 |
|
|
|
|
|
Synopses
Documents
Background
|
December 21, 1950
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE WASHINGTON BUREAU
The work day of the Washington Bureau often includes conferences and negotiations with the highest government officials and the most humble of Washington citizens. Across the desks of our staff members come problems that range from discrimination in Continental United States, Alaska, and Korea to legislative attempts to deprive colored Americans of gains that they have won through the years. Washington is not just the Congress. It is also the numerous executive agencies of government that administer laws affecting our daily lives. In the Capital, the NAACP is a David operating against a great many strongly supported, loud-talking Goliaths. We never forget, however that the original David won.[1]
WASHINGTON NEWSLETTERAs a Christmas present to the Executive Secretary, the Washington Bureau got out its first newsletter to all NAACP State Conference presidents and other key supporters of our program.[2] In his original plans on the Bureau's functions, the Executive Secretary included a provision for a newsletter. The first issue, dated December 20, comes at a time when more than ever the friends of civil rights need background information on what is happening on the banks of the Potomac. Preparation of the letter is largely in the hands of a hard-working young research assistant who is a new addition to the bureau. He is Earle W. Fisher, graduate of Brown University and Boston University Law School.
JIM-CROW TRIES TO ENLISTAnyone who thinks the South has given up on its attempts to extend segregation in the Armed Services is very foolish. It is well-known that the Air Force and the Navy have made substantial progress in eliminating separate units and "all Colored" classifications. When Congress considered the Selective Service Act this year, Jim Crow immediately volunteered his services through his able spokesman, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. By a fast move, Senator Russell incorporated a pro-segregation amendment in the Selective Service Act when it came before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Armed Services Committee of the Senate is heavily loaded with southern members. The Russell amendment was offered at a time when Senator Wayne Morse (R., Ore.) and Senator Leverett Saltonstall (R., Mass.), who are members, were absent. The Russell proposal would have required the Armed Services to advise a draftee that he could serve in a segregated unit if he wished to do so. The members of the committee who were present gave it unanimous approval. Any officer who failed to tell the draftee of this right would have been subject to court-martial. This would have cancelled out advances made in the direction of integration in the Armed Services. The NAACP obtained prompt and vigorous objection to the amendment from Senator Morse and Senator Saltonstall. The Association also alerted Senator Scott Lucas, Majority Leader, to the serious dangers of the amendment. In the period preceding the vote on Selective Service, the Association rallied friendly senators who voted against the Russell Amendment. It was defeated on June 21, 1950, by a vote of 42 to 29. The defeat was accomplished by voting for an amendment offered by Senator Lucas and others to strike out the Russell Amendment.[3] At the time this report is being written, Senator Russell is slated to be the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the 82nd Congress.
A PRESIDENT FROM MISSISSIPPI IN ‘52?If a candidate from Mississippi ran for the Presidency in 1952 under the present distribution of voting strength in the country, he would lose. He would have a real chance to get in the White House, however, if a proposed plan to change our system of electing the President had passed in the 81st Congress. This proposal passed the Senate as S.J. Resolution 2. It had much support from liberal senators because many of them did not seem to understand the underlying threat of the measure. Most of them voted for it because they were interested in making constructive reforms in our system of national elections. The NAACP carried the fight to the House of Representatives. The measure was defeated there by a vote of 210 to 134 on July 17. During the debate in the House, Congressman Clifford Case (R., N.J.), who led the fight against the proposal, pointed out that if it had been in effect during the last national election the State of Georgia alone would have had greater influence in determining the outcome of the election than most populous states outside the solid South. Joining Mr. Case in opposing the legislation, Congressman Chet Holifield (D., Cal.) said, "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 Bill." Both Mr. Case and Mr. Holifield pointed out that because it would mean greater strength for conservative factions, passage of the resolution at this time would kill the chance of keeping civil rights legislation as a part of the platforms of major parties. The NAACP circulated a memorandum among congressmen on the effect of the Lodge-Gossett Resolution. The memorandum was prepared for the Association by Dr. John A. Davis, Professor of Political Science, now teaching at Ohio State University. At the request of the NAACP, Dr. Davis also addressed a special meeting of congressmen on March 6, 1950. The meeting was arranged by Congressman Holifield. The Association supports reform, but we want the kind of change which will bring greater democracy and not increase the powers of the 'filibuster belt."
