protection of the laws and due process of law whenever that State or any legally competent governmental subdivision thereof shall have failed, neglected, or refused to employ the lawful means at its disposal for the protection of that person or those persons against lynching or against seizure and abduction followed by lynching.

SEC. 2. Any assemblage of three or more persons which shall exercise or attempt to exercise by physical violence and without authority of law any power of correction or punishment over any citizen or citizens of the United States or other person or persons in the custody of any peace office or suspected of, charged with, or convicted of the commission of any criminal offense, with the purpose or consequence of preventing the apprehension or trial or punishment by law of such citizen or citizens, person or persons, shall constitute a "mob" within the meaning of this Act. Any such violence by a mob which causes the death or serious bodily injury of the victim or victims thereof shall constitute "lynching" within the meaning of this Act: Provided, however, That "lynching" shall not be deemed to include violence occurring between members of groups of lawbreakers such as are commonly designated as gangsters or racketeers, nor violence occurring during the course of picketing or boycotting incidental to any "labor dispute" as that term is defined and used in the Act of March 23, 1932 (47 Stat. 70).

SEC. 3. Whenever a lynching of any person or persons shall occur, any officer or employee of a State or any governmental subdivision thereof who shall have been charged with the duty or shall have possessed the authority as such officer or employee to protect such person or persons from lynching, but shall have neglected, refused, or willfully failed to make all diligent efforts to protect such person or persons from lynching, and any officer or employee of a State or governmental subdivision thereof who shall have had custody of the person or persons lynched and shall have neglected, refused, or willfully failed to make all diligent efforts to protect such person or persons from lynching, and any officer or employee of a State or governmental subdivision thereof who, in violation of his duty as such officer or employee, shall neglect, refuse, or willfully fail to make all diligent efforts to apprehend, keep in custody, or prosecute the members or any member of the lynching mob, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SEC. 4. Whenever a lynching of any person or persons shall occur, and information on oath is submitted to the Attorney General of the United States that any officer or employee of a State or any governmental subdivision thereof who shall have been charged with the duty or shall have possessed the authority as such officer or employee to protect such person or persons from lynching, or who shall have had custody of the person or persons lynched, has neglected, refused, or willfully failed to make all diligent efforts to protect such person or persons from lynching or that any officer or employee of a State or governmental subdivision thereof, in violation of his duty as such officer or employee, has neglected, refused, or willfully failed to make all diligent efforts to apprehend, keep in custody, or prosecute the members or any member of the lynching mob, the Attorney General of the United States shall cause an investigation to be made to determine whether there has been any violation of this Act.

SEC. 5. (1) Every governmental subdivision of a State to which the State shall have delegated functions of police shall be responsible for any lynching occurring within its territorial jurisdiction. Every such governmental subdivision shall also be responsible for any lynching occurring outside of its territorial jurisdiction, whether within or without the same State, which follows upon the seizure and abduction of the victim or victims within its territorial jurisdiction. Any such governmental subdivision which shall fail to prevent any such lynching or any such seizure and abduction followed by lynching shall be liable to each person injured, or to his or her next of kin if such injury results in death, for a sum not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 as monetary compensation for such injury or death: Provided, however, That the governmental subdivision may prove by a preponderance of evidence as an affirmative defense that the officers thereof charged with the duty of preserving the peace, and the citizens thereof when called upon by any such officer, used all diligence and all powers vested in them for the protection of the person lynched: And provided further, That the satisfaction of judgment against one governmental subdivision responsible for a lynching shall bar further proceedings against any other governmental subdivision which may also be responsible for that lynching.

32

(2) Liability arising under this section may be enforced and the compensation herein provided for may be recovered in a civil action in the United States district court for the judicial district of which the defendant governmental subdivision is a part. Such action shall be brought and prosecuted by the Attorney General of the United States in the name of the United States for the use of the real party in interest, or, if the claimant or claimants shall so elect, by counsel employed by the claimant or claimants, but in any event without prepayment of costs. If the amount of any such judgment shall not be paid upon demand, payment thereof may be enforced by any process available under the State law for the enforcement of any other money judgment against such a governmental subdivision. Any officer of such governmental subdivision or any other person who shall disobey or fail to comply with any lawful order or decree of the court for the enforcement of the judgment shall be guilty of contempt of that court and punished accordingly. The cause of action accruing hereunder to a person injured by lynching shall not abate with the subsequent death of that person before final judgment but shall survive to his or her next of kin. For the purpose of this Act the next of kin of a deceased victim of lynching shall be determined according to the laws of intestate distribution in the State of domicile of the decedent. Any judgment or award under this Act shall be exempt from all claims of creditors.

