Mr. WILKINS. Senator, Mr. Scheidt, who is the commissioner of the motor-vehicle bureau in the State of North Carolina, was there. All I attempted to illustrate by that-I will say this, if you went in to apply for a license in the automobile bureau of the State of New York, you would swear there were that many when you walked in and put your money down and asked for a license plate, you would think there were that many, but all I meant by that was this, Mr. Chairman, to illustrate Senator Johnston's point.

The opportunity for white-collar employment in South Carolina and North Carolina and in other States is limited entirely to schoolteachers so far as State employment is concerned, whereas in these other States, Senators, there is no such limitation.

I mentioned a moment ago that in the Board of Transportation of the City of New York, the subway system and the bus system, we have engineers who are even now drawing plans for additional subways. We have engineers on the subway trains. We have conductors on the subway trains.

Senator WATKINS. Are you speaking of colored people?

Mr. WILKINS. Exactly, I am speaking of colored people. I am speaking of chemists, I am speaking of technicians, I am speaking of others who are on the State payrolls and who are technically whitecollar employees.

Now it is perfectly possible therefore that in a State where there is no opportunity for white-collar employment except teaching, except those self-created opportunities such as the bank and the insurance company, but as far as State employment is concerned only teaching, you naturally would have more teachers-now the fair thing would be to compare the number of teachers in all the Southern States, Negro teachers, with the Negro white-collar employment in all the Northern States.

Senator ERVIN. As a matter of fact, the colored population of New York State is not so far below that of North Carolina. You probably know it better than I do.

Mr. WILKINS. It is approximately the same.

Senator ERVIN. It is somewhere between 900,000 and 1 million; isn't it?

Mr. WILKINS. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. And yet I would say that in the public-school system of North Carolina we probably have I am guessing on this-five or six thousand more colored teachers than you have in New York, notwithstanding that, roughly speaking, our colored populations are approximately the same.

Mr. WILKINS. Of course, Mr. Chairman, this ought to be borne in mind, too. That we do not attempt to pro rate employment in the school system or any other place on the basis of population. The theory exists that this employment is given on the basis of merit without respect to color.

Senator JOHNSTON. Now, then, right there on this question of merit, in South Carolina we have a law that pays to the teachers, white and colored, a certain amount, regardless of color or race, according to their education, according to their experience.

The papers are graded by Columbia University by numbers, no names on the papers, and then they are paid by that in South Carolina: did you know that, white and colored?

Mr. WILKINS. Yes; I knew that.

Senator JOHNSTON. I signed that law while I was governor years

ago.

Mr. WILKINS. That is the merit system according to grade.

Senator JOHNSTON. Now, then, that being so, when you force in South Carolina both races into one school, then you employ the best qualified on the merit system as you said just now. Did you realize that half of the colored teachers will lose their positions?

Mr. WILKINS. Senator, we realize that some will lose their positions. We don't hardly I believe, if you will pardon that grammar, that one-half will lose their jobs.

Senator JOHNSTON. I think it is one-half, knowing the amount and knowing the educational qualifications, and a great many of them only have high school in the colored schools, but it is not true in the white. That being so, you are going to bump into that, and your teachers are going to be let out and other white teachers will be brought in; isn't that so?

Mr. WILKINS. I am not sure. It has not worked that way in places which have desegregated their schools thus far. There have been some displacements in a State like Missouri, which instituted a desegregation program.

There have been some displacements in Oklahoma and there have been some in Texas, which also has desegregated its schools in the west and the south. But the displacement, Senator, has not been on a 50-50 basis. If it were on that basis, sir, then there is a good deal of exaggeration in the contentions presently being made on the Federal aid to education bill about the shortage of teachers, because if a school system can suffer a loss of 50 percent of its teaching personnel, then we are not 350,000 teachers short.

Senator JOHNSTON. Not 50 percent of the personnel; but if they were graded and enough people were let in who would make applications who were better qualified, wouldn't a great many of them lose their jobs?

That is the thing, not only on merit.

Mr. WILKINS. I am speaking of merit, sir.