"LET'S NOT KILL THE BILL"A familiar cry among liberals at the Capital is "Let's not kill the bill by adding civil rights features." So far, southern congressmen and senators have had a holiday whenever vital language designed to protect civil rights was proposed as an amendment to important legislation. Those who usually champion civil rights legislation frequently denounce even the mildest of safeguards in other bills. This has been true of housing, labor and education bills. Very few of the members of the liberal bloc will even sponsor much needed amendments. The 81st Congress had before it the question on whether the Railway Labor Act should be amended to permit union shop and dues check-off contracts in that industry. At the time this report is written the bill is under consideration in the House.* It has passed the Senate.[4] It does not contain language suggested by the NAACP.[5] Senators and congressmen have advised the Association that, as a compromise between the language we want and the opposition of the southern bloc, the intent of Congress was spelled out in committee reports on the legislation. The Senate report states the following: "During the course of the hearings before the sub-committee, evidence was introduced showing that the constitutions of some labor organizations established qualifications for membership which cannot be met by some railroad employees. "The proposal was made by Senator Lehman that your committee's intention be made clear that such employees were not to be deprived of their employment as a result of the exercise of the right extended by this bill. "Your committee desires to make it clear that the proviso clauses in paragraph eleventh (a) are designed to protect such employees; thus if an employee is denied membership or is eligible for membership only on terms and conditions not generally applicable to other members, he cannot be requested to give up the job because of failure to join a labor organization. "Furthermore, if membership is denied or if an employee is expelled from membership for any reason other than his failure to tender uniformly required periodic dues, initiation fees and assessments, he cannot be required to relinquish his job because of failure to join or remain a member of a labor organization. "Your committee also desires to make it clear that nothing in this bill is intended to modify in any way the requirement that the authorized bargaining representative shall represent all the employees in the craft or class, including non-union employees as well as members of the union, fairly, equitably, and in good faith. (See Steele v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. 323 U.S. 192, and Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210.)." If the bill finally passes, with this understanding, it means that victims of collusive agreements between management and labor in the railroad industry will be in a stronger position when they go into court. However, the NAACP's proposal would have made court action unnecessary. We testified on this bill without difficulty in the Senate. Our testimony endorsed the union shop and dues check-off but opposed granting this right to unions that refused to abandon segregation.[6] The House Committee closed its hearing without permitting us to testify. We talked with Congressman Crosser (D., Ohio), chairman of the House Committee, and discovered that someone had given the committee the impression that the NAACP did not wish to be present to testify. He agreed to reopen the hearings for the purpose of taking our testimony. Mr. Joseph Waddy, counsel for Colored Railway Employees, appeared with the NAACP.[7] When we appeared, almost the entire committee was present. Also called to testify at the reopened hearings was Mr. Theodore Brown, representing the 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.[8] Representatives of three railway labor unions visited the Washington Bureau shortly before the fall recess of Congress to ask that the Association refrain from pushing its proposed amendment to the Railway Labor Act. The union representatives stated that they thought the bill would pass if the Association did not insist on an amendment against segregation. We advised the persons who visited the office that the Boston Convention had gone on record supporting a non-discrimination provision in the proposed Railway Labor Act amendment. We also suggested that a great deal of time would be saved in the future if those interested in legislation of this kind would see that it contained appropriate language when it is first drawn up.[9] The railway labor bill is discussed at length in this report because it is typical of what we face in all legislation that offers broad benefits to the average American. The Association Conventions have gone on record requiring that appropriate safeguards be sought when such bills are considered by Congress. Later in this report we shall point out how this even touches upon the treaty-making of the United States. In this connection we, also, report that the Director of the Washington Bureau represented the Association at a conference called by the National Education Association on Federal Aid to Education. This conference revealed that we shall have the usual opposition to our non-segregation amendment in the 82nd Congress. We are glad to note that the CIO 1950 Convention went on record for a non-segregation amendment in proposed Federal Aid to Education legislation.[10]
A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD IN EVERY KITCHENThe NAACP has worked for the inclusion of domestic and agricultural workers in the Social Security Act ever since it was first passed by Congress. The Director of the Bureau urged inclusion of these groups in appearances before the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Ways and Means Committee.[11] We pointed out that a million and a half colored people were excluded from the Social Security Act because they worked in these occupations. The 81st Congress has at least included domestics and a number of agricultural workers.[12] The Research Assistant has prepared and distributed an excellent pamphlet on how this legislation helps domestics and agricultural workers. If branches aid in distributing the pamphlet, there will be a social security card in every kitchen.
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATEPrompt 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.[13] 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 NAACP conferences with members of the Foreign Relations Committee and the State Department, the Committee reconsidered its actions 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 advisors. At the time this report is written, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has refused to report out favorably additional agreements on human rights because of southern objection. It appears that southern members of the Committee are willing to have the United States join in humanitarian agreements as long as those agreements reserve the "right to continue racial discrimination in our own country." Here again, we are faced with a struggle with our liberal friends who are reluctant to support a fight against southern demands.
CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE HASTIEIt is well known that the long delay in the Senate Judiciary Committee in considering the confirmation of Judge William H. Hastie was a cause of national concern. A great part of the slow down was due to tedious and unwarranted inquiries by a few committee members. It should be noted, however, most members were impatient because of the filibuster tactics. Senator O'Conor (D., Md.) considered the confirmation the first order of business on returning from Switzerland where he was on government business. Senator Kilgore (D., W.Va.) who also favored confirmation had to limp into the meetings with a cane because of a broken ankle. The final confirmation on the Senate floor was by unanimous consent.[14]
CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION
The problems in the civil rights legislation fight have been thoroughly documented in NAACP literature. It is presumed that the Secretary and the Administrator will comment on this in their reports. Therefore, the Washington Bureau will mention briefly certain false rumors. There is one rumor that an FEPC with no enforcement powers would have been acceptable to the southern senators. This is false. It is reported that southern members of Congress would have accepted a bill to repeal the poll tax. This is false. All available evidence shows that if the Senate had passed a poll tax repeal bill it would have been in the form of a Constitutional amendment which would have been worthless.[15] Filibusters prevented consideration of civil rights bills. Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii was killed by the filibuster technique.[16] This points out the need for changing the Senate rules on debate. In the closing days of the 81st Congress, Senators Morse and Humphrey (D., Minn.) joined in introducing a resolution requiring a simple majority to end a filibuster. 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. It is clear that there must be a fight to change the Senate rules in the 82nd Congress.[17]
EMERGENCY FEPCWhen it was clear that the nation faced an emergency, the NAACP immediately began working for an executive order to re-establish FEPC.[18] The proposed order is broader in scope than the World War II order and contains enforcement powers.[19] The United States Department of Labor has agreed to our request that racial designations be dropped on employment service applications forms. It is also considering our request that no discriminatory orders be accepted from defense plants. Secretary of Labor Maurice Tobin has indicated that he favors this proposal also, but the Department has not yet acted on it.[20]
BARBER SHOPS AND ATOMIC ENERGYDown at Los Alamos, New Mexico, there is only one barbershop on the Atomic Energy Project. The white barbers refused to cut the hair of colored employees. Our Research Assistant reported this to the Atomic Energy Commission. The barbers were instructed to serve all customers. They went on strike. A new crew was hired. Customers are now served without regard to race. This incident shows how some people would rather have segregation than the benefits of atomic energy. More problems of this kind will arise in South Carolina where the government plans to begin a Hydrogen Bomb project.[21] Therefore, the Bureau has asked the A.E.C. to make certain that the racial patterns of South Carolina are not imposed on the project. We pointed out that 42.9 per cent of the population of South Carolina is colored and with any intelligent use of the local labor supply a large number of colored people will be employed. We have asked that there be no discrimination or segregation in employment, housing, or other facilities.[22]
SEGREGATION OF INDUCTEESThere are a number of incidents in which colored men are required to eat in separate establishments when they are being processed for induction into the Armed Services. The Director of the Washington Bureau and the Research Assistant, met with Captain F. B. C. Martin, Head of the Recruitment Division, United States Navy, on Friday, September 29, 1950, to discuss the Navy’s policy in the handling of volunteers and draftees who are inducted into the Service. The complaint against the Navy came from Birmingham, Alabama. Mr. Fisher has similar information about the Department of the Army. The Director also received allegations of segregation involving the Army and Air Force in West Virginia. After consideration of this problem, the National Board of the NAACP voted to request that no draftees or volunteers be housed or fed in segregated establishments.[23] The Board also asked that where privately owned establishments insist on segregation, the Armed Services be required to refrain from using such facilities and instead, house and feed draftees or volunteers on military posts or other government facilities. This request has been submitted to Secretary of Defense Marshall and the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.[24] LT. LEON GILBERTThe Director of the Bureau and Mr. Frank Reeves, Washington Legal Representative, joined with lawyers from York, Pennsylvania, to represent Lt. Leon Gilbert who was sentenced to death by court-martial in Korea for alleged misconduct in the face of the enemy. The lawyers from York were Mr. Judson Ruch and Mr. William Wogan. The hearing was held before the Judicial Council of the Judge Advocate General’s Office. Mr. Ruch and Mr. Wogan argued that Lt. Gilbert had not had a fair trial in Korea. In addition, it was contended that (1) the original court-martial had committed a technical error, and (2) that by the Army’s own definitions Lt. Gilbert was not responsible for any misconduct. Mr. Reeves reminded the Council the record did not include available evidence favorable to Lt. Gilbert and this suggested the need for further investigation. Racial discrimination in the Army, the Director also pointed out to the Council, makes the case of grave importance. During our negotiations with the Secretary of the Army’s office and the office of the Judge Advocate General on this matter, we raised the question of whether other officers were charged with similar offenses and sentenced to death during World War II. We have been advised by the office of the Judge Advocate General as follows: “During the period from 1942 to 1948, ninety-three officers were charged with misbehavior before the enemy in violation of Article of War 75. In that same period, of all cases in which the accused were convicted and sentences to death adjudged there was none in which the sentence to death was executed.” One Army board held that there were not sufficient legal grounds for the conviction of Lt. Gilbert. This was over-ruled and a sentence of thirty years was recommended. The President cut the thirty-year sentence to twenty years.[25]
