Evening star., 1946-01-28

proposal was part of the creed of
the Communist party and the CIO
(though not nearly so much of the
AFL and not at all of the Railroad
Brotherhoods) before it was adopted
by the Democratic and Republican
parties. A third basic fact is that
this proposal is the cause of more
cowardice and hypocrisy among the
politicians of both parties than any
that has been advanced in this
country since the Prohibition
Amendment days.
This point was driven home the
other day by Senator Tydings, Dem
ocrat, of Maryland In an extraordi-
nary speech in which he urged the
senatorial sponsors of the bill to
carry out fully and logically their
professed principles and policy by
supporting an amendment making
1t illegal to deny a job to any man
because he is not member of a
union.
Painful Predicaments.
The Southern Senators hostile to
the bill are so because it strikes at
the deepest social and economic
foundations of the South; because
it would cause a great deal of
trouble in that section, and because
the people of their States are
strongly opposed. 1t Is possible to
accuse these Senators of prejudice,
error and politics but not of cow
ardice and hypocrisy. On the other
hand (while there are some sincere
men among them, many of the
advocates of the measure are guilty
= of those cardinal sins and 1t was
they whom Mr.. Tydings challenged
to live up to their pious protesta-
tions.
Undoubtedly, this puts the chief
sponsors of the FEPC, both Repub-
lican and Democratic, in one of the
most painful predicaments a poll
tician can occupy. Their sufferings
while Mr.. Tydings talked were great
and unconcealed. And they will be
far more acute If the bill finally
reaches the amendment stage and
Mr.. Tydings, as he certainly in
tends to do, forces a vote on his
suggestion.
Though he talked most pointedly
about the lack of moral character
and hypocrisy on this subject in the
Senate, he got very slight response,
indeed.
But they did squirm-and with
reason. For, If they do not vote
for Mr.. Tydings' proposal, which
embodies exactly the same nom
discrimination principle as their
bill. they will convict themselves
openly of inconsistency, insincerity
hypocrisy. But if they do vote for
it, then they will outlaw the closed
shop, which is the great CIO-Com-
munist goal and without which the
union power cannot be complete.
They would rather have the fair
employment bill completely ditched
than have the closed shop legally
banned.
Would Chill CLIO.
Yet, the closed shop involves COM
plete discrimination against men
who want to work but do not want
to join a union. This, of course,
cannot be defended on any ground
save that of making the power Of
the union bosses complete. It is
quite clear that if Mr.. Tydings can
get a vote on his anticlosed shop
amendment it will be adopted. For,
a considerable number of Senators
supporting the FEPC bill will sup
port the amendment and certainly
all Southern Senators opposing the
bill will vote for it, realizing that
its incorporation into the bill will
chill CIO enthusiasm for its pass
age, greatly diminish the pressure
Politics saturates the support of
the bill in both parties. The Re-
4publicans are solidly for it largely
because of their intense desire to
recover the great Negro vote in the
pivotal States, which had been their
basic asset since the Civil War but
was taken from them in 1886 by
President and Mrs. Roosevelt in
what James A. Farley, then national
chairman, considers the most effec-
tive political coup in the history of
national politics.
On the Democratic side, the ef-
fort of the administration and of
Chairman Robert E. Hannegan is
to keep intact that formidable
though utterly incongruous Roose-