An illustration of the functioning of the FEPC is in the case of the Dallas Morning News, a privately owned newspaper published in Dallas, Tex. This newspaper desired to employ a helper in its plant and printed an advertisment in its newspaper which read as follows: "Wanted-Colored man to work at night as paper handler. Essential industry." The regional director of the FEPC wrote the Dallas Morning News a letter with reference to this advertisement from which the following quotation is taken:

The Committee on Fair Employment Practice, operating under Executive Order No. 9346, a copy of which is attached, considers that such advertisement is a violation of the order. It limits applications to a narrow field described in the advertisement, and automatically bars persons of other race or color from applying, even though these latter may also possess skill needed for your establishment. You are therefore requested to take immediate steps to remove from this and from any other advertisment for employees any features which are discriminatory as to race, creed, color, and nationality. You are further requested to advise your personnel office or hiring agent that they should disregard such specifications in considering applications for employment. This includes the United States Employment Service.

This is important because it appears to be a sincere effort on the part of the regional director to prevent the exclusion of members of the Caucasian race from an opportunity for employment. Of course the regional director overstepped the bounds of his authority because the advertiser offering employment was a privately owned newspaper and not yet within the control of the FEPC, but he shows that his intention was good. He really tried to prevent a minor discrimination against the Caucasian race. However, when the newspaper resented this unwarranted intrusion into the field of private employment, the chairman of the FEPC rebuked the regional director for exceeding his authority because private employment was beyond the control of the FEPC. So, the only case that has come to light, as far as I know, in which anyone in the FEPC tried to prevent discrimination against members of the Caucasian race, died aborning.

A glaring illustration of discrimination against members of the Caucasian race is right here in the District of Columbia. There are in the Capital of our Nation, hundreds of perfectly well-qualified citizens of the United States who might have been employed in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds. Nevertheless, if my information be correct, there is not a single employee in that office who is not a Negro. Information is current that directives issued in aid of the Executive orders under which the FEPC was created and is functioning, require that the percentage of Negroes employed in any office must equal the percentage of Negroes in the population of the community. The percentage of Negroes of the total population of the District of Columbia is not yet 100 percent, nor is it 100 percent of those who constitute the citizenship of the District of Columbia.

Similarly the Executive orders under which the FEPC was created and is functioning deal only with employment and seek to prevent discrimination solely by reason of race, creed, color, or national origin. But it is said that some of the directives require that there be no segregation among employees. The basis of the Executive orders is recited to be the desirability of promoting the fullest utilization of all manpower by maximum employment. Does this objective make imperative the abolition of segregation of those already employed? Does compulsory intermingling of employees promote the war effort? Even

where all persons concerned prefer segregation? Or would the tendency be in the opposite direction?

The Executive order creating the FEPC reads:

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy

With confidence I challenge anybody to point out one syllable or one word of such authority that he has, either as President of the United States or as Commander in Chief of our Army and Navy. His duties as President are clearly indicated in the Constitution, but there is not one of them that authorizes the creation of the FEPC, either expressly or by implication, I submit, most humbly and respectfully. The Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy has the duty to command the Army and Navy which the Congress, and the Congress alone, is, under the Constitution, authorized to create and maintain.

Be this as it may it is not the words of the Executive orders as much as it is the maladministration thereunder that causes so much opposition. There is discrimination shown in our national employment picture, but it is not against but in favor of race, creed, or colordiffering from that of the majority of our citizens. The majority of us are taxpayers and therefore interested in efficiency. These Executive orders are being administered so as to force employment of members of spoiled and petted minorities, wholly without regard to qualification.

There is only one question here involved. It is not whether or not we favor a fair, square deal to all alike, nor whether or not the FEPC should be perfectly qualified to do some other work well, but such a person should be discriminated against when hiring a stenographer. One might be doing nothing in aid of the war effort, but unless qualified that person should be discriminated against when hiring an accountant. One who cannot read might be flattered by being employed as a proofreader, and might need the salary, but such a person ought not to be employed for such a job. If you are not a carpenter, you are not entitled to a carpenter's job or pay. The same is true as to every other job requiring a particular skill. However, according to the FEPC, if there are in a community 10 Negroes out of each 100 persons, then 10 percent of those employed in each category of employment must be Negroes, regardless of every consideration save the color of their skin.