If those people presently employed on merit according to this system you have outlined, have up to this time been found to be competent, I assume that under any other system that might come into effect, those who presently enjoy meritorious standing would not be arbitrarily dismissed on some other grounds, or am I in error?

Senator JOHNSTON. Well, they would be dismissed if they were all put on the merit system.

Mr. WILKINS. But they are now on a merit system; are they not? Senator JOHNSTON. You would have to reorganize the whole school system when you consolidate the various schools, and when you did that, the ones best-qualified would be retained.

Mr. WILKINS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I think I misunderstood the Senator. I thought the Senator said at the outset that all the teachers of South Carolina were now presently paid on a merit system. Senator JOHNSTON. That is ture.

Mr. WILKINS. Yes. Now all I am trying to understand, Senator, is this: If they are presently employed and maintained on a merit system, anonymous by number and graded by Columbia University and so forth, and are now found to be meritorious teachers under that

system, under any new system why would they, some of them, be suddenly found to be not meritorious?

Senator JOHNSTON. The system is this: The trustees of a school district use the best people to teach within that particular school district. They have that right under the law. And if you reorganize, they would be forced to take the best qualified teachers to carry on the teaching staff in South Carolina.

Mr. WILKINS. The only thing I can say to that is that the Negro teachers in South Carolina who are presently employed and who are aware of this movement for desegregation of the schools have not as yet officially and as a body evidenced any disposition to discourage the desegregation of schools, so that if it threatens their jobs, they apparently are not yet aware of it.

Senator JOHNSTON. Would you be willing to let the teachers, the colored teachers of South Carolina, vote upon the proposition and see what they want?

Mr. WILKINS. They have already voted on it. They passed a resolution last year endorsing desegregation in the Palmetto State Teachers Association composed of Negro teachers.

There isn't a single Negro teacher's association in the Southern States that has not, in spite of the threat to their jobs, in spite of the knowledge that some of them will lose their jobs, that has not voted to support the desegregation program.

I have some wonderful letters from teachers saying that even if they lose their jobs, they know that the children will be better off.

Senator JOHNSTON. So some of them do realize that they may lose their jobs?

Mr. WILKINS. They do. They certainly do. What we would hope, Senator, is that all the teachers, regardless of race, who are now on marginal teaching certificates, whether white or colored, who are on substandard certificates-a lot of them are, even in New York there are a lot of them as you well know-that all these would be first taken off, and the teachers of merit left regardless of race.

Now we realize as a practical matter-and you just cited it a moment ago that county school boards or district school boards have the right to hire and so forth.

But I submit, sir, that if every teacher, white and colored, who was on a marginal certificate, were got rid of in a consolidated school system, and all the good teachers left, white and black, that you would have no complaint from the Negro teachers, and I dare say you would have none from the whites, and you certainly would have none from the parents of the children.

Senator JOHNSTON. I guess you realize further than in South Carolina during recent years they have spent at least twice as much improving the colored schools than they have the white.

Mr. WILKINS. I know the figure is very large.

Senator JOHNSTON. Very large.

Mr. WILKINS. I know.

Senator JOHNSTON. And you agree that the colored people have more modernistic schools than the white do at the present time; isn't that right?

Mr. WILKINS. That I do not know, but I know there has been an acceleration in spending in the last 4 or 5 years under the, let us say, development of certain movements toward desegregation.

Frankly, I think former Governor Byrnes stated openly that the program of equalization, as he called it, or improvement was undertaken to forestall the possibility of desegregation.

Senator JOHNSTON. That was done, carrying out the law as interpreting the Constitution, that you could give equal facilities; that was all that was necessary. That was the Supreme Court ruling up until recently.

Mr. WILKINS. That was the 1896 ruling.

Senator JOHNSTON. The ruling from then up until just a few years

ago.

We have had many rules, but the Supreme Court has held that time. and time and time again.

Mr. WILKINS. I know that South Carolina has accelerated its spending in the last 5 or 6 or 7 years, Senator.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is true.