WHITE ON THE RECORDTwo Army officers received orders to report for duty. Both were colored. On their orders they were listed as white. We have used this incident to show the Armed Services that racial designations are meaningless. We are working for the elimination of such classifications.[26] FARM WORKERSIn a meeting of the Advisory Council of the Bureau of Employment Security, the Director joined with AFL and CIO representatives in passing a resolution urging that our Government refrain from recruiting foreign workers for agriculture until the available supply of American labor is adequately used. The Director also introduced a resolution, which was passed, recommending that in the recruitment and placement of foreign labor the Employment Service make maximum use of bona fide labor organizations. We submitted considerable evidence to the group showing that this had not been done in the past. Secretary Maurice J. Tobin of the United States Department of Labor advised us that, while he did not agree with the resolution restricting use of foreign labor, he would recommend to the President that a commission be appointed to study the economic and social problems of agricultural workers and to suggest to the President a corrective program. The commission was appointed by the President and made an investigation of the problem. The Director appeared at a hearing before the commission and submitted information. He also criticized the failure to name a colored member of the group. Association branches were also asked to testify at hearings in various sections of the country.[27]
VETERANS PROBLEMSThe Washington Bureau was able to eliminate segregation in the eating facilities of two veterans hospitals during the year. However, files of our office reveal many types of serious discrimination. We have received from Louisiana a complaint involving a training program. The complainant is a school principal who has been giving instructions to veterans for several years. His wife was dismissed from the school system when she expressed an interest in taking court action to eliminate salary differentials. Later, white school officials advised the complainant that his school for veterans would not be approved unless he forced colored persons to cease court action against the local school board. We presented this matter to the training officials of the Veterans Administration and the Department of Justice. Both agencies advised that they are at work on it. In November, a doctor advised the Director that the Fort Howard (Maryland) Hospital refused to accept a colored T. B. patient because no beds were available for colored persons. The Director worked with representatives of the Veterans Administration and obtained correction of this specific case. The patient was faced with an acute problem and possibly might have died if he had not been admitted to the hospital. This case and others like it remind us that the Veterans Administration has not eliminated segregation in all of its hospitals. The Veterans Administration is also guilty of numerous types of job discrimination in its hospitals. The Research Assistant has produced a comprehensive memorandum on discriminatory practices of the Veterans Administration. We are recommending that the Executive Secretary submit it to the President.[28]
SEGREGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAThis summer, six swimming pools of the District of Columbia were operated on a non-segregated basis. There was no trouble. Southern members of Congress sought to get a vote on H.R. 5968 which would have transferred the pools from the Department of the Interior to the local Board of Recreation. This would have restored segregation. At the suggestion of the Director, President Stephen Spottswood of the D. C. Branch called a meeting for May 4, 1950, to make an all-out campaign of Congressional contacts to defeat the bill. The response was so great that the bill never reached the floor.
HOME RULE FOR WASHINGTONThe Senate passed a Home Rule Bill for the District of Columbia. The House committee for the District refused to report it out. The Washington Bureau sent out an urgent appeal on the District of Columbia Home Rule Bill to key branches during the Labor Day recess of Congress. The purpose of this appeal was to get branches to talk with congressmen while they were at home and urge them to sign the discharge petition which would have brought the Home Rule Bill to the floor. In a surprise move, eleven members of the House withdrew their names from the discharge petition when approximately 211 of the 218 signatures needed were obtained. Congressmen Henderson Lanham of Georgia made this interesting comment in explaining why he had withdrawn his name. “I thought it would be letting the people here in for domination by the same people I had trouble with recently in the lobbying committee, a combination of Communists and Negroes.” Congressman Plumley of Vermont also attacked Home Rule on the ground that it would give too much power to colored people in Washington. He was soundly spanked by letters and editorials in the Vermont newspapers.[29]
RESTAURANT DISCRIMINATIONRestaurant discrimination still remains a problem in Washington. The Association has one case of its own on this subject and is cooperating on another.[30]
COMPLAINTSNumerous routine complaints and problems must be handled in the Washington Bureau. The Research Assistant carries a great part of this load. We do not list these in this report because of its length. However, we do intend to prepare a small publication on the variety of problems before us.
