access to dignity and security. His right to a job should be as sacred as his right to vote, right to free speech, religion, and assembly. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and President Truman all sought to implement the solemn declarations of our Constitution, as expressed in the preamble, by solid legislation guaranteeing economic rights and offering sanctions for destroying or withholding them from the individual. The Square Deal of Teddy Roosevelt, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the Fair Deal of President Truman symbolized this fundamental concept. To the four freedoms enunciated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the peoples of the world responded with an enthusiasm unmatched by any rallying cry since "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality." Two of the four freedoms occupy themselves with economic security, freedom from fear and freedom from want. There can be no freedom from want or fear if there be no economic security. There can be no economic security if a man cannot hold or secure a job because of his race or color or national origin. No man is free from fear if the cord to his job is so slender that racial or religious prejudice can sever it. That cord must be so strong and enduring as to block the edge of any racial bias and religious prejudice that would cut into it. The Nation is only as strong as its citizenry. The worth of the individual, his security and dignity and happiness as an individual is the worth of the Nation. As the individual goes, so goes the Nation. The individual's freedom from fear or want is the Nation's barometer of success or failure. Certainly, bigotry and bias and prejudice on racial or religious lines should not determine whether or not a man should have a job. Bigotry and racial and religious discrimination are not easily combated. They have caused untold suffering in our history. We must embrace any weapon that can aid in the battle against bigotry, and FEPC is such a weapon. I recall the words of Tom Paine, whose pen proved mightier than his sword in the days of our struggle for independence: Prejudice, like a spider, makes everywhere his home and lives where there seems nothing to live on. There are certainly too many spidery webs of prejudice clinging to entirely too many opportunities of employment, and these webs must be wiped away. Certainly, access of the individual to a job should not be walled up by the ugly nails of prejudice. Has not a man the right, regardless of creed or color, to earn the wherewithal with which to secure for himself food, shelter, and clothing? I remember the story of two wounded Spanish officers of the Spanish civil war. They were of opposite factions, they were being treated in the same hospital and soon became fast friends over their nightly checker games. One said to the other, "Now, why do we fight each other?" He said, "Why are we enemies?" The other replied, "It is the Jews." "The Jews?" countered the other; "Why the Jews?" The other replied, "Well, you see, since the Inquisition when we drove all the Jews out of Spain, we have had nobody to fight with, so we fight each other.” The same kind of illogic obtains wherever prejudice resides. These two Spanish officers got to know each other and to respect each other, and close contact smoothed their differences until they disappeared. Just so experience has shown that one of the most efficacious ways to be educated out of prejudice is to have actual experience beside a member of the group about which one has false notions, and FEPC will bring about such education and close contact. The aim of this legislation, it must be kept in mind, is not concerned with prejudice per se, but with effects of prejudice upon man's economic rights. Prejudice is an attitude of mind, and the attitudes, it is true, cannot be changed by law any more than prohibition can change drinking habits. All FEPC does is to seek the manifestation of prejudices so as not to deprive the right of another of his economic right to hold a job. There is no attempt to legislate attitudes out of existence, but a realistic approach to man's right to work. This legislation seeks to replace tension and disorder by law and order, curbing unlawful activity which follows when a man cannot obtain work only because of his creed or color. We cannot rely upon public opinion alone to do the job, as has been suggested by the opponents. Only as expressed in terms of law can public opinion be immediate and effective. The same is true of the slow process of education. You can learn a mathematical theory over and over again, but it can have little practical meaning to you until applied. If education and persuasion alone could suffice we would need no traffic lights, and then the Bible would be sufficient, but we do have laws against perjury and stealing and adultery. It has been argued that such legislation is an infringement upon the rights of employers. Well, for that matter, so are the wages and hours laws and the prohibitions against child labor. This legislation is not an infringement on the employer's social preference, but rather affirmative action to insure the rights of the worker. Again I emphasize that the purpose of this legislation is not negative. It does not grant special privileges to any group; it merely seeks to eliminate the withholding of rights. I know that the argument has been advanced that this Federal legislation would infringe on State rights. That is not so, since it will apply only to Federal agencies, to the industries of the State which is in interstate commerce, to interstate unions, and to contractors under contracts with the Federal Government. I sincerely believe this legislation to be in the best interests not only of the States, but of the country at large. It will result in the raising of the standards of living of all minority groups and, consequently, increase the national income by way of increased purchasing power. It will enable minority groups to establish a higher degree of literacy, to induce better health habits, and to achieve a pattern of life. closer to the national ideal. Our whole society is confronted with problems of health and welfare, often costly and a drain on the taxpayers, arising out of economic distress caused by discrimination. One further word, gentlemen. It is my studied conviction that any argument advanced against the constitutionality of this legislation is 90748-49-30 without validity, and I take it that that argument has been advanced before this committee. Final determination as to constitutionality of laws passed by the Congress rests with the United States Supreme Court. The FEPC bill, however, was reviewed from the standpoint of its constitutionality in the light of previous Supreme Court decisions on similar legislation, and the official report of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor on S. 101 states: The provisions of this bill follow well-marked legislative precedents which have met the tests of constitutionality in the courts. The following citations are abstracted from this report: Government employment: The congressional power to regulate employment practices of all Federal agencies is found in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. No challenge to this power has ever been successful in the courts. (See United States v. Mitchell, 89 F.2d 805, 8-9.) Article 1, section H, you may remember, gentlemen, concerns the right of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States and to provide for the general welfare as to Government contracts. The congressional power to describe the terms on which