Monthly Report, January 31, 1951

[1] This was EO 10308. See also, among others, 12/5 and 12/28/51; in appendix 1, this vol., 12/20/50; 6/25/51 for a parallel struggle by the National Council for a Permanent FEPC; and the headnote on the Struggle for a Permanent FEPC, 1942–54, vol. III.

[2] Materials on this meeting and other activities related to the FEPC struggle are in NAACP II: A-257, DLC. In the newsletter of January 12, 1951, Mitchell reported that the NAACP, in the meeting on January 4, had won from Charles E. Wilson “potent new support” for its campaign to get President Truman to issue an executive order creating an FEP agency. In addition to the executive order with enforcement powers, he said, Wilson had “promised full cooperation” on the NAACP’s struggle for:

“Appointment of qualified colored persons on the non-salaried policy-making boards and committees established under Mr. Wilson’s direction. (We are particularly interested in those boards and committees that will deal with problems of manpower and training.)

Effective liaison through a top staff member who will have direct access to Mr. Wilson. (NAACP WB newsletter, 1/12/51, MP)

Walter White, who also participated in the meeting, confirmed that Wilson was in “complete accord with the principle of full use of manpower on the basis of skill alone and [he and Symington] were deeply interested in the suggested methods of achieving this goal which were put forth by the representatives of the NAACP. The NAACP submitted a memorandum containing specific recommendations [outlined by Mitchell] for guaranteeing that manpower will be used to the fullest capacity without discrimination based on race.” Report of the Secretary for the Month of January, 1951, EC.

[3] The NAACP, at its annual meeting on January 2, 1951, adopted a resolution commending the president for appointing Charles E. Wilson director of defense mobilization and also congratulated Wilson upon his appointment. Wilson, president of General Electric Company, previously had been chair of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights. Minutes, 1/2/51, EC.

[4] At a meeting with four top AEC officials on December 28, 1950, in Washington, Mitchell, accompanied by Earle Fisher, discussed approaches to problems that would arise for blacks at the proposed site of the AEC plant for producing fissionable materials in South Carolina. The plant was to be built by the du Pont Company, which would have few restraints on its operation because the AEC wanted the facility to begin production as soon as possible. Memorandum by Fisher recapitulating the discussion at the meeting, 12/28/50, NAACP WB-8, DLC. See also, among others, 2/5 and 5/3/51.

[5] See, most immediately, 2/2, 2/5, and 3/5/51; in appendix 1, this vol., 12/20/50, 2/21/51.

[6] See, most immediately, 12/31/50 and 2/2/51.

[7] Mitchell urged the air force to “work for swift and vigorous punishment of those responsible for the attack,” and he sent Zuckert a copy of Bradshaw’s statement. Mitchell letter to Zuckert, 1/18/51, NAACP WB-141, DLC. See subsequent developments at 2/5 and 3/5/51.

[8] Mitchell said the Minnesota National Guard’s experiences in the South was a “special phase of the problem” of segregation of military personnel and inductees, adding “we presented that formally on January 8” [1951], in a letter to Earl D. Johnson, assistant secretary of the Department of the Army. On January 13, 1951, Mitchell wrote Governor Youngdhal, commending him for his action on the Minnesota National Guard. Mitchell’s letter to Jonas G. Schwartz, 1/31/51, NAACP WB-141, DLC. Another portion of this letter was cited at 12/4/50. See also 2/2, 3/5, and 12/28/51.

Walter White, also involved in this struggle, reported that on January 9, 1951, he telegraphed the secretaries of defense, army, navy, and air force regarding complaints about this problem at Camp Rucker. On January 17, 1951, he received a letter from James C. Evans, secretary of defense, saying that appropriate investigations had been ordered and that the NAACP’s “apprehension over possible discrimination and related disturbance in the immediate future” [had been] “used to alert officers and commands having direct jurisdiction.” Evans also said that although he was not in a position then to say through what channels the official response would be provided, attention was then being given to the NAACP’s message, which would assist in correcting conditions leading to the complaints. Report of the Secretary to the Board for January 1951, EC.

[9] See Mitchell’s testimony and Caldwell’s response, both on 1/15/51, Hearings 1–14; see also note at 2/2/51 for extended background on this struggle.

[10] See 1/24/51, Hearings 861–73; see also 2/2, 3/5, 4/4, 5/3, 6/4, and 8/31/51.

[11] For background, see the headnote on Street and Local Railways, vol. I.

[12] This was the Committee on War Claims (1873–1946), which was abolished under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, with its jurisdiction transferred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the executive agencies. See http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/house/chapter-06-war-claims-.html.

[13] Mitchell and Waddy, 5/18/50, Hearings 242–309. In the 1/12/51 newsletter, Mitchell addressed this issue as follows:

One of the last bills passed in the 81st Congress was S. 3295 which permits union shop and dues check-off contracts in the Railroad industry.

The bill did not contain language suggested by the NAACP. However, friendly senators and congressmen did get some protective language in the committee report on the bill. This language will be of use in court when plaintiffs bring action against discriminatory agreements between management and labor in the railroad industry.

We are immediately asking the National Mediation Board to assure us that the intent of Congress, as set forth in the report, will be followed in the administration of the law.

The language in the report is as follows:

“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.)” (Newsletter, 1/12/51, MP)

[14] For background, see Caplan, “Virginia Schools: A Study in Frustration,” Crisis 58 (January 1951): 5–11, 61–63; Robinson, “The Virginia School Fight—A Clarification,” Crisis 58 (April 1951): 228–29.

[15] In the 1/12/51 newsletter, Mitchell provided this additional information:

We have registered a vigorous protest against a recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board in the case of the Young’s Motor Freight Company of Houston, Texas. This company employed colored truck drivers for years, but maintained an open shop. From statements given by the company, it was cheaper to use colored drivers. Colored drivers were also employed in the Company’s Beaumont, Texas, shop.

During the summer of 1949, the colored drivers in Houston were approached by the Teamster’s Union. They decided to attend a meeting called by the union. The company suddenly fired all of its colored drivers in Houston. The reason given was that customers were complaining about impertinence and other improper conduct on the part of the drivers. They were replaced with white men.

The union then organized the company’s Beaumont establishment. The employees went on strike, but when the employer told them that the company could not afford to pay the union wage scale, they dropped out of the union and went back to work. They are still employed.

The Board’s Trial Examiner, Lee J. Best, ruled that the company had violated the law by interfering with its Houston employees when they attempted to organize. However, he also held that the company did not violate the law when it dismissed the colored employees. He was upheld in this decision by Paul M. Herzog, Board Chairman, and members Abe Murdock and Paul L. Styles.

The net result of this is that the company is now free to keep the white employees who replaced the colored men. The union may organize these white individuals if they are not already members. The only losers are the colored men who got fired. (Newsletter, 1/12/51, MP)

Mitchell told Herzog that “the record in this case shows that the colored employees were being exploited under open shop conditions. As long as these employees were content to work at wages under the union scale, there was no possibility of being discharged because the company knew that the employment of white men would cost more in wages.” Mitchell letter to Herzog, 1/15/51, in NAACP WB-141, DLC.

[16] This was the Trade Agreement of 1934. Congress and the Nation 193–96.