VOTING RECORDS OF CONGRESSMENThe Washington Bureau and Miss Julia Baxter of the New York office jointly prepared the voting record of congressmen and senators.[31] SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTSDuring the year, the Bureau representative filled numerous speaking engagements. The Director covered several thousand miles in travel. The Navy Department invited the Director to spend seven days as its guest in a shore establishment and at sea. However, because of the pressure of work, the Director was unable to accept. Several government agencies have asked the Director to serve on various advisory committees. He has accepted as often as he could without interfering with other duties. Clarence Mitchell Director Washington Bureau 100 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. MS: copy, MP. [1] After Mitchell concluded his presentation of this report to the NAACP annual meeting, Walter White offered the following resolution, which was adopted: WHEREAS, there are forces at work in our country which tend to step-up their anti-Negro activities during war emergencies, thereby creating dissension and disunity, and WHEREAS, all such elements in Birmingham, Alabama have continuously bombed homes of Negroes resulting in deaths, personal injuries and destruction of property, and WHEREAS, the Ku Klux Klan is using force and intimidation throughout the States of Georgia and South Carolina even to the extent of stoning the home of a federal judge [J. Waties Waring*] in South Carolina who insisted on enforcing the Constitution impartially, and WHEREAS, state law enforcement authorities in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina have demonstrated their complete unwillingness to do anything to counteract this lawlessness or to protect its citizens from such lawlessness, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Annual Meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People calls upon the Attorney General of the United States [J. Howard McGrath] to take such forthright action as will demonstrate to this lawless force, public officials of the states involved, the country and world in general, that our Government is determined to protect the lives and property of all of its citizens from lawlessness and to guarantee to all of its citizens the right to live and work unmolested by lawless elements without regard to race, creed or color. [Minutes of the NAACP Annual Meeting, 1/2/51, EC. *Kluger, Simple Justice, 301. Judge Waring’s home in Charleston, South Carolina, was stoned following threats. On 10/6/50, White sent a telegram to McGrath urging that “all necessary and proper precautions to prevent what may be a tragedy both for the Wairings and the prestige of America” and again urged him to protect the judge and his wife. Report of the Executive Secretary, 11/13/50, EC.] [2] See, in appendix, 12/20/51. [3] See, among others, 7/17/50; and, in appendix, 12/31/50. [4] The Senate passed the amended bill (S. 3295) on 12/11/50. It tabled an amendment to deny protection of the Railway Labor Act to any union that segregated minorities or denied them membership. “But it adopted by voice vote a committee amendment specifying that no union shop agreement permitted by the bill could require union membership of persons who were denied membership or equal status in the union for any reason other than failure to pay dues and assessments.” Congress and the Nation, 588. See House action at n. 9 below; and Watson, Lion in the Lobby, 294-95. [5] Bemoaning this loss, Mitchell, in a letter of 12/18/50 to Senator Irving M. Ives (R-NY), said that if the NAACP’s nondiscrimination amendment had passed, he said, “we would have been able to stop” the “cruel and incredible types of discrimination which result from collusive agreements between management and labor.” Since it failed, he said, civil rights forces “must continue long and costly efforts in the courts to accomplish democratic results.” He expressed his distress that Senator Scott Lucas, the majority leader, had called the amendment an FEPC bill, as others had done. “This designation was used to kill consideration of it.” Unlike FEPC legislation, which sought to protect minorities against discrimination when they sought employment, upgrading or training, he said, the amendment to the Railway Labor Act merely sought to protect workers who were already employed from being fired by unfair tactics. NAACP WB-160, DLC. The Senate on 12/11/50 tabled on a 64-17 roll call, the amendment that would have denied the provisions of the act to labor organizations that segregated or excluded blacks. The House rejected a similar attempt by a 61-284 roll call vote on 1/1/51. Congress and the Nation, 1618. See also, among others, 7/17, 8/31/50, 11/5/51. [6] 5/18/50, Hearings, 242-309. [7] 6/7/50, Hearings, 285-302. For the text of the statement, which also applied to the Senate hearings, see, in appendix, 6/7/50. [8] See also 7/17, 8/31/50. [9] See n. 4 above for Senate action. The House on 6/1/50 passed the amendment to the Railway Labor Act (S. 3295), and the president signed it into law 1/10/51. Congress and the Nation, 500. [10] See also, among others, 12/4/50, 4/30/53.
[11] 3/15/50, Hearings, 1928-32. See also 4/21/49, Hearings, 2144-48, and, among others, 12/21/49, 12/4/50, 4/30/53. [12] See also, among others, 5/31/50. [13] See 7-8/50.
[14] On 7/19/50, without opposition, the Senate confirmed William H. Hastie as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Court. President Truman had announced the appointment 10/15/49. Hastie thus became the first African American to serve to serve on the Court of Appeals. A former governor of the Virgin Islands, he had been serving under a recess appointment. Opposition to his appointment, ostensively, was based on charges that he had been a member of the left-wing National Lawyers Guild and other alleged Communist front organizations. NYT, 7/18/50, 48; 7/20/50, 50; 7/21/50, 18. See also Crisis (January 1950): 20. The success of Hastie’s appointment resulted in part from the NAACP’s extensive mobilization of support that was led by Walter White. Report of the Secretary to the Board of Directors, 9/11/50, EC. [15] See headnote on Struggle to Abolish the Poll Tax. [16] Ivy, “Editors Speak on the Senate Filibuster,” Crisis (June 1950): 170-73. [17] See Newsletter, 9/21/51, on the continuing battle over Rule XXII.