I have some letters I want to put in the record here, from the Governor of South Carolina, and also a letter here from the attorney general of South Carolina, one here from Tom H. Pope, of South Carolina, who represents the bar association, and my telegram to them showing that they have been scheduled.

Senator WATKINS. They will all be placed in the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:)

[Official business]

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
February 18, 1957.

GEORGE BELL TIMMERMAN,

Governor, State of South Carolina,

Columbia, S. C.:

Change the date from Thursday, February 21, to Monday, March 4, at 10 a. m. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., to suit your convenience at the request of Senator Olin D. Johnston.

CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr.,

Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. (Send same message to the following named persons: T. C. Callison, attorney general, State of South Carolina, Columbia, S. C.; Thomas H. Pope, South Carolina Bar Association, Newberry, S. C.)

NEWBERRY, S. C., February 16, 1957.

Senator TOM HENNINGS,

Chairman, Constitutional Rights Subcommittee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

As chairman of the executive committee and on behalf of South Carolina Bar Association, I request opportunity for representative of the association to be heard on the pending civil-rights bills. Due to court commitments it will be difficult for such representative to appear before your subcommittee prior to March 1. Request that association's representative be permitted to testify at the same time as representatives designated by the Governor of South Carolina. THOMAS H. POPE.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,
February 14, 1957.

Hon. D. W. ROBINSON,
President, South Carolina Bar Association,

Columbia, S. C.

Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of Senate Judiciary Committee holding hearings this week and next week on pending Civil-Rights bills. If you or

representative of bar association should want to testify suggest that telegram be sent to Senator Tom Hennings, Chairman, Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., requesting appearance. Other persons from South Carolina expected to testify next Tuesday and/or Thursday. OLIN D. JOHNSTON.

Official.

[Telegram to Senator Olin D. Johnston, February 9, 1957]

I have this date wired Senator Thomas C. Hennings as follows: "South Carolina requests an opportunity for its representatives to appear at hearings on civil-rights legislation before your subcommittee we would appreciate your fixing date after February 18 and advising me South Carolina's attorney general and on 1 or 2 others would like to be heard. With best wishes."

GEORGE BELL TIMMERMAN, Jr., Governor,

FEBRUARY 13, 1957.

Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.:

I have this date wired Chairman Hennings as follows: "Last week I requested a hearing for representatives of the State on pending civil-rights bills. I specifically asked for date after February 18 also last week our attorney general specifically asked for a definite date after February 18, preferably after the month of February, since our legislature is in session and time is limited. Late yesterday I received a telegram from your chief counsel fixing an indefinite time after 10 a. m., on February 18. I have requested an opportunity for representatives of the State to be heard. South Carolina protests the designation of a date known to be undesirable and a time that is indefinite. We renew our request for a definite time after February 18 and preferably after the month of February. We also request that I be advised of the time and date fixed sufficiently in advance to arrange for our representatives to be present. We have received only 1 copy of each of the numerous bills pending before your committee. This, plus the fact that our attorney general had previously arranged to appear before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday of this week and another group is scheduled to appear before the same subcommittee next week, handicaps us in making adequate preparation for an appearance. Those desiring to be heard are responsible officials and other responsible citizens who in all fairness should be given ample time in which to be present. Among them are former United States Senators Charles E. Daniel and Thomas A. Wofford, and South Carolina's speaker of the house of representatives, Solomon Blatt. As previously stated to you in the attorney general's letter, "Some convenient time later than the month of February would be appreciated."

GEORGE BELL TIMMERMAN, Jr., Governor.

Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr.,

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Columbia, S. C., February 8, 1957.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: I am advised that you propose to begin hearings on civil-rights legislation at 10 a. m., Thursday, February 14. I am also advised by Senator Olin D. Johnston that your schedule for February 14 and 15 has been filled and that you may not be able to hold further hearings before February 18. The State of South Carolina wishes to be heard on this legislation and I will cerainly consider it a favor if you could fix a definite date sometime following the 18th of February at which time South Carolina can be heard.

Due to the fact that the South Carolina legislature is in session and our time is very limited, I would appreciate it if we could be given an opportunity to be heard at some convenient time later than the month of February. If, however,