lowers living standards, creates difficult problems in public health and relief, denies needed skills to the productive machinery of the Nation, interferes with production by causing labor unrest and disputes, and hampers and embarrasses us in the conduct of our international relations.

Although the President has not endorsed the specific provisions of this bill it may be pertinent to quote the following statement in his economic report of January 8, 1947, which discloses his recognition of the seriousness of the national problem with which S. 984 would deal, in part:

"We must end discrimination in employment or wages against certain classes of workers regardless of their individual abilities. Discrimination against certain racial and religious groups, against workers in late middle age, and against women, not only is repugnant to the principles of our democracy, but often creates artificial labor shortages in the midst of labor surplus. Employers and unions both need to reexamine and revise practices resulting in discrimination. I recommend that, at this session, the Congress provide permanent Federal legislation dealing with this problem."

The economic, moral, and political need for early enactment of S. 984, in the broadest sense of those terms, is pressing.

STATEMENT OF MRS. EDWIN SELVIN, CHAIRMAN, WOMEN OF THE PACIFIC, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.

To the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

Washington 25, D. C.

(Attention: Philip R. Rodgers, Committee Clerk.)

JUNE 11, 1947.

GENTLEMEN: Relative to your telegram of June 4, informing me that the subcommittee on antidiscrimination legislation had directed you to advise me that I have been scheduled to testify on June 13 at its hearings on S. 984, and that I am to file my completed brief with the committee clerk (Mr. Phillip R. Rodgers) submitting 75 copies to supply the committee members and the press.

The day I received your telegram (June 4) I called Mr. Rodgers long distance and stated it was doubtful if I could come to Washington in person at that time but that I would prepare and file a brief, which is herewith submitted in multiple form of the required 75 copies.

CALIFORNIA'S ATTITUDE

My understanding is that these hearings are held for the express purpose of ascertaining public opinion throughout the Nation on this controversial issue. Insofar as California public opinion is concerned, the record of legislative action in this State shows that California is opposed to this type of legislation. Believing I can best serve the purpose of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare by confining this brief to a factual recital of my State's experience with this particular type of so-called antidiscrimination legislation, I will let the facts speak for themselves without any argumentation or academic discussion on my part.

On three different occasions California has rejected such proposed laws. Twice, through the peoples' elected representatives, rejection was by action of the State legislature. The third rejection was by direct vote of the people, at the general election of November 5, 1946, when, as an initiative measure on the ballot designated as proposition No. 11, the proposal to create a fair employment practice commission in California was defeated by a vote of 1,682,646 to 675,697. This was an overwhelming majority against of more than 1,000,000 votes.

It is significant of the intent of California people to have no such legislation that not only was proposition No. 11 rejected by a majority in excess of 1,000,000 votes; but that its sponsorship (various pressure groups which prior to the 1946 election had rather generally been supposed to be the dominant power in California politics) was repudiated. Until the votes had been counted-so much noise had the sponsorship made by newspaper, radio, and billboard advertising, public meetings, and other avenues of publicity-the assumption had been that proposition No. 11 would carry by a heavy majority.

Under California law sponsors of record of initiative measures must be qualified registered voters who, as individuals, sign an initiative petition. They are called legal proponents. In this case there were 20 legal proponents, all of

whom are associated in the public mind with various segments of the so-called liberal or left-wing movement.

In the California debacle of FEPC it is noteworthy that there were large majorities against proposition No. 11 in this State's highly industrialized centers, where the AFL and CIO hierarchies have boasted they are able to deliver the labor vote.

For instance Los Angeles County, 758.641 to 294,938-majority against of 463,703; San Francisco County, 141,956 to 69,651-majority against of 72.305; Alameda County (Oakland and other Bay cities) 131,961 to 64,252-majority against of 67,709; San Diego County, 83,006 to 31,961-majority against of 51.045. And in the agricultural sections, the vote in Orange and Riverside Counties (heart of California's great citrus industry was typical: Orange, 40,580 to 9,508– majority against of 31,072; Riverside, 25,424 to 7,396-majority against of 18,028.

In not a single one of California's 58 counties was there a majority vote for the measure. This is added factual evidence that the people of California, on a State-wide basis, do not want FEPC legislation.

To complete this clarification of the California attitude on legislation of this type, two other factual matters, peculiarly germane, are here offered for consideration of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare:

I

As recorder in the office of secretary of state at Sacramento, the total number of valid signatures of registered voters to the initiative petition qualifying proposition No. 11 for the 1946 general election ballot was 192,426, of which 90,631 were from a single country (Los Angeles County), leaving a hypothetical average of only 1,786 for each of the other 57 counties.