I want to call your attention to one point further: There is no policy of Government except established in one of two ways: It may arise, as this one has arisen, from the innate character of the American people we believe in a square deal, a square deal to all without any question of race, creed, color, or origin, we believe that everyone should have an absolutely square deal. That is one source of policy; the other way, and the only other way, that it can arise is from the law or the Constitution. I challenge any man to dispute it; these are the only ways policy can come into being. But if there were policy it would not be in the discretion of the President, either as such or as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, to enforce it by a committee created without constitutional or statutory authority.

Both major political parties have from time immemorial each had in their platforms in various and sundry wordings the same outcry

against bureaucracy, the same pledges to cut it down, the same pledges of economy. I certainly welcome the test of whether we mean it or not. Do we mean that our platforms are like railway coach platforms, just something to get in on? Or do we really mean to curb bureaucracy? Do we mean to economize? If there be any law to be enforced, why not leave its enforcement to the Department of Justice, for the maintenance of which we appropriate millions of dollars a year? Or to the three other agencies now functioning and charged with the duty of enforcing laws requiring that no discrimination in employment practices be permitted? Why should we countenance the continuance of the FEPC when the Department of Labor, the Labor Division of the War Production Board, the Public Welfare Division of the Bureau of Public Health, and the Department of Justice—all four-already enforce such laws? Why appropriate for the FEPC and its maladministration, creating discord, disunity, and worse?

We are not inveighing against law enforcement but against extravagant and confusing duplication of agencies to do that single job, especially against the maintenance of that fifth agency which has proven itself an enemy fifth column, misconceiving, misinterpreting, and bringing into disrepute and disgrace the laws and the Executive orders it was established to enforce.

Let us be frank and honest with each other. There is really very little discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin or ancestry.

To be discriminating is a virtue. It is a characteristic to be sought and acquired. Discrimination in the choice of music, painting, sculpture, or any other art including the art of the artisan or salesman, is a quality of which one may be proud. To differentiate because of low motives such as prejudice or hatred is unworthy, to say the least. To eschew the lower and choose because of higher motives is commendable. Rotary teaches its members: "He profits most who serves best." We have never risen to the high level of that business ethic, and still seek to make money only for money's sake. But, whether the business ethic be higher or lower, most of the discrimination in employment is because of the profit motive, and the belief that the applicant employed was better fitted for the job or would be of more financial benefit to the employer than the rejected applicants. The same is true of discharges. Almost every business institution, large or small, is a stadium wherein is played the cruel game of "survival of the fittest." The fittest like it, and pridefully admit the truth. The others do not like it, and nearly always yell: "Kill the umpire." They charge crooked favoritism or any other "alibi" they can frame. Sometimes character, qualifications, and experience being equal, the determining factor in employment, or in replacement, is the family connections or friends of the respective applicants, and their comparative pulling power of business or good will. But as used in the laboratories of personnel procurement, retention, or promotion, the best neutralizer of the acid of prejudice or hatred is the alkali of dollar-value!

Suppose, however, that the profit motive is a myth, the survival of the fittest but a false figment of a diseased imagination, and assuming the truth of the theory of the FEPC bill, to wit, that hatred because of race, creed, or color caused and causes every failure to get or to keep employment. If hate be the cause, is forcing the hated on the hater the cure?

QUO WARRANTO?

Who are we? And, "Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he is grown so great?" We are not the sovereign, we are but the representatives of the sovereign; chosen by the sovereign for the shortest term known to our election laws, to use only those legislative powers granted us in the Constitution. This limitation of power is true only of the Congress.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress (art. I, sec. 1).

The executive power shall be vested in a President (art. II, sec. 1).

The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish (art. III, sec. 1).

So, if you are a man of honor, you cannot vote for a bill, no matter how good you may think it, unless you can point to your authority in the Constitution.