[18] Mitchell and several supporters began working to get a new FEPC executive order in July. Mitchell memorandum to Roy Wilkins, 7/17/50, NAACP II: A-257, DLC. Key to the intensive strategy Mitchell continued to develop were his concerns that the Republicans were unlikely to pass up an opportunity to try to embarrass the President by precipitating a floor fight on some civil rights legislation, and, at the same time, withholding enough votes in the Senate to prevent final passage of such legislation. See his “Tentative Suggestions on Civil Rights Legislative Program in the 82nd Congress” that he prepared for Walter White’s review prior to distributing it to the staff for discussion, 11/28/50, in NAACP II: A-185, DLC. [19] See, in appendix, 6/25/50. [20] See, in appendix, 12/20/50, for a fuller report; and introduction and headnote on Struggle for Federal FEPC, for use of letter, 12/27/50, from Maurice J. Tobin to Frederick J. Lawton, director, Bureau of Budget, explaining the difference between the wartime E.O. 9346 and the proposed E.O. 10308. E.O. 10308 was issued on 12/3/51. [21] Mitchell’s concerns were aroused by the AEC’s announcement of new production sites in Aiken and Barnwell counties, South Carolina. Press release, 11/28/50, in NAACP WB-8, DLC. [22] See 12/4/50 for the most recent prior development, and 2/5/51 for Mitchell’s detailed report on the “‘H’-Bomb Project in South Carolina;” see also Earle Fisher’s report, 12/28/50 on the meeting by him and Mitchell with AEC officials to discuss approaches to keeping racial discrimination out of the South Carolina project in NAACP WB-8, DLC. [23] See 12/4/50, and 2/2/51. The Army’s nine training divisions were integrated by March 1951. Morris, Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940-1965, 435-36. [24] Minutes, 11/13/50, EC, cited at 12/4/50. White told Marshall the NAACP was asking “that no volunteers or draftees be housed or fed in segregated establishments in the process of induction. We also ask that in the South, where privately owned establishments insist on segregation, the Armed Services be required to house and feed draftees or volunteers on military posts or in other government facilities.” He also asked for an opportunity to discuss the NAACP’s recommendations with Marshall or appropriate DOD officials he had designated. Draft of White letter to George C. Marshall, secretary of Defense, NAACP WB-141, DLC. See also, among others, 12/4/50, 1/31/51. [25] The Legal Department and the Washington Bureau had the chief responsibility for defending accused African American GIs in the courts and in seeking legislation to protect them. In the case of Lieutenant Gilbert, the Legal Department assigned Frank Reeves, its Washington representative, to appear before the Board of Review of the Judge Advocate General’s office to represent him. For the broader implications of this case, see “Top Priority for Servicemen,” NAACP Annual Report, 1950, 20-21. For a comprehensive report on the cases in Korea and other cases that the NAACP handled, see “The Armed Services,” NAACP Annual Report, 1951, 48-53. See also 11/3 and 12/4/50; Report of the Executive Secretary, 1/2/51, on court martial cases in Korea, in Minutes, 1/2/51, EC; and Marshall, “Summary Justice,” Crisis (May 1951): 297-304, 350-55. Also working on these cases was Jack Greenberg, assistant special counsel, who on 1/19/51, provided Mitchell with “copies of almost all the memoranda” he had so far sent to Thurgood Marshall, NAACP special counsel, on courts martial involving blacks. Greenberg said the NAACP’s legal department was submitting briefs in those cases in which the lawyers felt at least some appealable issue existed in the record. In all other cases, which were the great majority, the lawyers had requested that the War Department defer hearings until after Marshall’s return from Korea on the ground that the conferences between counsel and accused were necessary for the preparation of their defense. Greenberg’s letter to Mitchell, 1/19/51, MP. Based on Greenberg’s letter, for a record of these cases from Korea, see collection of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., DLC. [26] See, among others, 12/4/50, 2/2/51; and, in appendix, 12/31/50. [27] Mitchell testified on 7/13/50. [28] See memorandum, “Unfair Racial Policies of the Veterans Administration,” from Earle Fisher to Mitchell, 12/19/50, in NAACP WB-185, DLC; and, most immediately, 12/4/50, 5/3/51. [29] Both the NYT and Truman favored legislation to grant home rule to D.C. “Goats in Washington,” editorial, NYT, 8/16/50, 28; NYT, 8/18/50, 22. See also 5/31, 10/2/50; “Should District of Columbia Citizens Have the Right to Vote?” Senior Scholastic, 10-11. [30] See, among others, 3/3/50. [31] “The 81st Congress: NAACP Survey’s Its Record,” in Fair Employment Practice Committee, 1948-55, folder, NAACP IX: 67, DLC.
