Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1954-12-17

FEPC law without enforcement
The argument that developed
was around what kind OF enforce.
mcnt powers would be tho most
effective.
ono side argued for the gross
misdemeanor clause and the other
side contended such clause was
not needed, THIS side said II an
employer or union WAS found by a
district court Judge under the pro-
posed statute To be guilty Of dis
elimination and failed TO carry
out the Judges order, the defend
ant would he found In contempt OF
court.
AZ the conclusion Of tho meet.
ing both sides " the debate were
in accord that they would support
the bill with the gross miademean.
or clause.
The differences between the two
sides OF tho argument In not new
one Ia the supporters of FErC,
throughout the nation,
az the mine state. that have
FEPC statutes, four have pen.
atty clauses and rve rely ON the
contempt 81 court procedure,
Roth sides made strong argu.
mrnta.
The League of Women Voters In
the state are on record aS support.
ing FEPC such AZ the one intro
duced In tho 1903 legislature, nj.
lowing certain minor changes with
the contempt Of court procedure
~ itH enforcement power
A member ~ the iragu. was
ASKED " Tuesdays action by the
FEPC Council meant that the
lragu. would withdraw its sup.
portY
The woman said that II was her
opinion that The league would sup
port the bin M far M they had
committed themselves
The league In also on record M
stating that they will only en-
dorsc bill with enforcement
powers
The supporters Of the gross mis-
drneanor clause didn't want To
lose the support % the league. he.
cause u has becn one ~ the most
effective lobbyists for ETEPC In the
past two sessions of the legisln.
tufe
There is every indication that
the league will support the pro
poscd bin except for section 10 Of
tho bill, referred Ia ms the penalty
clause
The lawyers for both sides
got Into the debate and began
throwing - lat ~ legal ierHin
olo ~ around and for awhile
last" most ~ the other 100 or
go pcopI" 1T the meeting.
l. Howard Bennett. Minnenpo-
liz attorney, and william E. GRAFT
tc. president 81 the Minneapolis
RAACP. were the chief Hpokes,
kmen for the penalty clause
Sidney Lorber and Jonas q
Schwartz. active FEpC support.
cfr and attorneys headed up
the opposition 10 the penalty
clause
Bennett argued that a penalty
clause IN the bill did three things
! Tho penalty clause mad. for
respect for the law.
? n compelled ob-di.nes to
the law
=. u says "a the violatofs ~
the Iaw that N II IL broken these
things (pcnaitles provided for
In the bIIID viii happen 10 YOU,
Cratic maintained that there
has been too much emphasis In the
past IN the human relations con.
cept ~ E'EPC. Cancellation, sdu.
cHtipn and pcrEuhsion and not 10
tho violation ~ civil rights inyoiv'
ed IN FErC
IIr vent on Ia say that the
national SAATP maintains that
I the primary reason more FEPf
races haven't reach the courts II
that In too many instances these
CaArS have been "whIt~washed."
/ I0rber stated that the con.
tempt ~ cour, procedures meant
that II an employer failed 70
comply with q judges order telling
/ him 10 change his discriminatory
| policies he would be in contempt 81
court untn he I'D and thee IN mo-
limit ~ he fine or jail sentence
/ hn would receive
lie cited the Connecticut case
I where union for fined 81 600
I fur not admitting two Negroes
and $500 per week until they did
I Jonas Rchwartz argued that
under the proposed hill with a
penalty power n would be- almos,
impossible ~ FIRST get n grand
| Jury 10 return an Indictment and
n tho grand jury did return an In
distmsn, ., would - very hard "a