Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Any consideration of these facts points inevitably to the conclusion that a large percentage of the lynchings occurs because local authorities either cannot or will not extend to the victims the protection of the law to which they are under the Constitution entitled. And we cannot escape from the further conclusion that after the lynchers have finished with their work, the State antilynching laws cannot and will not function so as to bring about punishment for the lynchers and their accessories, so that the enactment of State antilynching laws has not in any way appreciably succeeded in obtaining for those lynched their constitutional right of protection under the laws.

Senator VAN NUYS. Are there any questions?

Senator DIETERICH. Is it your understanding that the $10,000 penalty provided in this bill is placed there as a penalty? Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir.

Senator DIETERICH. In the matter of recovering damages for the wrongful death or injury of a citizen, if there is a sufficient showing of gross negligence, they are allowed to recover punitive damages? Isn't that correct?

Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir.

Senator DIETERICH. But if there is no gross negligence shown, then they recover what reasonable damages are. They are estimated under the regular rule of assessing damages. In very few of those cases do the damages amount to $10,000. Am I correct in that? Mr. SPINGARN. That is quite correct.

Senator DIETERICH. It requires an assessment of punitive damages before it amounts to $10,000. They why do you assume that a penalty against a county is just, when the circumstanes were that the county authorities had done everything they could, and were guilty of no negligence, were absolutely not responsible in any way? Suppose they did everything in their power to prevent this action in good faith, then why do you feel that a penalty of $10.000 should be assessed against the county for the benefit of the family of the deceased?

Mr. SPINGARN. It might very well be. Senator, that there might be some discretion given such as not less than a certain amount or more than a certain amount.

Senator DIETERICH. Why shouldn't the bill be amended to provide that when the officers are negligent in the performance of their duty, then that penalty may be assessed? Why should not the county and its officials have the right to defend and show that they had nothing whatever to do with it?

Mr. SPINGARN. I am not opposed to that.

Senator DIETERICH. In some cases that penalty would be most unjust.

Mr. SPINGARN. There might be unjust cases where $10,000 might be too much. There might be a minimum amount.

Senator DIETERICH. This bill could be drawn to protect against that.

Mr. SPINGARN. It could be so amended.

Senator VAN NUYS. We thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF MISS ELIZABETH EASTMAN, WASHINGTON, D.C., MEMBER NATIONAL BOARD YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

Senator VAN NUYS. The next speaker is Miss Elizabeth Eastman, representing the public affairs committee of the Young Women's Christian Association.

Miss EASTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a statement in behalf of the public affairs committee of the National Young Women's Christian Association.

On February 8, 1934, the public affairs committee of the National Young Women's Christian Association endorsed the Costigan-Wagner antilynching bill, S. 1978, because they considered it a good way to carry out the mandate given them by the last national convention in 1932 to work for the abolition of lynching."

This mandate came in the form of a resolution from the floor introduced by a member from Florida and was adopted by the representatives assembled from 1,016 local associations.

In addition to this mandate the public affairs committee had at the time of its endorsement of this bill the following:

1. The reports of work of local associations in California, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maryland in connection with the recent lynchings in these States.

2. The endorsement of the National Business Girls Council, which represents 95,000 business girls throughout this country.

3. The endorsement of the National Industrial Girls Council, which represents industrial workers, north and south, white and black.

4. The endorsement of the National Student Council for whom Mrs. Harrington will speak.

5. The report of 47 State public affairs chairmen, 3 of whom were against the bill, 2 of whom questioned the wisdom of such a bill and 42, the large majority, of whom were in favor of such a bill.

6. The report of 49 selected individuals who carry responsibility for leadership in local associations throughout the South and West (selected because they are the sections in which lynchings have been most prevalent). Of these 2 were against the bill, 3 questioned the wisdom of such a bill, and 44 were in favor of the bill.

7. Reports from local associations representing a constituency of over 4,000,000.

In order that this committee might know accurately the thinking of these responsible members of our organization, I am quoting from some of the letters containing these reports.

