St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1954-12-17

tEGI law without enforcement
The argument that developed
was around what kind OF enforce
ment powers would be the most
effective.
One 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 be found In contempt OF
court.
At the conclusion OF the meet
ing both sides OF the debate were
in accord that they would support
the bill with the gross misdcmean-
or clause.
The differences between the two
sides of the argument Is not u new
one to the supporters OF FEPC.
throughout the nation.
OF the nine states that have
FEPC statutes, four have PEN
atty clauses and five rely ON the
contempt OF court procedure.
Both sides made strong argu-
ments.
The League OF Women Voters In
the state are on record AZ support
ing FEPC such AS the one intro
duced In the 1858 Legislature, al.
lowing certain minor changes with
the contempt of court procedure
as It's enforcement power,
A member Of the league was
asked II Tuesdays action by the
FEPC Council meant that the
league would withdraw Its sup
ports
The woman said that II was hel
opinion that the league would sup
port the bill ns far as they hac
committed themselves.
The league is also on record as
stating that they will only en-
dorse bill with enforcement
powers
The supporters of the gross mis-
demeanor clause didn't want Ia
lose the support Of the league. be-
cause II has been one OF the most
effective lobbyists for FEPC I'm the
past two sessions OF the legisln-
| ture.
There is every indication that
the league will support the pro-
posed bill except for section 10 OF
the bill. referred TO as the penalty
clause.
The lawyers for both sides
got into the debate and began
throwing lot Of legal termin
oio-gy around and for awhile
lost" most Of the other 100 or
50 people at the meeting.
L. Howard Bennett, Minneapo-
Lis attorney. and William e. Graft
&c, president OF the Minneapolis
NAACP. were the chief spokes-
men for the penalty clause.
Sidney Lorber and Jonas @
Schwartz, active FEPC support
ers and attorneys headed up
the opposition 10 the penalty
clause.
Bennett argued that penalty
clause in the bill did three things
4 The penalty clause made for
respect for the law.
2. II compelled obedience 10
the law.
3. It says 60 the foIators OF
the law that II II II broken these
things penalties provided for
In the bIlD viii happen TO you.
Cratic maintained that there
has been too much emphasis in the
past on the human relations con-
cept OF FEPC. Cancellation. edu-
cation and persuasion and not 10
the violation Of civil rights involv-
ed in FEPC.
He went on to say that the
national NAACP maintains that
the primary reason more FEPC
cases haven't reach the courts II
that In too many instances these
cases have been "whitewashed."
Lorber stated that the con-
tempt Of court procedures meant
that II an employer failed 10
comply with a judges order telling
him TO change his discriminatory
! policies he would be in contempt OF
court until he did and there Is no
limit to he fine or jail sentence
he would receive.
He cited the Connecticut case
where a union for fined $1,000
for not admitting two Negroes
and $500 per week until they did
/ Jonas Schwartz argued that
under the proposed bill with a
penalty power II would be almost
impossible 10 first get a grand
jury to return an Indictment and
II the grand jury did return an In
dietment II would be very hard TO
get a district court jury TO find a
person guilty Of violating FEPc.