« AnteriorContinuar »
Senator VAN NUYS. Yes: later United States Senator from West Virginia. I have read that brief with much interest, and I think it is very convincing as to the constitutionality of this bill. I shall be very glad to put that into your hands, Senator McCarran.
Have you anything further, Mr. White? Mr. WHITE. I would just like to add that I have here expressions of opinion from 12 Governors of States regarding this legislation, which I shall be very glad to present for the consideration of the committee.
Senator Van Nuys. To be made a part of the record?
Senator Van Nuys. If there are no objections, it will be so ordered.
Senator KEAN. From the Governors of what States?
Mr. Wuite. Ohio, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Florida, and Utal
Senator Van Nuys. They may be made a part of the record.
(The letters above referred to, and the various newspaper editorials and articles heretofore referred to by the witness, are here set forth in full, as follows:)
STATE OF OHIO.
('olumbus, February 14, 1934. Mr. WALTER WHITE, Secretary National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
New York, N.Y. MY DEAR MR. WHITE: I have your recent communication with reference to a proposed law which would enlist the aid of the Federal Government in stamping out the institution known as “lynching."
I have publicly stated that I am for the most stringent kind of legislation to correct and prevent this abuse and I am glad of the opportunity to express my approval of Federal legislation having this effect. Sincerely,
GERGE WHITE. Gorcruor.
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Madison, February 13, 19.34. Mr. WALTER WHITE, Secretary National Association for Adrancement of Colored People,
New York City. DEAR SIR: Permit me to inform you, in response to your letter of February 3, that I am heartily in accord with the antilynching measure introduced by Senators Costigan and Wagner. Very truly yours,
A. G. SCHMEDEM AN, Gorernor.
THE STATE OF WYOMING,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Mr. WALTER WHITE,
('heyenne, February 6, 1934. Secretary National 18sociation for the Idrancement of Colored People,
New York. DEAR MR. WHITE: I am in receipt of your communication of February 3 in which you ask me for an expression of opinion with regard to the bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senators Edward P. ('ostigan, of Colorado, ani Robert F. Wagner, of New York, proposing to enact national legislation against the crime of lynching.
In reply I am glad to say to you that I am in entire sympathy with the fundamental thought underlying this proposed legislation. I listened with a great deal of interest to President Roosevelt's statement to the church people a few weeks ago which remarks were given to the country over the radio and I agreed whole-heartedly with the sentiment he expressed. Feeling as I do on this question, I shall be glad to lend whatever support may be at my disposal to the passage by Congress of the said bill. With best wishes, I am Sincerely,
LESLIE A. VILLER, Governor.
STATE OF KANSAS,
Topeka, February 7, 1934. Mr. WALTER WHITE,
New York City. DEAR MR. WHITE: The Governor wishes to acknowledge a copy of the Costigan bill relating to lynching. The Governor's recent statement emphasizing the need for a public conscience and emphatic enforcement of law at the time of the recent California lynchings, points out his own position in this regard. He appreciates the copy of the bill. Best personal wishes. Yours very truly,
WILLARD MAYBERRY, Secretary to the Governor.
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Denver, February 8, 1934.
New York City, N.Y.
Therefore, I am glad to endorse most heartily the Costigan-Wagner antilynching bill. If I can be of any service in aiding its passage, do not fail to call upon me. Very truly yours,
ED. C. JOHNSON, Governor.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
February 6. 1934.
Ver York. MY DEAR MR. WHITE: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter, and in reply thereto would say that while I have not read the bill, yet I can assure you that I am whole-heartedly with you in your endeavor to rid our country of this terrible thing, and wish to cooperate with you in every way possible. Sincerely yours,
HARRY MOORE, Gorernor.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Albany, February 19, 1934 WALTER WHITE, Esq., Secretary National Association for the Adruncement of Colored People,
Vew York, N.Y. MY DEAR ME. WHITE: I acknowledge your letter of February 2. I have read with much interest the bill sponsored by Senator Edward P. Costigan and Senator Robert F. Wagne
It is my firm belief that lynching is such a heinous and outrageous exhibition of an unreasoned defiance of law and order that legislation and other plans to curb and ultimately destroy lynching should be vigorously supported by all. Very sincerely yours,
HERBERT H. LEHMAN.
