laws adopted in Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia barring support of lawsuits by persons or organization not having a direct interest in them were aimed specifically at suits sponsored or supported by the NAACP. They were motivated by the fact that the NAACP was the chief protagonist in the struggle to translate into reality the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court's anti-segregation decisions. But these statutes jeopardize effective enforcement of all constitutional guarantees, not merely the guarantee of equal treatment. Indeed, they make it difficult to challenge any law that the legislature sees fit to

enact.

This was aptly pointed out in a letter to the Washington Post and Times Herald of February 25, 1957, that is worth quoting in full:

When Virginia announced that it would tax the Civil Service widows' annuity, it was fine to read of the many generous offers to share in the legal expenses involved in fighting the ruling. I wonder how many of these people realized that under the legislation recently passed by the Virginia Legislature, any person or organization taking up a collection for such a person would first have to register with the state and be prepared to file a great deal of detailed information?

I wonder how many more realized that even if money were collected thus legally, any Virginia lawyer who took the case and accepted part of his fees from persons not connected by blood or by direct pecuniary interest in the particular case at issue would be guilty of barratry and subject to disbarment? This legislation, of course, was aimed at the NAACP. It is interesting that so soon after it was passed a situation should have arisen which points out so clearly the foolish restrictions which it imposes on the liberties of all of us.

7. Legislative Investigations. If we accept the notion that legislative committees have unlimited power to select the objects of their inquiries, to seize records, publish membership lists, subpoena organization officials and question them at length as to their activities, dealings with members, purposes and finances, then any organization, and not merely the NAACP, can be “investigated" out of existence by a legislative committee. The Florida investigation of the NAACP is being conducted under a broad statute authorizing investigation of "all organizations whose . . . activities include a course of conduct . . . inimical to the well-being and orderly pursuit of their personal and business activities by the majority of the citizens of this state." The Virginia investigation is being conducted under a statute directing a

...

probe of groups influencing legislation involving "racial" activities; the statute could just as easily specify "religious," "union," "educational," "economic" or "political" activities. In Louisiana, the committee hearings aimed at the NAACP have been held under the legislature's general powers. The investigations recently authorized in Arkansas and Mississippi can be expected to range as widely as those already started in Florida, Louisiana and Virginia.

8. Emergency Powers. Finally, under the "emergency" legislation adopted in Florida and Georgia, there is no limit on the states' powers. The governor may declare an "emergency" entirely at his own discretion. He may then halt organizational activity completely, as a threat to the "peace and good order of society." Obvious targets for such a maneuver are a union organizing drive or a leaflet distributing campaign by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Nothing in any of these procedures limits their operation to the NAACP or other anti-segregation forces. The target is unpopular, not illegal, activity. True, several of the states, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Texas, have based their laws. and proscriptions in part on the claim that the NAACP has attempted to undermine state segregation laws. Those laws, however, have been invalidated by the United States Supreme Court. The notion that the Association's activities are illegal thus rests on a legislative pronouncement issued in defiance of the Supreme Court. Any other activity could also be illegally declared "illegal."

The Immediate Target: NAACP

The purpose of the measures described above is to halt organized activity against racial segregation. In practice this has meant halting the NAACP. It has been the NAACP that has organized the decisive, concrete steps against discrimination in voting, against lawless mob violence and now against racial segregation in universities, schools, railroads, busses and government facilities.

The attack on the NAACP has been launched because its efforts have been effective. Indeed, the Southern government officials responsible for many of these repressive measures have frankly admitted their desire to prevent opponents of segregation from associating in the NAACP.

The Attorney General of South Carolina defended the expressly anti-NAACP legislation of that state by saying "The NAACP

has reached a point of no return as far as South Carolina is concerned." A Louisiana state senator who has led the demand for pro-segregation legislation in that state has stated publicly:

We should be ashamed of ourselves if we cannot win our fight. We are by no means broke, we can vote, we still have our own officials and we can pack the NAACP off to where it belongs.