(3) Any judge of the United States district court for the judicial district wherein any suit shall be instituted under the provisions of this Act may by order direct that such suit be tried in any place in such district as he may designate in such order: Provided, That no such suit shall be tried within the territorial limits of the defendant governmental subdivision.

SEC. 6. The crime defined in and punishable under the Act of June 22, 1932 (47 Stat. 326), as amended by the Act of May 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 781), shall include the transportation in interstate or foreign commerce of any person unlawfully abducted and held for purposes of punishment, correction, or intimidation.

SEC. 7. The essential purpose of this Act being the furtherance of protection of the lives and persons of citizens of the United States and other persons against unlawful and violent interference with or prevention of the orderly processes of justice, and against possible dereliction of duty in this respect by States, or any governmental subdivision thereof, or any officer or employee of either a State or governmental subdivision thereof, if any particular provision, sentence, or clause, or provisions, sentences, or clauses, of this Act or the application thereof to any particular person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not necessary at this time to discuss the different provisions of these bills in detail, inasmuch as that will be developed at the hearings. It might be well, however, to point out that the bills fall into two general categories. The bills, H. R. 41 through H. R. 800 are of the type that has been before the Congress before. H. R. 1709 corresponds, with a few differences, to those bills. The bill 3488, introduced by myself, and the succeeding numbered bills, are of a somewhat different type and contain provisions that are novel, I believe.

H. R. 4528, introduced by Mr. Keating, has certain additional features, which, I believe, Mr. Twyman's bill also contains.

At the outset, I think it might be well to ask if any of the sponsors of the bills who are present would like to file a prepared statement. If that is the case, I shall be very glad indeed to have any of these members present their statements.

Mr. CANFIELD. I have a statement which I would like to present for the committee's consideration. I should be glad to elaborate upon it if the committee cares to have me do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement will be received, Mr. Canfield. Thank you.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON CANFIELD, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to have my antilynching bill, H. R. 223, considered by this House Judiciary Subcommittee. My bill is similar to many other antilynching bills offered in both House and Senate, and it is like one presented in prior Congresses by my former colleague from New Jersey, Hon. D. Lane Powers. Many years ago, antilynching legislation was introduced in Congress by my predecessor, the late Representative George N. Seger. It is therefore with no particular pride of authorship in this particular bill that I have offered it, but rather with an intense conviction that we cannot permit lynch law to continue in the United States. I contend that this is a national, not a sectional, problem, for lynchings know no sectional boundaries.

I regret, as I am sure the members of this committee do, the necessity for seeking congressional action to supplement the common laws of decency in these days when the United States holds a position of world leadership and is spreading the gospel of democracy and the American way of life throughout the world. Enactment of antilynching legislation will be a step toward proving to other nations, especially those that are seeking every loophole through which they can besmear the American way, that we do believe in the processes of law and order, and that we are taking all possible steps to make democracy work.

Guided by the principles of our Constitution and the right to live and let live, I am sure that this committee and the Congress will find a reasonable and sane approach to the elimination of the undemocratic, un-American crime of lynching.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Heselton.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have not yet had time to complete the preparation of the full statement I wished to present to the committee, but I should like permission to file it as part of the record later.

How long will the hearings continue?

The CHAIRMAN. It is hoped that the hearings will be finished today. The actual preparation of the record will take several days, however, and if you have your statement ready for us by Friday night I should say it can be included. In the meantime your letter of February 4 will be included in the record at this point. Thank you.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 4, 1948.

Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,

Chairman, Subcommittee, Judiciary Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR CLIFF: I understand that the legislation you originally introduced, H. R. 3488, is scheduled for a hearing before your subcommittee, beginning today.

You will recall that for many weeks I was deeply concerned about certain phases of that legislation, although I heartily subscribe to the objectives contained in your bill. I cannot conceive of anyone knowing the facts about these horrible crimes failing to endorse your constructive and pioneering effort to provide a solution to this cancer in our American society.

You have convinced me that the bill has sound constitutional foundation. Therefore, I would like the privilege of recording my support of H. R. 3488.