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
St. Paul, February 8, 1934. Mr. WALTER WHITE,
New York City, N.Y. DEAR Mr. WHITE: Replying to your recent letter, I wish to say that I agree with President Roosevelt in his unequivocal condemnation of lynching as “mass murder.”
I am glad to commend you and your associates in your efforts to secure the passage of a Federal act controlling this outlaw practice. Sincerely yours,
Floyd B. Olson, Governor.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Harrisburg, February 7, 1934. Mr. WALTER WHITE, Secretary National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, New York City. DEAR MR. WHITE: I approve most heartily the passage of a Federal antilynching bill.
I cannot too strongly condemn lynching and the failure by any State to punish it promptly and effectually. Sincerely yours,
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,
Bismarck, February 5, 1931.
Advancement of Colored People, New York City. DEAR MR. WHITE: I am in receipt of your favor of the 20 this morning and wish to thank you very much indeed for sending me a copy of the bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senators Edward P. Costigan, of Colorado, and Robert F. Wagner, of New York, against the crime of lynching.
I am very much in accord with the provisions of this bill, as I believe legislation of this kind would certainly suppress such violence as has been used by citizens of this country in lynching persons whom they believed guilty of crime.
I certainly appreciate your writing me in this respect, and you may rest assured that I shall do all that I possibly can to help out. Sincerely yours,
WILL. LANGER, Governor.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Tallahassee, February 15, 1934. Mr. WALTER WHITE, Secretary National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
New York City. DEAR SIR: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter with reference to the bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senators Edward P. Costigin of ('olorado and Robert F. Wagner of New York.
I am unalterably opposed to lynching and shall use the full powers of my office at all times to bring about the proper punishment of those guilty of this unlawful practice. As soon as I have more time I will go into this bill thoroughly. Very truly yours,
DAVID SHOLTZ, Governor.
STATE OF UTAH,
Salt Lake City, February 14, 1934. Mr. WALTER WHITE,
New York City. DEAR MR. WHITE: I feel that any Federal act which might eliminate or minimize lynching in the United States should be beneficial to the entire country.
These acts of lawlessness on the part of impassioned mobs are not conducive to the best wishes of our Nation. Therefore, I am in favor of any measure which may tend to reduce the number of such crimes. Very truly yours,
HENRY H. BLOOD, Governor.
[From the Brunswick (Ga.) News, Dec. 19, 1933]
Lynchings have become so numerous throughout the country lately that it looks like the Federal Government will have to step in and take a hand in its prevention.
[From the Bradenton (Fla.) Herald, Feb. 1, 1934)
WHAT PRICE SAFETY
Although we haven't the slightest idea what the Governor-ordered investigation of the Tampa lynching that took the life of a negro who was charged with nothing more serious than chicken stealing will disclose, the outrage appears to have been the crudest outburst of violence ever written into the records. It is hard to see how the stain the act left can be rubbed out.
We've no suspicion nor opinion in the matter and are content to let the official probe take its course, only hoping that the bottom will be scraped by the information seekers, but we can't help realizing that this is one of the few instances, if not the only one, when mob violence was unpreceded by community unrest that pointed to the possibility of mob-law assertion.
Why the prisoner was being transferred from one jail to another by a single officer during the quiet of the early morning hours, how the mob learned of the transfer, and why the assembly of so many cars at the hour of the outrage did not arouse a suspicion in a supposedly well-policed town are among the ques. tions that need to be cleared up. Certainly this is an instance in which all the 1acts should be disclosed. We can't assume that it is unimportant because the victim was a friendless Negro. Surely human life hasn't lost that much in the scales.