A Mississippi judge told a White Citizens Council meeting that the South needs "a slingshot to hit between the eyes of that giant monster NAACP."

As we have seen, the attack includes not only measures directly banning NAACP activity but also the calculated device of exposing the Association's membership to reprisals. The reprisals are threatened in part by the states themselves, in part by groups like the White Citizens Councils. The steps taken to compel exposure of membership lists are made with full knowledge of the widespread threats of economic sanctions that have been made against members of the NAACP.

When the White Citizens Council movement was launched, its leaders proclaimed their intentions in warnings plainly addressed to NAACP leaders and members. One of the Mississippi founders said:

It is the thought of our group that the solution of this problem may become easier if various agitators and the like could be removed from the communities in which they now operate. We propose to accomplish this through the careful application of economic pressure upon these men who cannot be controlled otherwise. . . the medium of economic pressure can be used quite effectively to the end that those who stir up discontent may be removed from the community. (Emphasis added.)

Later, an Alabama White Citizens Council leader said:

The white population in this country controls the money, and this is an advantage that the council will use in a fight to legally maintain complete segregation of the races. We intend to make it difficult, if not impossible, for any Negro who advocates desegregation to find and hold a job, get credit or renew a mortgage. We'll force the troublemakers out. (Emphasis added.)

State action compelling disclosure of the names of those who "advocate desegregation" by supporting the NAACP or "stir up

discontent" by organizing NAACP chapters is obviously designed to facilitate application of the boycott thus proclaimed.

But exposed NAACP members have more to fear than economic pressure, boycotts and loss of employment. Murders, brutal assaults and other violence have occurred often enough to create continuing threats to the physical security of any Negro who acknowledges membership in the NAACP. The press continues to report not only threats but actual instances of personal assault and bombings. Homes have been and still are being destroyed and churches desecrated.

Against this background, moves by the state governments to compel disclosure of NAACP membership lists are obviously not made in the cause of disinterested law enforcement. Their purpose is to prevent the opponents of segregation from associating, in the NAACP or otherwise, for effective action.

The Goal: Destruction of Organized Opposition

The strength of the anti-segregation forces lies in association. Up to now, that has meant primarily association in the NAACP. But most of the measures described above could be used equally well against any organization having similar aims. Indeed, as we have seen, the same or similar measures could be used against any individuals who formed an association in support of an unpopular cause.

The right individually to protest, individually to sue, individually to seek legislation, is of little value in our complex society. Particularly in an atmosphere of extreme hostility, such as that faced by the Southern Negro, organization is indispensable for effective action. In such an atmosphere it is understandable and indeed inevitable that the individual should fear to act alone; he needs the reassurance that others have joined their fates to his.

This is especially true of the court actions that are so vital a part of the continuing struggle for equality. Although the Supreme Court has held segregation illegal, it is notorious that many states of the Deep South have proclaimed their refusal to abide by that decision. In five states, not a single public school, college or university facility has yet been desegregated. A welter of patently unconstitutional legislation has been passed to block compliance with the Supreme Court decision even by willing

school authorities. It will take a long course of litigation to break this barrier. Individual Southern Negroes obviously cannot bear that burden and hence have selected the NAACP for that purpose.

Again, association is essential to any effort by Negro and white citizens in Southern states to obtain repeal of racist laws. It is essential to those who would support forward-looking legislation in state capitols and city councils. It is the normal procedure for obtaining desired legislative action in our democratic society today.

Finally, association is necessary to political action, particularly where the very right to engage in that action is restricted or denied. Americans generally know that they must organize to use effectively their right to vote. The existence of political parties almost since the birth of our republic attests to that fact. But Southern Negroes must organize not only to use their vote; they must organize to obtain it. Individually, they cannot hope to break through the barriers placed by hostile officials on their right to use the ballot. By collective action through the NAACP, they have at least started to level those barriers; for example, by obtaining Supreme Court decisions condemning the white primary and discriminatory registration laws.