In favor of the bill, a member from California writes:

If there had been such a bill. I believe that the Governor of California would not have been so ready to allow the San Jose mob to take its own course. When lynching occurred largely in the South people did not see the necessity of a Federal bill, but in view of the events of the past few months I believe most people will agree one is necessary.

A member from Georgia writes:

After

I have before me an analysis of the Costigan-Wagner bill. hearing discussion of the bill last Tuesday, ・・・ I feel that this Federal legislation is a step forward and can see no harm in starting at once to secure support.

A member from Missouri writes:

The proposed bill seems to me to strike at the very root of the matter, namely, that those who assume office assume responsibility to keep order and to protect a prisoner with their lives if need be. Also it seems practical to make the county in which the crime is committed liable to heavy fine. A member from North Carolina writes:

* *

Personally I believe that it is a national problem and that while the South must bear the heaviest responsibility in relation to it, a good Federal law should help rather than hinder State control. I am prepared to say that it seems to me to satisfactorily provide for State enforcement which should put some stiffness into the backbones of our State officials.

A member from Texas writes:

Lynching has become a national problem. It should be dealt with by the Federal Government rather than by State. Our association and its leaders are deeply interested, as we live in the South and know of the terrible suffering as no other group.

A member from Kentucky writes:

* * *

Six States have passed laws making lynching a crime. In 4 States there has been statutes against mob violence. Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, and Kentucky likewise have provisions for accessorial liability. Regardless of these statutes there have been lynchings or mob violence in 7 of the 10 States. * In Alabama the instigators of one of the outbreaks were punished. * In all the other cases, with the exception of the last Kentucky lynching, which has not yet come to trial, they have gone unpunished. This seems to me to be sufficient evidence that the problem has become one of Lational importance and therefore should be dealt with by the Federal Government.

*

*

*

*

In the ex

The Wagner-Costigan bill seeks to do this very thing. treme Southern States where the matter of decentralization is still of importance in people's minds, there may resentment. * I am willing however, to risk the resentment in the Southern States which might result from the seeming curtailment of State's rights.

A member from Tennessee writes:

An interracial group of both men and women has met a number of times since that tragic event (the lynching of Cordie Cheek, Negro) to consider ways and means of bringing about local governmental actions, and so far we have experienced considerable discouragement. # In contrast with this case

we may place the speedy justice meted out by the Federal district court in the case of a recent kidnaping and flogging across State lines. The victim was white, whereas Cordie Cheek was a Negro. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in this community in recent weeks we have seen the Federal Court mete out swift justice against mob violence, and we are yet waiting the action of the local court in the case of Cordie Cheek.

A member from Virginia writes:

When States fail in the protection of life and liberty of their citizens, it is the duty of the Federal Government to live up to the provision of its own constitution.

Thus feeling the pulse of its large and diversified membership, those who are rich, those who are poor, those of northern as well as southern tradition, those who work in factory, in the office, in the home, those who inhabit our rural areas, small towns and those who live in our great metropolitan centers, on the basis of the validity of the argument and the bulk of opinion, the public affairs committee of the national board of the Young Women's Christian Association endorsed the Costigan-Wagner antilynching bill and appointed me to speak in their behalf at this hearing to the end that you might

speedily bring this bill to the floor of the Senate and work diligently for its passage.

Senator VAN NUYS. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF REV. JOHN T. GILLARD, REPRESENTING THE MARYLAND ANTILYNCHING FEDERATION

Senator VAN NUYS. Our next speaker is Rev. Dr. John T. Gillard, representative and vice chairman of the Maryland Antilynching Federation.

Reverend GILLARD. It is a far cry from the day that Abraham Lincoln's trembling pen signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Today we are gathered here in an effort to write another emancipation proclamation-a proclamation emancipating our country from a spirit which continues to violate human rights-the spirit of the mob which finds expression in lynching.

Groups under emotional tension act in conformity with generally accepted attitudes and practices-they follow the mass mind. Ordinarily the social minded of a community predominate and hold in check the antisocial tendencies. But occasionally, and of late frequently, disreputable thought patterns predominate and result in antisocial activity. Men, women, and children who go out to kill, or to look on sympathetically while others kill, may be members of an actual mob but 1 day in a year or a lifetime, but they are most probably mob minded every day in the year. Mobs are but the logical outcome of dominant assumptions and prevalent thinking.

