COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Leonidas C. Dyer (acting chairman) presiding. Mr. DYER. The chairman of the committee is absent this morning attending a meeting of the Committee on Rules, and he has asked me to preside until he can return. Mr. REAVIS. Is this a subcommittee meeting? Mr. DYER. No; it is a meeting of the full committee. This meeting is called for the purpose of taking up the bill (H. R. 13) to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws and to punish the crime of lynching. Mr. Moorés, of Indiana, who is really the author of this bill, has kindly consented to come here this morning to discuss the question of its constitutionality. Mr. SUMNERS. Will we be able to get the other members of the committee here to hear him? 3 Mr. DYER. We have notified them in writing and have also called them by telephone. Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Moores proceeds, I think it might be well for the members of the committee to be advised as to what the scope of the hearings on this bill will be, and to come to some kind of an agreement or arrangement along that line. Mr. DYER. So far as I know, speaking for myself and for the subcommittee to which the bill was referred in the first instance, I do not think that any hearings touching the bill are necessary, and that the committee should take the bill up for consideration. We had quite extensive hearings, which are printed and available. Of course, there are two questions involved in this proposed legislation. One is the advisability of the legislation, and the second is the constitutionality of it. Upon the question of whether there are and have been lynchings, no evidence is necessary, because that is, of course, evident to everybody, and no one denies that. Lynchings have been taking place for years, and hundreds of people have been lynched, including American citizens and aliens. This bill covers both classes. I do not believe that anybody would have the temerity to say that we should have hearings to determine whether or not there have been lynchings, so that, really, the only question, in my judgment, for discussion, outside of that by members of the committee when we take up the bill section by section, is upon the authority of Congress to enact this proposed legislation. Mr. DOMINICK. My inquiry was prompted, I will say, by the fact that I took up my entire afternoon and evening yesterday, until about 12 o'clock last night, reading the hearings that were had before this committee on the 29th of January of last year. Going through those hearings I find that there are many wild, irresponsible, and libelous statements made against a section which some of us represent, and I just wanted to know whether or not this bill was going to be considered in the light of those hearings, or whether the hearings that were taken at that time, and which are libelous to us, are to be used in the consideration of the bill on the floor of the House. As to some of the statements made in those hearings I would like to have the witnesses come before the committee again and not only make their statements, but I think they should be required to make them under oath. For instance, here on page 74 of the hearings, somebody who styles himself George William Cook, of Howard University, Washington, makes this statement: Men have been lynched for nothing else but wearing the uniform of the United States Government. It was but yesterday that a young man in my class in commercial law said to me, "I will tell you something." I went to him when I came out of the class room. He said: "I was simply standing in the street down in South Carolina talking when a young white man came up and said: 'What are you doing with this on?' I said, 'I just came out of the Army.' 'Well, you can not wear that down here.'' Mr. DYER. As you know, people make statements in hearings upon their own responsibility, and anyone using those hearings or those statements in the House uses them upon his own responsibility. Any Member uses it on his own responsibility, and, of course, he quotes the testimony of those witnesses whom he brings to the attention of the House. Mr. DOMINICK. That is one question that struck me Mr. DYER (interposing) I would say to you frankly that it is not the intention, so far as I am concerned, to urge this legislation es |