Monthly Report, July and August 1950 [August 31, 1950]

REPORT FOR JULY AND AUGUST
(DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON BUREAU)1

[August 31, 1950]

Bogota Treaty

Prompt action by the NAACP won reconsideration of a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a discriminatory feature in the Bogota treaty. This is an agreement between the United States and Latin-American Countries.

The Foreign Relations Committee bowed to a southern demand that the treaty be ratified with the reservation that chapters dealing with civil rights issues would not be “self executing”. Following conferences with members of the foreign relations committee and the State Department, the committee reconsidered its action and struck out the “self executing” language.

Senators Green, Lodge and McMahon were very helpful in this matter. At the suggestion of the executive secretary, top State Department officials met with association officers to handle the problem. Very valuable legal assistance was given by the NAACP’s advisers.2

Russell Segregation Amendment

By a fast undercover movement, Senator Richard Russell attached a pro-segregation amendment to the draft bill when it was reported out of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. Senator Morse, Saltonstall, and Knowland are the only members of this committee who would be friendly. Senators Morse and Saltonstall stated that they were absent when the Russell amendment was included in the bill. We were unable to get a statement from Senator Knowland. However, he later joined Saltonstall to propose a statement to eliminate the Russell amendment.3

Senator Morse advised that, since the committee had apparently unanimously approved the Russell amendment, there was a good chance it might pass unless we took action against it. We discussed the matter briefly with Senators Lucas and Douglas. A letter over the Secretary’s signature stimulated a large volume of branch communications to senators against the Russell amendment. It was defeated by a vote of 42 to 29. The vote was on an amendment offered by Senator Lucas to strike out the Russell amendment.

Amendment to Railway Labor Act

The Senate and House are considering an amendment to Railway Labor Act which would permit a union shop and dues check-off in that industry. The NAACP has urged that the whole Railway Labor Act be amended to knock out discrimination by unions which represent employees in the industry.4

Although a number of Congressmen and Senators have expressed support of our suggestion, to date they have not actually incorporated our proposal in the bill. Committees in the House and Senate have reported the legislation favorably.

As a compromise they have put language in their reports to show the intent of Congress. This language would probably be useful in court cases, but it does not achieve the broad purpose suggested by the Association.

Hearings on the proposed amendment were closed by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, although the NAACP had sought a chance to present testimony on the proposed legislation. We talked with Congressman Crosser, Chairman of the Committee, and discovered that someone had given the committee the impression that the NAACP would not wish to be present to testify. He agreed to reopen the hearings for the purpose of taking our testimony.

When we appeared, (Mr. Joseph Waddy and Clarence Mitchell) almost the entire committee was present. Also called to testify at the reopened hearings was Mr. Theodore Brown, representing Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. We have received favorable comment from congressmen concerning the extent and value of the Association’s testimony. The fact that the hearings were reopened in response to the Association’s protest is a tribute to the prestige of our organization and the fairness of the Chairman of the Committee.5

Lodge-Gossett Resolution

Defeat of the Lodge-Gossett Resolution in the House in July was a victory for the NAACP.6 Many liberal organizations and members of the Senate had supported the resolution because it was supposed to modernize the election machinery in Presidential contests. Actually, as we were able to prove, it gave greater power to the South in national elections.

The NAACP led the fight against the proposal. It was passed in the Senate. Liberal members of the rules committee aided in holding it up in the House. However, Congressman Gossett, its Texas sponsor, brought it to the floor on a move to suspend the rules. This was defeated by a vote of 210 to 134.7

Strong support was given the NAACP by Congressman Case (R., N. J.) and Holifield (D. Calif.). Congressman Holifield made the pithy comment that: “One electoral vote in California represents 168,862 voters. In South Carolina, it represents 17,821 or about a 10 to 1 difference. This is not changed by the Lodge-Gossett bill.”8

Rules Change

Senators Morse and Humphrey have joined in introducing a resolution to require only a simple majority vote to end a filibuster.9 Senator Lehman and other Democrats have introduced a somewhat similar proposal which provides a choice of two thirds of those present at the time of the vote after a 48 hour notice, or a simple majority of those present after eight days of debate.