The point in this is that after deducting this backlog of 192,426 captive “yes” votes from the final State-wide tally of 675,697 "yes" votes, only 483,271 other citizens were influenced to cast a ballot for proposition No. 11. And, further, the total registration for the 1946 election being 4.383,963, and of these only 675,697 having voted "yes," there remained 3,708,266 California registered voters who could have but did not vote "yes" on proposition No. 11.

So, by any line of reasoning, or any combination of comparative figures, the record shows that California by both positive and negative action has utterly repudiated the type of legislation that the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is now considering on a Nation-wide scale in S. 984 titled "National Act Against Discrimination in Employment."

II

The source of the backing, financial and otherwise, for proposition No. 11 has a bearing on this analysis of the California attitude.

Without casting any reflection on well-meaning persons who might have favored proposition No. 11, it is a mattter of common knowledge here in California that Communists, fellow travelers, parlor pinks, left-wingers, and radicals of all hues were its protagonists and that FEPC propaganda emanated from those

sources.

And, right here, again, it is well to emphasize the fact that of 4.383,963 California citizens qualified to vote for proposition No. 11 had they wanted to, only 675,697 did so.

In 1941 the California Legislature created the joint fact-finding committee on un-American activities in California, composed of members of both houses, which is still functioning.

The committee's third report to the legislature was made March 24, 1947. This is a printed volume of 403 pages. Nine of the 20 legal proponents of proposition No. 11 are named therein, linked with what the legislature's committee brands as Communist front organizations of the Communist Party itself.

On page 46, under the subhead "Behind the FEPC," the committee on unAmerican activities in California sums up its investigation of that phase of the Communist Party line with this indictment:

"Early in 1945 it became apparent to the Communist Party leaders in California that a political organization capable of drawing ethnical groups into its sphere of influence was necessary to supplement the work of its other fronts. The Communist-inspired Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPC) was to be

launched as a rallying point for racial minorities and the Communist Party hoped to mobilize these groups at the polls in the 1946 elections and thus carry their own candidates with an overwhelming vote for the initiative measure.”

"Committee investigators made an exhaustive study of the tracts, pamphlets, dodgers, handbills, and miscellaneous literature issued by the Southern California Committee for the Promotion of the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPC), generally referred to in the 1946 elections as proposition No. 11. The committee learned that of the 63 sponsors and officers of the committee for proposition No. 11 more than one-half had been prominent in movements sponsored by the Communists and left-wingers in California."

*

This factual outline presents an accurate picture of the attitude of the people of California on this type of legislation, as well as the Communist parentage of FEPC-which is so fully documented in the 1947 Report of the Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities in California.

The figures herein given of the voting on proposition No. 11 are taken from the printed pamphlet issued by the Honorable Frank M. Jordan, secretary of state of California, titled "State of California Statement of Vote, General Election, November 5, 1946."

*

*

*

*

The successful State-wide campaign to defeat proposition No. 11 was led by Women of the Pacific, which was first in the field informing the people what this proposed law really was and what was back of it. We printed an eightpage pamphlet of analysis, which ran through nine editions from August 10 to October 24, 1946, with a total printing of 425,000 copies. These pamphlets were supplied to groups of labor union members, church people, women's clubs, civic bodies, business and professional associations, and local committees throughout the State which were set up to oppose proposition No. 11, and to individuals seeking authentic information.

So, in writing this brief for the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, I speak with first-hand knowledge and understanding of the facts. Women of the Pacific is a nonprofit civic organization of consumers, founded in 1938, at a mass meeting of women in Los Angeles attended by a representative cross section of feminine citizenship of California. Approximately 4,000 women

were present at the organizational meeting, February 28, 1938.

During the intervening years more than 250,000 citizens of California (men and women) have by their signatures attested their approval of, and participated in, the continuous activities of Women of the Pacific in the public interest, convenience and necessity.

Respectfully,

Mrs. EDWIN SELVIN.

STATEMENT OF PAULSEN SPENCE, SPENCE ENGINEERING CO., INC., WALDEN, N. Y.

Re S. 984.

Hon. FORREST C. DONNELL,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

JULY 18, 1947.

MY DEAR SENATOR DONNELL: Out of courtesy to Senator Ives, I request permission to amend my statement made before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee on July 16, 1947, to the extent that all references to Senator Ives be deletad.

I also request that all parts of my oral statement directed at Senator Ives be deleted.

I am enclosing a revised statement for your convenience.

I would like to add a supplementary statement discussing the commerce clause.

I wish to take this opportunity of publicly apologizing to Senator Ives.

I also would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the committee for your courtesy.

Sincerely yours,

PAULSEN SPENCE.

A SUPPLEMENT TO A STATEMENT BEFORE THE SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE, JULY 16, 1947

S. 984 is, in my opinion, unconstitutional, for the reason that the tenth amendment plainly states: "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, shall be reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

I can find no power granted by the Constitution that would permit Congress to enact this bill.