In doing so and in keeping with your characteristic willingness to maintain a judicial attitude toward any legislation which may be submitted to the Congress, I do want to reserve the right of reexamining the arguments of those who, with reason, may recommend certain changes. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate you as the original sponsor of legislation aimed at the solution of this problem. Of course, I recognize that others have followed your leadership

and will appear before your committee in support of their bills. Nevertheless, in justice to the time and effort you have given to this problem, I want to record my support of your proposed legislation. I have every confidence that the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, headed by yourself as chairman, will explore every objection which may be raised to this bill. More than that, when the bill is reported to the floor, I have supreme confidence that it will reflect not only the judicial conduct of your hearings, but the most careful weighing of any technical objections raised to this bill.

I shall follow these hearings with interest and I am confident that I can support any report your subcommittee may make without reservation.

Finally, I do want to congratulate you personally upon having the initiative and foresight of drafting legislation which will focus the attention, not only of Congress, but of the entire country upon this problem which has faced us for generations, and, which I hope and believe, the Eightieth Congress will solve. If one person in the entire Congress is entitled to credit for that achievement, it is yourself.

Sincerely yours,

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Bryson.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BRYSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I am grateful to you for this appearance and for the privilege of filing a statement on the all-important subject of Federal antilynching legislation.

Knowing you gentlemen as I do, to be the good lawyers you are, I am satisfied that this suggested legislation at least raises some question in your mind as to its constitutionality. I have wrestled with the problem through the years from an unbiased approach and I am thoroughly convinced that the Federal Government has no right to enact such legislation.

Even conceding, which I do not, that the Federal Government has a right to proceed as set out in the pending measures, the question arises as to whether or not such action is necessary.

All of us are against lynching. We have been astounded to learn, and yet with delight, that lynchings have diminished to almost none. Just a few years ago the passing of every year recorded a number of lynchings. Education, regard for law, and Christianity have brought us into an antilynching era. In 1947, a whole year, there was only one lynching in our great country. I am sorry to say that this one, and only one, occurred in my home county. Our people regret this unfortunate fact. Those suspected of this heinous crime were immediately apprehended, arraigned, prosecuted, tried, and acquitted in the State court. No criticism was heard of the court proceedings. The judge deserved and received praise for the manner in which he presided over the court. The jury has the final word. Had there been a Federal statute, and had those charged with the crime of lynching been tried in the Federal court. the results would have been the

same.

We are conscientiously working to solve not only our lynching problems but others as well. If permitted to proceed ultimately we can banish all appearances of wrong.

Gentlemen, it would be a grave mistake to force the enactment of this Federal antilynching law. I respectfully request that unfavorable reports be given to these measures.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else present who wishes to present a statement?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. If not, the committee will be glad to hear from the Representatives who are present and in the numerical order of their

bills.

I see that Mr. Celler, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, and who has introduced H. R. 41, is present. We will be glad to hear from him at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I have offered H. R. 41 at this session. It is a bill that has been offered many times in the Congress by various Members for many years. In previous Congresses we conducted exhaustive hearings on bills of this character. I hope that this Congress will implement the torrent of words that has emanated from it by concrete action.

The bills offered and which have been mentioned by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee are within the four squares of one of the remarks made by President Truman on his report to the Congress on civil rights. I will briefly read that portion of his report which refers to the crime of lynching. [Reading:]

A specific Federal measure is needed to deal with the crime of lynching— against which I cannot speak too strongly. It is a principle of our democracy, written into our Constitution, that every person accused of an offense against the law shall have a fair, orderly trial in an impartial court. We have made great progress toward this end, but I regret to say that lynching has not finally disappeared from our land. So long as one person walks in fear of lynching, we shall not have achieved equal justice under the law.

I read this morning in the New York Times the following: This is a headline: "Klan burns cross in Georgia town." Subheaded, "Hooded and sheeted marks avowal protection for white womanhood."

And there is a picture accompanying the news item of the meeting of the Klan. Under the picture we have the legend: "Burning of fiery cross on lawn at Emanuel County courthouse in Swainsboro, Ga., last night."

It is rather ironic that the name of the county is Emanuel, which, as you know, is "God be with us." I am sure that God was not with those Klansmen who appeared before the courthouse at Swainsboro, Ga., on the night of February 2.

I read briefly from an editorial from the Atlanta Constitution, a very praiseworthy publication. It was written soon after the acquittal of those who participated in the lynching at Greenville, S. C., recently. [Reading:]

The Atlanta Constitution has been opposed to a Federal lynch law in the past and still maintains that position. We took that position for one and only one reason. It was that the States themselves were committed to enforce their laws, and to task for a Federal law to cover local crime was an admission of a moral break-down on the part of the State in its law-enforcement machinery and its judiciary.

It seems to us an awful and humiliating confession for a people of any State to make that a Federal law is needed to bring about enforcement of State laws.