Report of Washington Bureau for Months of June, July and August
[August 31, 1951]
Senate Rules Change
Hearings have been set for the first two weeks in October on proposed changes in the Senate rules on limitation of debate.[1] List of possible witnesses have been agreed upon in meetings with interested organizations.[2] Senator McFarland has announced that he hopes the Senate will be able to adjourn on October 1. However, this is a subject of some debate at this time and it is difficult to know whether the October 1 adjournment will actually take place. In any event, plans are going forward for the October hearings.[3]
The Housing Crisis
Housing problems of minority groups in the United States are at a critical stage.[4] The Federal Government is underwriting or supporting in various ways the building of public housing, private housing, and slum clearance programs. We have considerable evidence that in many instances the Federal Government is actually promoting the extension of racial segregation. We have prepared a statement on this which it is presumed the Secretary will bring up at the Board meeting.[5]
When S. 349, the Defense Housing Bill, was under consideration, Senators Douglas and Ives, after unsuccessfully seeking incorporation of non-segregation amendments in the Bill[6] itself, did obtain a statement in the Committee Report on the Bill concerning equality of treatment.[7] When the Bill was debated in the House, non-segregation amendments were kept off of the floor by the Administration with one exception. This exception was Congressman Javits' amendment dealing with community facilities. This amendment was defeated because it was opposed by Congressman Multer of New York. Congressman Multer argued that he had been assured by the Housing Agencies that the problem raised by Congressman Javits was being taken care of by administrative regulations.[8] Following the passage of the Bill, Congressman Multer discussed his position at length, both in correspondence and personally, with the Director of the Bureau. He stated that he was going to take the problem to the President.[9]
The Bureau prepared a memorandum for the Congressman.[10] He sent a letter to the President urging action.[11] Other Congressmen have followed suit. The Bureau has also outlined the problem to Mr. Raymond Foley, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, by letter and in conversation. It is clear, however, the NAACP must plan some dramatic action in this field. Also, it is clear that on the basis of our legislative experience, we are the only major organization in the country that has taken an all out position against segregation in housing. There are many other organizations that agree with the principle of no segregation, but either oppose or are indifferent to the possibility of having this principle included in legislation. Therefore, it seems important that, in any action planned on the housing front, the NAACP must take the leadership, although it would be well to welcome the support of other organizations.
Armed Services
In the March Report of the Washington Bureau, we mentioned that Senators who sponsored an NAACP amendment to the Draft Bill had agreed to meet with the Department of Defense to discuss ways of speeding up integration. These Senators would not agree to place a non-segregation amendment on the floor for debate in the Draft and Universal Military Training Bill, but said that they would work for acceleration of the program of integration in the Armed Services. Six of them met at the Department of Defense on March 5, 1951. They obtained a pledge that the Universal Military Training Program would function on a non-segregated basis and they also obtained certain pledges on action to advance integration. Therefore, the recent announcement that the Army would abolish segregation in the Far Eastern Theater is one of the first concrete results of this conference.[12] The following statement from an official of the Department of Defense to one of the Senators is submitted for the Board's information:
"I feel very strongly that whatever advances have been made in the elimination of discrimination and segregation in the Army, recently, should be credited not only to officials in the Department of Defense, but also to you and the Senators who are associated with you.
"I feel, as you do, that things still remain which must be done to eliminate race and color segregation in the Army, and I am certain that every effort will be made to accomplish this desirable goal."
The Senator who received this communication felt that it would not be advisable to make it public, hence, the names of the Defense official and the Senator are not included in this written report. We have been assured that plans are under consideration for an announcement concerning integration of the Armed Services in the European Theater. Regrettably, full integration at home appears to be last on the list.[13]
Anti-Violence Legislation
We have been somewhat depressed by the difficulty we have encountered in getting legislation designed to protect members of the Armed Services against assaults and physical violence introduced in the Senate.[14] The delay has been caused by factors which are beyond the control of Senator Lehman, who is the chief sponsor of this bill. Mr. Julius Edelstein of his office has done a splendid job in assuring full support of Government agencies for this bill. So far, he has obtained clearance from the Department of Defense, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice. The Department of Defense has promised a statement on instances in which violence occurred and also has promised to define what is meant by the word "duty," since this appears to be a matter of considerable importance in the minds of members of the Senate.
Unfortunately, Senators Wiley, Ferguson, and O'Connor who are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have not pledged that they will sponsor this legislation. Their sponsorship would do much to increase its chances of passage. We have not yet given up hope of getting them. The CIO has suggested that the bill be amended to exclude the possibility of having it apply to strike situations.
No Segregation on AEC Projects
The Atomic Energy Commission advised the Director of the Washington Bureau at a luncheon meeting that, pursuant to NAACP urging, it had instructed all contractors at Paducah and South Carolina that there would be no segregation in "cafeterias, eating facilities, wash-rooms, lavatories, etc." This action was taken by AEC after a careful study of practices of non-segregation on several southern Army posts. Senator Maybank, according to the Augusta Chronicle, has issued a statement implying that AEC appropriations may be cut because of this action.[15]
The AEC has also advised that it was assigning one of its top employees to make a special drive for eliminating the bottlenecks which in the past have prevented qualified colored people from getting skilled jobs with AEC or its various contractors. This official was also present at the luncheon. At the Bureau's request, the AEC confirmed its non-segregation policy in writing. It was also agreed that a meeting on problems of South Carolina employment and other matters would be held in that state with AEC officials on September 17. This meeting has been arranged.[16]
The Director of the Washington Bureau wishes to point out that the mere adoption of a policy does not assure that there will be absolutely no segregation on the project. However, with this policy in hand, the Association can police these projects effectively and stamp out segregation. The value of such a program cannot be over estimated. Also, such effective legal action as can be undertaken will help to make the AEC operations in the South a model of industrial activity.[17]
Cox Resolution
Congressman Cox of Georgia has introduced H. Res. 364 which provides for an investigation of foundations that to quote him have "disbursed funds irresponsibly to aid organizations which made a profession of stirring up class and race dissention throughout the South."[18] The list of persons cited by Cox as Communist fronters includes Dr. Ira D. Reid and Miss Lillian Smith. This resolution has been reported out by the Rules Committee. Apparently, Cox brought it up at a time when members pledged to oppose it were not present. Unfortunately, these members have been very non-committal on whether they were actually at the meeting which, of course, was closed.