It is evident from the wording of the bill that the sponsors are depending upon the commerce clause for its constitutionality. This would be stretching the commerce clause far beyond any reasonable interpretation. In fact, if this bill were valid, under the commerce clause, Congress could pass almost any kind of a law, including the prohibition of the printing of Bibles under this power.

The Constitution says: "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States."

It makes no reference to "interstate commerce." Had the founders intended to give the Congress the power to regulate "interstate commerce," the Constitution would read: "Congress shall have power to regulate interstate commerce." Some may argue that this is a distinction without a difference, but when one studies the record of the Federal Convention of 1787 and the history of the time between the end of the Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, the difference becomes clear. Between 1783 and 1787 each State was an independent sovereignty, and the States were continually quarreling with each other over commerce. If one wished to ship a barrel of apples from New York to Maryland overland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania would undertake to tax that shipment and generally interfere with it. The founders realized that if this was to become a great Nation, a State must not be allowed to interfere with the commerce of another State and rightly gave the Congress power to act as an umpire when disputes over commerce arose among States.

Furthermore, if one consults the second edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, he will find commerce defined as:

"1. Business intercourse; esp., the exchange or buying and selling of commodities, and particularly, the exchange of merchandise on a large scale between different places or communities; extended trade or traffic."

No reference is made to manufacturing; in fact, commerce begins where manufacturing ends.

Others argue that times have changed and interpretation must change with the times. They entirely overlook the fact that the Constitution provides for its own amending and that in 1787, as now, everybody depended, more or less, upon goods from other States. George Washington, when he signed the Constitution, did not have one stitch on his back that had not in some way come from another State. New England shipped clocks to the Southern States and got back tobacco, indigo, and many other products in return. Daniel Boone's long rifle was probably made in New England. Had the people of those times ever dreamed that they were approving a document that gave the Federal Government power to regulate wages, prices, production, et cetera, under the guise of "regulating commerce among the several States," the Constitution would not have been accepted.

The absurdity of the latter day interpretations can be shown further by reference to the Constitution itself. The Constitution has over 4,000 words specifically defining and delegating the powers of the Federal Government and the States. Before accepting the Constitution, the people insisted that a Bill of Rights be included, which became the first 10 amendments.

The commerce clause, if the present-day interpretation is to continue, to all intents and purposes does away with the Bill of Rights and most of the limitations placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution. Is it not rather absurd that the founders should spend 3 months of a hot summer framing a Constitution of over 4,000 words, and the people should insist that 10 amendments containing the Bill of Rights be added, and then cancel out the whole Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, by one clause containing 10 words? James Madison, more than 30 years after the adoption of the Constitution, wrote:

46* * * But whatever might have been the opinions entertained in forming the Constitution, it was the duty of all to support it in its true meaning as understood by the Nation at the time of its ratification."

"My impression is also very decided, that if the construction which brings canals within the scope of commercial regulations had been advanced or admitted by the advocates of the Constitution in the State conventions, it would have been impossible to overcome the opposition to it."

"What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense! And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders will, I believe, appear to all unbiased inquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look farther for an example, take the word "consolidate," in the Address of the convention prefixed to the Constitution. It there and then meant to give strength and solidity to the union of the States. In its current and controversial application, it means a destruction of the States by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union."

"For a like reason, I made no reference to the 'power to regulate commerce among the several States.' I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing and nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."

NOTE-Above James Madison quotations taken from Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. III-CCCXLI, CCL, CCLI, CCCLXVI.

STATEMENT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GILBERT,

Washington, D. C.:

[Telegram]

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., June 20, 1947.

Copy of wire to Green as follows: Robert W. Gilbert, attorney for the Los Angeles Central Labor Council, reports that during hearings on the FEPC bill S. 984, testimony is being introduced to the effect that the State of California defeated FEPC legislation and is, therefore, opposed to national FEPC. The fact of the matter is that the FEPC bill presented to the voters in California was drafted by a Communist-controlled group and contained objectionable features not in keeping with the policies of the United States. However, Governor Warren, all labor groups, civic groups, and church organizations have wholeheartedly endorsed the principle of FEPC. If the California bill had not contained left-wing ideologies it undoubtedly would have been accepted. I am instructing Mr. Gilbert to submit this information to the committee. Will appreciate any assistance you may give him in establishing these facts in the record. W. J. BASSETT, Secretary, Los Angeles Central Labor Council.

JUNE 24, 1947.

Hon. EARL WARREN,

Governor, State Capitol,

Sacramento, Calif.

DEAR GOVERNOR WARREN : Hearings are being held on antidiscrimination legislation by a subcommittee of this committee, and we would like to have a copy of the exact language of the proposal which was rejected by the voters of California at the polls.