Since ignorance is the mother of prejudice, far better than the enactment of law would be the eradication of root misunderstanding. It is the duty of intelligent and law-abiding citizens to concern themselves with such a program of education. But by its nature education requires a long time. In the interim some sterner and more immediate effective method must be found to control the vicious forces which are hostile to well-established order.

It is the business of the State to make laws for the safety of the community and to administer them so that the whole community may not suffer for the inordinate actions of a few individuals. The primary obligation of coping with the problems under consideration lies with the various States.

When passion and prejudice supersede the dictates of reason as expressed in law and offer violence to its established order then the sanction of the law must be invoked. But it is a fact full of doleful significance that of the tens of thousands of people who have violated the rights of the Government and of individuals by mob violence, a study of the records over a period of 30 years (1900-30) discloses only 12 instances in which a total of 67 individuals were convicted. This means that eight tenths of 1 percent of the lynchers have been convicted.

I am a firm believer in State rights where they can be and are adequately safeguarded. But that almost no lynchers in the United States have been punished by local courts suggests the futility of local legislation and prompts the hope that a Federal antilynching bill will more effectively cope with the serious situation which confronts the country. People have ceased to fear the State sanctions

and the lower courts because they have been inoperative and inept in nearly every case. Experience has taught that people generally have greater fear and respect for the Federal courts. While State rights are to be respected, individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States must be safeguarded by the power and the majesty of the United States if need be.

Therefore I urge you gentlemen favorably to consider the bill before you. I urge it as a priest and a member of a society of priests who have dedicated their lives to the welfare of America's 12,000,000 Negroes the Society of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart. I speak in behalf of many members of the Catholic Church, white and colored, clerical and lay, high and low, in token of which it is my privilege to present you with a set of resolutions signed by over 5,000 voters of Baltimore.

At this point I shall read the resolution to which I referred:

Whereas the honorable Senators Costigan and Wagner have introduced into the Senate of the United States a bill designed to assure persons within the jurisdiction of the United States the equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching, said bill being known in the Senate files as "S. 1978", and popularly as the Costigan-Wagner antilynching bill"; and Whereas bill 1978 offers some assurance that such neglect, indifference, or open contempt for the law shall be punished, if not prevented; and

[ocr errors]

Whereas the Negroes of the United States are the chief victims of lynch haw, and to them in a special manner is this bill pertinent; Be it therefore Resolved, That we, the undersigned, go on record as approving the CostiganWagner antilynching bill (S. 1978), either in its present or an amended form; and be it further

Resolved, That we, the undersigned, do hereby urge Your Honors to give prompt and favorable action toward reporting the bill out of committee, and energetic support of the bill after it shall have been referred to your respective Houses for vote thereon; and be it finally

Resolved, That no one signing his name hereunto shall cast his vote in favor of any Senator or Representative who shall not wholeheartedly support and unequivocally vote in favor of this bill which gives some promise of suppressing or punishing a crime which cries to heaven for vengeance, to 12,000,000 colored citizens of this country for action, and to every fair-minded man for prompt justice.

Senator DIETERICH. Father Gillard, will you stop there a moment, please?

Reverend GILLARD. Yes, sir.

Senator DIETERICH. Do you think it is properly the part of a resolution to coerce Members of the United States Congress into reporting a measure, if within their consciences they might think some provisions of it should not be enacted into law?"

Reverend GILLARD. NO.

Senator DIETERICH. You say the signers of that resolution are pledged to withhold all support from any Member of Congress who may be doing what his constitutional duty requires him to do.

Reverend GILLARD. No, indeed, Your Honor. I would be the last one in the world to do that.

Senator DIETERICH. Why did you embody that in the resolution? Reverend GILLARD. Probably the reason for that was, Senator, that it has been our experience in Baltimore, where I appeared twice in favor of the State antilynching bill, that oftentimes a material motive will induce where an intellectual motive will not. Probably it was with that in mind, not with any idea of coercing the Senate, because that would be the last thing in the world I would do.

« AnteriorContinuar »