news story in the NAM magazine. This news story was written to give the impression that FEPC was communist inspired legislation.
MS: NAACP II: A-537, DLC.
[1] Upon Walter White’s return from a year’s vacation, the board reorganized the top staff, naming Wilkins, who was “acting secretary” during White’s absence, as administrator. Minutes, 5/8/50, EC. For Senate action on FEPC, see New York Times 5/23/50, 1; Congress and the Nation 1618.
[2] Wilkins reported that after he sent his report on FEPC to members of the board as a letter following the Senate cloture on May 19, 1950, the NAACP sent letters to all senators except Democrats in the Deep South. The following was his report:
Practically all Republicans who voted for cloture replied to the letter. One reply was received from a Republican who voted against cloture—Senator Ecton of Montana who said he will continue to vote against FEPC and any procedure to bring it up. One or two Democrats replied to the letter—Senators Lehman and Lucas. The Administrator said another vote would be taken on cloture as soon as a date could be agreed upon when most Senators are likely to be present. He said he had a conference with Democratic Committee Chairman Boyle who said he would use all possible pressure to get more votes for cloture. [The cloture vote was again defeated on July 12, 1952; Congress and the Nation 1618.]
There was some discussion on this report. Mr. Randolph stated that it seemed to him to be timely for the supporters of FEPC to make known to both parties that they are aware of their betrayal of this measure.
The Board then adopted a motion that the Association protest Senator Lucas’ action as majority leader of the Democratic Party “because his party was committed to passage of the bill; that we point out that the hypocrisy in dealing with it indicates to us that though there is no expressed conspiracy, there is a working agreement between the Democratic administration leaders and the Dixiecrats; that we also protest against the six Republicans who stand in the way of seeing that there is a fair chance of the FEPC bill coming to the floor of the Senate.” (Minutes, 6/12/50, EC)
See notes at 5/1/50 for excerpts of editorials and articles from the Washington Post on May 9 and 20, 1950, that provided background and developments to that point; also see the editorial entitled “Democrats Fail on FEPC,” regarding the defeat of attempts to obtain cloture on the FEPC bill in the Senate on May 19, in Crisis 57 (June 1950): 374–75. New York Times 5/20/50, 1, 8, reported that the 52–32 vote was the first attempt at cloture since new filibuster rules were adopted in 1949 after cloture had been used to block consideration of civil rights legislation then. Nineteen Democrats and thirty-three Republicans voted for cloture; twenty-six Democrats from the South, the border states, and the West and six Republicans voted against cloture. Twelve senators did not respond to the roll call.
The actual vote reported by the New York Times, //, showed that nineteen Democrats voted for cloture—Anderson, Benton, Douglas, Gillette, Green, Humphrey, Hunt, Kilgore, Leahy, Lehman, Lucas, Magnuson, McMahon, Myers, Neely, O’Conor, O’Mahoney, Taylor, and Thomas (Utah)—as did thirty-three Republicans—Aiken, Brewster, Bricker, Butler, Cain, Capehart, Cordon, Darby, Donnell, Dworshak, Ferguson, Flanders, Hendrickson, Hickenlooper, Ives, Jenner, Kem, Knowland, Lodge, Martin, McCarthy, Saltonstal, Schoepel, Smith (Maine), Smith (N.J.), Taft, Thye, Toney, Vandenberg, Watkins, Wherry, Wiley, and Williams. Twenty-six Democrats voted against cloture—Byrd, Chapman, Connally, Eastland, Ellender, Fulbright, George, Hayden, Hill, Hoey, Holland, Johnson (Colo.), Johnson (Tex.), Johnston (S.C.), Kefauver, Kerr, Long, Maybank, McCarran, McClellan, McFarland, McKellar, Robertson, Russell, Sparkman, and Stennis—and only six Republicans cast votes in opposition to cloture—Bridges, Ecton, Gurney, Malone, Mundt, and Young. Those who were not present or voting but who announced their position for cloture were Democrats Chavez, Frear, Murray, and Langer and Republican Morse. Announced against cloture was Democrat Withers. Absent with position unannounced were Democrats Downey, Graham, Pepper, and Tydings and Republican Milliken.
In a memorandum to Wilkins on March 31, 1950, Mitchell had estimated that, based on “some discussion yesterday,” there were 36 certain votes for cloture, 22 probable, and doubtful. He and his supporters counted 11 probably against and 21 definitely against. Doubtful were Senators Edwin C. Johnson (Colo.), William E. Jenner (Ind.), William Langer (N.Dak.), Edwin Martin (Pa.), Karl E. Mundt (S.Dak.), and Harry P. Cain (Wash.). He said that, in addition to the southerners, Pat McCarran (Nev.) was listed as definitely against.
Those considered to be “probably for” were: Carl Hayden (Ariz.), Sheridan Downey (Calif.), J. Allen Frear (Del.), Claude Pepper (Fla.), Henry C. Dworshak (Idaho), Bourke Hickenlooper (Iowa), Guy M. Gillette (Iowa), Andrew F. Schoeppel (Kans.), Harry Darby (Kans.), Garrett L. Withers (Kans.), Herbert O’Connor (Md.), Hugh Butler (Neb.), Styles Bridges (N.H.), Alexander Smith (N.J.), Frank Graham (N.C.), Milton R. Young (N.Dak.), John W. Bricker (Ohio), Edward Leahy (R.I.), Elbert Thomas (Utah), Joseph McCarthy (Wis.), Lester Hunt (Wyo.), and Homer E. Capehart (Ind).
