The Michigan chronicle. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1936-current, 1944-10-28
Courier
Continued From Page u

In support Of Federal anti-lynching
legislation when that subject was
up for debate in the Senate.
THE ARMED FORCES. The
Courier seems 10 think. and would
have Us believe. that whoever bears
the title of Commander in Chief
Of the Army and the Navy Ii, by
virtue Of that title alone. permitted
TO conduct our armed conflict in q
vacuum. totally unmindful of any
other considerations which may
demand his attention as President.
Thus. the Courier would ignore the
fact. peculiar to our American Con-
stitutional set-up, that the Com
mander in Chief Is essentially the
civilian head Of our armed forces
not the military head; and that
while his decision on questions Of
military expediency Is final. never
theless. he would be q poor Com
mander indeed IL he actively sought
out point Of violent disagreement
with those whom he has appointed
and the Congress has confirmed as
the active prosecutors Of the War.
We all agreed. I believe. that
winning the war comes first. And
we know. too. that the initial re-
sponsibility for this rests with the
Secretaries Of the War and Navy
Departments who are responsible
TO the President for the action or
the inaction of the respective mill
tary and naval personnel In their
departments.
The Selective Service Act. which
incidentally was passed by a Dem
ocratic Congress over the vocifer-
Gus protests Of Mr.. Dewey's fol-
lowers, prohibited racial discrim-
ination In the selection and train
ing of our armed forces. The ulti-
mate responsibility for carrying out
this prohibition rest with President;
but the initial respOnsibility-the
FORMULATION Of appropriate orders
and directives to Army, and Navy
commanders - belonged TO Secre-
tary Of War StimsOn, Republican,
TO General Marshal, Army Chief of
Stan, . Republican, and 90 the late
Secretary OF the Navy, Frank Knox,
a Republican, and the Nays top
officer. Admiral King, a Republican.
The really important fact to be
borne In mind then. when reading
the Courier's TRADE against Roose-
welt for not ending discrimination
in the armed services by n single
stroke OF the pen, Is that the Presi-
dent has never expressed his APP
prevail Of q single discriminatory
order or act Of the War and Navy
Departments, nor has he ever with
held his approval of q single anti
discriminatory order or act by those
Departments.
THE FEPC. The COurier's editor
ial OF Oct. IL in which II blames the
present Administration for last
years Detroit riot and all other
riots and implied that President
Roosevelt was not sincere in his
support Of his own Fair Employ
ment Practice Committee Is q splen-
did illustration that papers policy
OF stating malicious half truths. The
Detroit riot land ! suspect each OF
the other riots mentioned by the
Courier) was essentially a local
AFFAIR, stemming from unresolved
local racial issues and famed to
red heat by local demagogues. Re-
garding the Presidents Committee
on Fair Employment Practices. ad-
mittedly. the present FEPC Is not
and cannot be very effective SO
long as II has no power to enforce
its conclusions. But what the Cour-
Ter does not point out Is the Con-
stitutional inability of the Presi-
dent TO confer such power on the
FEPC and the initial reluctance
on the part of sincere friends Of
that agency 10 have the President
cast that New Deal agency 10 the
Congressional Wolves in other than
an election year.
The Courier would have us be-
lieve that Mr.. Roosevelt was intent
on destroying FEPC when, in 1913,
he placed IL under the general
supervision Of the War ManpOwer
Commission. The logic Of the PreSi-
dent action. however. is clearly
understandable. Congress had ap-
propriated land could be expected
to appropriate again money TO en-
able the War Manpower Commits