Several Republicans who promised to support the Lehman plan declined to do so just before it was actually introduced. It is understood, of course, that at this time the chief value of these resolutions is the educational effect they will have on the public.10

Migratory Labor

The director appeared before the President’s Committee on Migratory Labor to urge reforms in conditions affecting migratory workers.11

As has been mentioned in the previous reports, the Association’s Labor Department has actively urged the creation of a special committee to study conditions among migratory workers. The purpose of this commission as we saw it, was dramatizing the plight of migratory agricultural workers. Approximately one-third of these workers are colored. Due to poor advice, the commission when appointed, did not include a colored member. The Secretary has urged the President to include a qualified colored person on the committee.

Social Security Act

Along with other groups, the NAACP has worked for the inclusion of domestic and agricultural workers in the Social Security Act. Now that they are covered we shall see that information on the new benefits reaches the largest possible number of persons.12

D. C. Swimming Pools

Six swimming pools in the District of Columbia under the direction of the Department of Interior were operated all summer on a non-segregated basis. The Association helped to prevent the consideration of legislation which would transfer these pools to the D. C. Board of Recreation. The effect of the transfer, of course, would be to restore segregation to the pools. On June 20, 1950, we received a reply to a communication we sent to Secretary Chapman. It reads as follows:

“I wish to thank you for your letter of May 29 suggesting that the assignment of U. S. Park Police to the swimming pools during the coming months be made on an interracial basis.

“In arranging for the opening of the pools, we have followed the regular police assignment roster. In this way, both White and Negro police officers have been on duty at the pools and no change of policy was necessary to effect that arrangement.

“I fully agree with you that the government policy of impartiality will be clearly demonstrated by the assignment of both White and Negro policemen to the pools. This policy was followed last season with good effect, and the authority of all of the officers was accepted without resentment.

“I greatly appreciate the cooperation which you personally and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People continue to extend to the Department of the Interior.”

It is recommended that the executive secretary tell the board about our conference with Secretary Chapman during which we discussed the swimming pool issue. It is also recommended that a letter be sent to Mr. Chapman from the board.13

Because of the length of this report we are omitting a number of matters on which we have been working, but will include them in the September report.

MS: copy, NAACP II: A-656, DLC.

[1] Portions of this text previously appeared in Mitchell’s draft of his July report as labor secretary, which was not sent and instead was replaced by this, his first report as head of the Washington bureau.


[2] Wilkins reported to White on the crucial conference with Senator McMahon on August 14, 1950, that he attended with William Hastie, Frank Reeves, and Mitchell.. Memorandum to White from Wilkins, 8/15/50, is in RW, C-22, DLC. At the September 11, 1950, board meeting, White reported:

On August 14th Clarence Mitchell, Frank Reeves and the Administrator [Wilkins] conferred with Senators Brian McMahon and Theodore Green (after discussion with Judge [William] Hastie) on the stipulated reservations to the Bogota Convention which specifically excludes the chapters of human rights as a condition to the signature of the United States.

Both Senators stated that they felt reservations had little meaning since under our Constitution the Federal Government was limited in its power to handle matters reserved to the states; but that the reservation had been proposed to quiet the expressed fears of some Southern Senators. We stated that we did not believe the United States Government could afford to sign an international agreement which stipulated that the chapters on human rights would not be considered binding on this country.

After considerable discussion, a great deal of which touched upon a recent decision of the California Supreme Court which cited a UN treaty in its opinion outlawing the State’s Alien Land Law, Senator McMahon said that he would try to work out a general reservation clause with representatives of the State Department, one that did not single out human rights provisions for exclusion.

On August 18th the Executive Secretary and Clarence Mitchell conferred at the State Department with Adrian Fisher, Miss Whiteman, and Assistant Secretary of State Miller in charge of Latin American affairs. Mr. Fisher, formerly associated with Mr. Justice Frankfurter, explained at length that it was doubtful if the decision of the California Supreme Court in the Alien Land Laws case was legally sound in that it was based upon an international agreement instead of legal precedents. The agreement in question is the International Declaration of Human Rights which the United States joined in signing. [See Pedersen, “Alien Land Laws,” available at http:www.santacruzpl.org/history/ww/9066/land.shtml.]