[From the Norfolk (Va.) Pilot, Jan. 2, 1934)
LYNCHING TOTAL WORST IN 10 YEARS The lynching curve took an alarming leap upward during the past year, but so did the national awareness of its challenge to American civilization. If there is more tolerance in the South than there has been in many years for the suggestion that lynching be made the special concern of the Federal Govern. ment, it is because of the conviction that has formed in 1933 that this kind of crime must be wiped out—by local and State effort if that is possible, by the mobilization of the whole power of the National Government if that is necessary.
[From the Miami (Fla.) Daily News, Jan. 31, 1934]
FLORIDA LYNCHING RECORD
Florida has averaged one lynching every 3 years for the last 45 years, during which records are available, but its record in recent years has been worse than that. There was one Florida lynching in 1932, another in 1933 and now, in the first month of 1934, Tampa reports another such outrage, the second in the Nation this year.
The Negro victim in this case was only hazily identified with the assault for which he was killed. Subsequent investigation may prove his innocence, as frequently has happened after a mob has exacted the irrevocable penalty of death. We recall that only last year it was clearly established, following a lynching, that the supposed attack that infuriated a mob to murder had never happened. In the same year the record of lynchers included the killing of one man whose only offense was stealing a cow, another for quarreling with a passer-by, a third for threatening to sue the son of an officer of the law and four others for reasons too vague to be determined.
Too often, investigators have found, there has been collusion between men charged with law enforcement and those who have defied the law to satisfy their own lust for blood. The State properly calls for a full and immediate report on the Tampa lynching. There is every reason to suspect, in this case, that the lynchers had advance notice of the plan to transfer the prisoner from city to county jail or it would not have been ready to seize the deputy constable and his prisoner between 2:30 and 3 a.m. Vigilant officers might be expected to know of the gathering of such a mob in the downtown area. If they did, why was one lone deputy constable guarding the prisoner?
Florida cannot afford to be classed with the section of Maryland where moronic hoodlums have disgraced a State, nor with the California Governor Rolph would have you believe exists.
Slowly the Nation, as a whole, has advanced its control over crime and punishment by duly constituted courts. Until 1902 there had never been less than 100 lynchings every year since these crimes were first recorded. During the next 10 years the trend was improved, but there were never less than 60. The "low" in lynchings for the next decade was 39 and in 1923 a relatively excellent record of 33 lynchings was reported. In the decade just ended the highest number for any year is 30 and twice during this period only 10 cases were revealed in annual totals. Last year there were 28 lynchings, or seven more than the combined total of the 2 previous years. Kentucky and Florida have blackened the page for the first month of 1934—an ominous beginning.
Granting that the normal processes of law are often slow and sometimes end in miscarriage of justice-a condition urgently demanding remedy-the courts are infinitely superior to infuriated mobs as agencies of justice. When they fail, society fails. It is futile at such a time as this to plead their shortcomings as excuse for such an outrage as that at Tampa. The dignity and security of the State demand unflinching prosecution of those responsible for the lynching.
[From the Lynchburg (Va.) News, Dec. 19, 1933]
A WEAK DEFENCE OF JOBS
The afterthought of defenders of lynchers that outbreaks of lawlessness and of mob killings are the result of the law's delays and the ease with which defendants often slip through the clutches of the law by means of technicalities and appeals doesn't stand up under a little consideration of the facts. The News has often asked why it is, if this contention of the defenders of lynching is true. that those who get lynched are usually those who lack the wealth or the influence to beat the law, while those who have this wealth and influence are those who are never in danger of being lynched. Dr. King D. Beach, pastor of First Methodist Church of Baltimore, asks the same question. In an article in the Baltimore Sun he points out that 95 percent of the fatal mob outbreaks between 1889 and 1930 were directed against Negroes, who are not notorious for their ability to carry legal fights through to the highest courts and who are not ordinarily tenderly regarded by white juries, especially when accused of ** the usual crime", or of the murder of a white person. Dr. Beach concludes