The “probables against” were: Ernest McFarland (Ark.), Eugene Millikin (Colo.), John Williams (Del.), Millard Tydings (Md.), Forrest Donnell (Miss.), James P. Kem (Mo.), Zales Ecton (Mont.), George Malone (Nev.), Robert Kerr (Okla.), Guy Coirdon (Ore.), and Arthur Watkins (Utah).
Those “for cloture” were: Estes Kefauver (Tenn.), William Knowland (Calif.), Brien McMahon (Conn.), William Benton (Conn.), Glen H. Taylor (Idaho), Scott Lucas (Ill.), Paul H. Douglas (Ill.), Owen Brewster (Maine), Margaret Chase Smith (Maine), Leverett Saltonstall (Mass.), Henry Cabot Lodge (Mass.), Arthur Vandenberg (Mich.), Edward Thye (Minn.), Hubert Humphrey (Minn.), James E. Murray (Mont.), Kenneth Wherry (Neb.), Charles Tobey (N.H.), Robert Hendrickson (N.J.), Dennis Chavez (N.M.), Clinton Anderson (N.M.), Irving M. Ives (N.Y.), Herbert Lehman (N.Y.), Robert A. Taft (Ohio), Elmer Thomas (Okla.)., Wayne Morse (Ore.), Francis Myers (Pa.), Theodore F. Green (R.I.), Chan Gurney (S.Dak.), George Aiken (Vt.), Ralph Flanders (Vt.), Warren Magnuson (Wash.), Harley Kilgore (W.Va.), Alexander Wiley (Wis.), and Joseph O’Mahoney (Wyo.). Memorandum to Roy Wilkins, 3/31/50, RW, C-21, DLC.
A direct outcome of this struggle was the board’s acceptance of Mitchell’s recommendation that the association distribute the voting records of lawmakers to show their positions on civil rights. Minutes, 9/11/50, EC. See 10/2/50.
For background on the struggle to reform the cloture rule, see, in appendix 1, vol. IV, 10/3/52, as well as the headnote on the NAACP and the Filibuster.
[3] 5/18/50, Hearings 242–308. See also, among others, 12/31/50, 11/5/51.
[4] Related to this concern about the importation of agricultural workers to the detriment of Americans was the NAACP’s work to protect migratory workers. At its June 12, 1950, meeting, the board voted to request that Truman appoint an African American to the President’s Commission to Investigate Conditions among Agricultural Workers. Minutes, 6/12/50, EC.
[5] See, in appendix 1, vol. IV, 6/7/50; 6/7/50, Hearings 285–302.
[6] Mitchell’s fears would be further confirmed in 1952 and 1953, when he fought to get construction jobs for members of Local 544, Baltimore Carpenters Union. Mitchell’s memorandum to the files, 2/8/52, and other materials in NAACP IX: 215, DLC.
Discussing segregation in Washington in the wake of the international uproar caused by the Daughters of the American Republic’s barring of Marian Anderson, the renowned African American contralto, from singing at Constitutional Hall in Washington in 1939, a Crisis contributor explained that all playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, golf courses, and the Rock Creek Park picnic area were segregated. In sum, the contributor stated: “Civil rights for the Negro in Washington—the plain, ordinary, garden variety of fundamental American rights—just do not exist.” Additionally, the individual said, “colored people in the nation’s capital are denied the right to attend any theater in the city except their own neighborhood movie houses.” Civil rights were abolished not by statutes but by tradition. Daly, “Washington’s Minority Problem,” Crisis 46 (June 1939): 170–71. For this developing struggle, see, most immediately, 7/17 and 7–8/50, 10/2 and 12/21/50.
In a letter of March 10, 1950, Mitchell told Wilkins that Oscar Chapman had announced the previous day that the six pools would be integrated. Because he supposed Chapman was being criticized for his action, he urged Wilkins to have the board send the Interior Department secretary congratulations and to have the branches do likewise. See letter in “Lodge-Gossett” folder, NAACP WB-126, DLC. Mitchell reported Chapman’s response at 7/17/50.
[7] See 5/31, 10/2, and 12/21/50; Congress and the Nation 1515–16.
[8] See 3/15/50, Hearings 1928–32; among others, 12/21/49, 4/3/50.
[9] Mitchell told the House Committee on Un-American Activities that the powers the bill would vest in the proposed three-person loyalty board were “so sweeping that almost any organization,” ranging from a college fraternity that held secret meetings to a labor union that refused to reveal its list of members, might have been affected under the Mundt bill, HR 7595. See 5/3/50, Hearings 2297. See also 3/3/50.
[10] Mitchell wrote Wilkins on March 10, 1950, that the Senate Judiciary Committee had approved S 2311, the Mundt bill, which was against “so-called subversive activities.” See letter in “Lodge-Gossett” folder, NAACP WB-126, DLC. See also Wilkins memorandum to White, 7/21/50, on “Suggestions on Memo to Branches in re: Communist Infiltration,” where he noted that the NAACP convention in Boston had adopted a resolution concerning this problem. Wilkins explained that the purpose of the memorandum to the branches was to advise them “against hasty and ill-considered action [in calling] anybody and everybody a Communist.” Copy of the memorandum is in RW, C-22, DLC.
NAACP II: A-537, DLC.