The reply was made that this is not a legal or legalistic obligation but a moral one. Assistant Secretary of State Miller stated that two years had elapsed without Senate ratification of the Bogota Convention and asked if we were willing to see the convention not ratified at the price of reservation excluding sections of the convention dealing with human rights and the right to work and education without discrimination because of sex, race, creed or color. To this, reply was made that Soviet Russia would be given dangerous proof that the United States was insincere in signing the international agreements which at this critical period would be disastrous. It was then that we presented the following memorandum of the Association.

“MEMORANDUM RE: RESERVATIONS PERTINENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS PROVISIONS OF TREATIES

“It is our considered judgment that the NAACP should not undertake to draft any restrictive language to qualify Senate approval of treaties or other international agreements in which the United States subscribes to equalitarian principles and policies relevant to governmental treatment of people in matters of education, labor, or any social or economic area.

“The proponents of such reservations have not made clear what they wish to accomplish. This is important because until they do so it is difficult and undesirable for the NAACP to approve any restrictive formula. We are mindful that ciriticism on the floor of the Senate has centered around a judicial decision in California which employed provisions of the Charter of the United Nations as a basis for conclusion that the California Alien Land Laws conflict with fundamental national policy. Certainly, if the purpose of a reservation is to discourage courts from using principles to which the United States subscribes in solemn treaties as indicia of the public policy of the United States at home, the NAACP can not condone, much less be party to, such cynical duplicity.

“While the Association should not subscribe to any reservation until a proposed text is presented, certain principles are clear:

“1. No reservation should attempt to restrict the courts or the executive branch of government from recognizing treaty commitments as constituent elements of the public policy of the United States entitled to be recognized as such in whatever context they may be germane.

“2. Instead of embodying a phrase of debatable meaning and implication like ‘self-executing,’ any reservation should be so worded that its meaning and effect will be as clear as possible.

“3. A statement that a treaty does not alter the constitutional relation of national and state governments or dimish the powers reserved to the states under the Constitution seems unobjectionable.” (Report of the Secretary to the Board, 9/11/50; Minutes, 9/11/50, EC)

Mitchell reported on this meeting to White in a memorandum of 8/15/50, NAACP WB-1, DLC. See also his additional summary and update of these activities in his annual report, 12/21/50.


[3] See also, most immediately, 7/17 and 10/2/50 for report on the segregation of inductees.


[4] The NAACP’s efforts were not welcomed by everyone in labor. George E. Brown, vice president–at–large for the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, requested that the NAACP refrain from supporting an FEPC rider to S 3295 and HR 7789 for fear it would obstruct passage of the bill. Walter White, however, explained to him that the amendment the NAACP proposed was not an FEPC rider but the “minimum standard that all democratic unions should subscribe to when bargaining for the employees of any industry.” He noted that the principle suggested by the NAACP and Joseph Waddy was supported by the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and the United Transport Service Employees. However, White said, their proposals related only to the union shop provision, whereas the NAACP’s dealt with the whole Railway Labor Act. Brown’s letter to White, his response, and other materials, including a letter from White to Mitchell of 8/28/50 with Brown’s appeal to White, are in NAACP WB-160, DLC, and NAACP II: A-269, DLC. See also Mitchell’s letter of 8/21/50 to Rep. Adolph J. Sabath and other members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce asking them to return HR 7789 to their committee “for the inclusion of appropriate language to protect employees against highhanded discriminatory practices followed by management and unions” in the railroad industry before sending the bill to the full House for consideration.


[5] See also, among others, 7/17 and 12/31/50; in appendix 1, vol. IV, 6/7/50; 6/7/50, Hearings 242–301; 5/18/50, Hearings 242–309.


[6] See 3/3/50 and 5/3/51; Watson, Lion in the Lobby 332–33.


[7] 7/17/50, CR 10414, 10428.


[8] Ibid., 10420. See, in appendix 1, vol. IV, 2/50.


[9] See also 12/4/50.


[10] See also, among others, 4/3 and 5/1/50.


[11] See, among others, 7/17/50; in appendix 1, vol. IV, 7/13/50.


[12] 4/21/49, Hearings 2144–48; 3/15/50, Hearings 1928–32. See also, among others, 5/2/49, 5/31/50.


[13] See 5/31, 7/17, and 12/21/50.

Additional Details

Object Type:

Report

Manuscript Type:

Copy

Volume:

Volume 3 (1946-1954)

Volume Page Number:

179-184

Source:

Library of Congress

Source Variation:

NAACP II: A-656, DLC.