the Federal Government may contract with private parties has been upheld in Perkins v. Lukens Steel Company, 310 U. S. 113, 127. The congressional power to regulate employment relations affecting interstate or foreign commerce has been upheld in a number of cases. The FEPC stays within the limits marked out by the statutes upheld in the cases of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1; Texas & New Orleans Railway v. Brotherhood, 281 U. S. 548; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100; Kentucky Whip & Collar Company v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 299 U. S. 334. In Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 323 U. S. 192, the Supreme Court unanimously held that discrimination because of race by railway labor union against nonmembers was illegal. A New York State law forbidding unions to discriminate in membership on grounds of race, color, or creed, was held to be in accord with the United States Constitution by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, 326 U. S. 88. The bill is not an invasion on States' rights since it is limited to interstate commerce as to Federal activities, which are the primary constitutional concern of the Federal Government rather than that of the States. And the cases in that regard are National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100; Kentucky Whip & Collar Company v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 299 U. S. 334. Unless there are some questions, I shall stop at this point. Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Congressman Celler. You have covered very adequately all of the objections that have been advanced, and those objections as you have covered them are that the bill is unconstitutional and infringes on States' rights in trying to legislate away prejudice. But one proposal that you did not touch upon in the bill is communism. I know that is a facetious charge, but nevertheless, it reaches a ready ear in a sizable part of our population which is more or less gullible concerning such charges. Would you touch upon that? Mr. CELLER. We know empty stomachs and economic distress breed communism. The well-being of an individual, and anything that caters to his freedom from wants and fears are the best weapons we have against communism. As you have indicated, it is a most facetious argument and I think the opposite would prove true. Mr. POWELL. This afternoon the Honorable Brooks Hays is coming before us to state his objections and offer counterproposals to the bill, and I am happy to have your testimony here this morning because your testimony will answer point by point every point he has made against the bill, and we have gone so far as to get editorials from outstanding papers in the South, such as the Birmingham Age-Herald and the Birmingham News, virtually endorsing such a bill as FEPCeditorials in Alabama papers. Mr. CELLER. You know, Mr. Chairman, out of the Far East comes the saying, "If you rub a bar of steel long enough you can rub it into a needle." We have to keep on rubbing, and we will finally get our objective. There are many liberals in the South who see eye to eye with you on the subject and, I think, the feeling is growing that something must be done about the situation. The mere fact that Brooks Hays, for whom I have a very high regard Mr. POWELL. I also have a high regard for him. Mr. CELLER. He is one of the most effective Members we have, and the fact that he takes the attitude that he does is a great step forward. Mr. POWELL. That is right, and that is why we are devoting almost the entire afternoon to Mr. Hays, because he is trying to do something rather than to say something cannot be done. What do you think about the time-table of legislation, or would you want to say anything in regard to civil rights coming before the House of Representatives? Mr. CELLER. I want to say I have offered a civil-rights proposal, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and have referred it to the so-called subcommittee No. 3 of our House Judiciary Committee, which committee is presided over by Mr. William Byrne. I am happy to state that the hearings on this bill will start next week. Mr. POWELL. Open hearings? Mr. CELLER. Yes, sir. Mr. POWELL. That will be on all of the Gross and Celler bills? Mr. POWELL. This is the only one of the Gross bills which your committee will not consider? Mr. CELLER. No; our committee will not have jurisdiction over two of the civil-rights proposals, the one which is now before you, and the anti-poll-tax bills. Mr. POWELL. That is right. So we are going to try to do something in this session of Congress, are we not? Mr. CELLER. I am going to strive with might and main to contribute my part to that end. Mr. POWELL. Mrs. Norton assured me she was going to strive with might and main to see that the anti-poll-tax proposal came forward in this session. Mr. CELLER. I noticed, Mr. Engel, a very prominent lawyer from New York, and a very outstanding citizen, in the audience, and I understand he is to be the next witness. I want to commend him most highly to you, and I think you will find he will give you a very fine statement. Mr. POWELL. Yes. Mr. Burke? TESTIMONY OF IRVING M. ENGEL ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE formal Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before reading my statement I would like to say I was interested in the editorials from Birmingham. I was born and reared in Birmingham, and still have interests in that community. Mr. POWELL. How long ago did you leave there? Mr. ENGEL. Twenty-four years ago, but I practiced law there, and my family is still there. Mr. POWELL. You are a reconstruction southerner? Mr. ENGEL. I do not know just what you would call me, but I am an ex-southerner, anyway. The American Jewish Committee, which I have the honor to represent here today, urges the immediate enactment of fair-employment-practice legislation by the Eighty-first Congress. We do so in concert with the many other individuals and groups who believe that the right to equality of opportunity and treatment in employment is basic to our democracy and to our free economy and who are convinced that Federal legislation is urgently needed to protect this right for all Americans, regardless of their race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin. The United States of America was the first nation in history to be founded on the proposition that all men are created equal. Our founding fathers, when they proclaimed this world-shaking truth in the Declaration of Independence, also set forth certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For they recognized then, as we do today, that it is not enough merely to have been created equal; that in a democracy, men must be treated as equals, enjoying an equal opportunity to build a happy and purposeful existence for themselves and their families. There can be little doubt that without a chance to make full use of the skills and talents we possess without the opportunity to demonstrate our abilities and to be judged accordingly, we cannot enjoy the full benefits of freedom. In fact, ever since most of us stopped living solely on the produce of our own hands, ever since men became dependent on wages and salaries for food, clothing, and shelter, the right to an equal chance to earn a living has been in the forefront of those freedoms for which people everywhere have fought. Out of the right to fair employment flow many of the other rights we hold dear. The man who is denied the chance to earn a decent living because of the color of his skin, the place of his birth, or the |