Both Congressman Dawson and Majority Leader, John McCormack, have pledged their opposition to this resolution. At the time this report is written, we have not yet obtained a commitment from Minority Leader, Joseph Martin, although we are still seeking it. We have placed the problem before him and hope that he will pledge opposition to the Resolution. The House will return for business on September 12. At that time, Cox may seek to bring up this Resolution and we are urging all liberal Congressmen to be on hand to defeat it.
Jim-Crow in VA Hospitals
In the May report, we pointed out that H. R. 314, Congressman Rankin's Jim-Crow Hospital Bill was on the calendar for action in the House. We are glad to report that this measure was defeated by a vote of 223 to 117.[19] Some indication of what conditions would be like if the bill had passed is given by a case we have received from Alabama. In this situation, a veteran who was in need of treatment in Montgomery, Alabama, was sent to Tuskegee for treatment because that was "the facility for colored veterans" although there was a hospital within four miles of his home. The hospital at Tuskegee is forty miles from his home.
We have taken this matter up with the Veterans Administration and, although we have received one report from Admiral J. T. Boone, Chief Medical Director of the Veterans Administration, we are not satisfied with it and we are taking further action.
Another illustration of the constant Jim-Crow tendencies in the Veterans hospitals has come from the institution located at Kecoughtan, Virginia. Here, the local officials of the hospital placed a sign over a door leading to the dining-room designating it as a colored entrance. We received an anonymous complaint on this and promptly took action. The hospital authorities demurred, but finally removed the sign.[20]
Maritime Employment
In a number of our reports, we have mentioned the consistent work which has been done by Mr. Fisher of the Washington Bureau staff on problems of colored officers in the Maritime industry. A small reward has come through his efforts in that the Merchant Vessel Booker T. Washington has been restored to active service and one of the colored officers who has been a complainant has been hired by the Luckenbach Steamship Company which operates the ship.[21]
Mr. Fisher's plan of action, however, includes a much more extensive attack on this problem. He has advised the Maritime Administration of the Department of Commerce that "Articles 1, 2, and 12 of the General Agency Agreement between the Administration and the ship operators place sufficient power and authority in the National Shipping Authority to insist and demand that the agent shipping companies discontinue immediately their denial of employment to colored Merchant Marine officers solely because of race." Mr. Fisher indicates that there are 160 ships taken out of the "lay up" fleet because of Government demands. These vessels have openings for nearly one thousand officers.
Other Employment Facts
As we gear up for the defense program, there is continuing evidence for the need of national fair employment practice machinery.[22] In our report of May 1951, we mentioned that the employment service in the City of Baltimore has been guilty of extensive discrimination in making referrals to Government agencies. An investigation of these complaints has shown that the local employment service received over a hundred discriminatory requests from Government agencies. This report was promptly squelched by state officials who sent, instead, a statement to Washington that they had found no discrimination.[23]
The national office of the employment service, at our request, has been negotiating with officials of the Capital Transit Company to obtain agreement that colored people will be employed as platform operators. So far, no favorable results have been reported. We have also been granted time to oppose a fare increase requested by the Capital Transit Company before the Public Utilities Commission on September 24.[24]
We have received reports of discrimination from Ford plants in Norfolk, Virginia, and Chicago, Illinois. It appears that in these cases cooperation of the contracting agencies and the United Automobile Workers may produce some favorable results. On the other hand, the Caterpillar Tractor Company of Peoria, Illinois, engaged in extensive recruitment in Alabama, but, although it used the facilities of the employment service in Illinois and Alabama, refused to take any colored applicants. The Illinois Employment Service has said it is powerless to halt this kind of discrimination.
The Bendix Aviation Corporation Plant in Kansas City, Missouri, which is working on an Atomic Energy Commission contract, refused to employ colored girls who applied for jobs as clerk typists. The complainants left the establishment, and, on calling over the telephone, were told that there were plenty of openings. Apparently, the employer thought that the telephone callers were white. This matter has been placed before the Atomic Energy Commission and the Bendix Aviation Corporation Plant by the Washington Bureau.[25]
A great many other complaints of this kind are coming into our office and we are seeking to obtain some adjustments with the help of the contracting agencies. However, these complaints emphasize the fact that discrimination is still with us in spite of the high level of employment and numerous improvements in various parts of the country.
We have been advised that the legislative difficulties that the President has encountered on various parts of his program have effectively prevented issuance of an executive order on fair employment practice. However, it appears that the possibility of getting such an order is not entirely lost.[26]
|