I challenge anyone so to justify this bill or any part of it.

This is a free country. Our freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution and by the honor of the Congress and the courts. Nor do our rights have to be enumerated-we are free-and have all rights that we have not voluntarily surrendered.

The provision "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress" means that Congress "within the limits of its powers and observing the restrictions imposed by the Constitution may in its discretion, enact any statute appropriate to accomplish the objects for which the National Government was established." (Burton v. United States (202 U. S. 344, 367).

The only legislative powers vested in Congress are those "herein granted." "Whenever, therefore, a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power, the first question is whether the power be expressed in the Constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed, the next inquiry must be whether it is properly an incident to an express power and necessary to its execution. If it be, then it may be exercised by Congress. If not, Congress cannot exercise it." (Justice Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, sec. 1243, quoted with approval in United States v. Harris (106 U. S. 629, 636 (1883).)

The Government of the United States is one of delegated, limited, and enumerated powers. Therefore, every valid act of Congress must find in the Constitution some warrant for its passage. This is apparent by reference to certain provisions of the Constitution: e. g., (a) article I, section 1 that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution shall be vested in the Congress of the United States; (b) article I, section 8, which enumerates the powers granted to Congress, and concludes the enumeration with a grant of power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"; and (c) the tenth amendment which declares that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1 Wheat, 304 (1816); McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat. 316 (1819)); Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat. 1 (1824)); United States v. Harris (106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883)): Civil Rights Cases (109 U. S. 3); Butts v. Merchants Transportation Co. (230 U. S. 126). (None of these cases has been overruled or qualified on the point now at issue.) U. S. v. Cruikshank (92 U. S. 545); Pettibone v. U. S. (149 U. S. 202); Logan v. U. S. (144 U. S. 268, 286, 293) (wherein is clearly shown the distinction between rights that are "recognized" by the Constitution and those that are so "granted" or "created").

There is enough law now to protect against any unjust discrimination.

Section 41, title 8, United States Code Annotated:

EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exor other proper proceeding for redress (R. S. 1979).

To deprive one of right to select and follow any lawful occupation— that is, to labor or contract to labor, if he so desires and can find employment—is to deprive him of both liberty and property within meaning of this section.-In re Parrott (C. C. Cal. 1880, 1 F, 481, 510).

Indenture of apprentice of Negro child, which did not contain provisions for his security and benefit required by general laws of State in indentures of white apprentices, was void under Civil Rights Act of 1866.—In re Turner (C. C. Md. 1867, Fed. Cas. No. 14,247). Section 43, title 8, United States Code Annotated:

CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress (R. S. 1979).

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both (sec. 20 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C., sec. 52; Screws et al. v. U. S., decided May 7, 1945).

Persons of African descent have same, but no greater, rights than other citizens in State where they make their home; rights and privileges protected from infringement by this section, and infringement of which creates a cause of action for damages, being common to all citizens-Brawner v. Irvin (C. C. Ga., 1909, 169 F. 964).

Colored teacher could maintain suit to enjoin salary discrimination between white and colored teachers, as against contention that he could not complain because he was public employee-Mills v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel County (D. C. Md. 1939, 30 F. Supp. 245). Action for damages for deprivation of civil rights sounds in tort, and jury may award exemplary or punitive damages-Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (C. C. A. N. J. 1939, 101 F. 2d 774), modifying Committee for Industrial Organization v. Hague (D. C., 25 F. Supp. 127), certiorari granted IIague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939, 59 S. Ct. 486, 306 U. S. 624, 83 L. Ed. 1028). Modified on other grounds (1939, 59 S. Ct. 954, 307 U. S. 496, 83 L. Ed. 14).

Kerr against the Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City et al. decided by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17, 1945, holds:

We think that the special charter of the library should not be interpreted as endowing it with the power to discriminate between the people of the State on account of race and that if the charter is susceptible of this construction, it violates the fourteenth amendment since the board of trustees must be deemed the representative of the State. The question of interpretation is not unlike