Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

And it is particularly true also of many of the young white veterans who overseas fought side by side with men of different creeds, colors, and languages, fighting for a common ideal, who have come back home and been a little shocked at the injustices along the color line which exist in our own country.

I had the opportunity of talking with many of these men overseas in barracks, in mess halls, foxholes, and other places, and I know of many of them who are determined to bring the democratic practices into line-spelled with a small "d"-I say, Mr. Chairman, with the democratic protestations of the United States.

If I may be permitted, I would like to just make one comment on the question asked of Mr. Keating by Congressman Michener, with respect to the application of such legislation in the matter of strikes. For the record. I would like to call attention to section 4 of the Case bill, H. R. 3488, which says [reading]:

Any assemblage of two or more persons which shall, without authority of law, (a) commit or attempt to commit violence upon the person or property of any citizen or citizens of the United States because of his or their race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, language, or religion, or (b) exercise or attempt to exercise, by physical violence against person or property, 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 officer 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, or of imposing a punishment not authorized by law, shall constitute a lynch mob within the meaning of this Act. Any such violence by a lynch mob shall constitute lynching within the meaning of this Act. That, I think, includes any difficulty between colored persons and pickets or any industrial situations of this sort.

The CHAIRMAN. The purpose of clause (a) is clear. I think I agree with you on the purpose of clause (b).

It is limited to those situations where the people take the laws into their own hands and attempt to enforce their own punishment. Mr. WHITE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that limits the application of clause (b). I would not say that in no circumstances could a labor dispute give rise to a lynching in this section. But it would have to involve the taking of the law into a mob's own hands and enforcing or attempting tot enforce its own punishment.

Mr. WHITE. And may I add, Mr. Chairman, that organized labor is particularly alert and sensitive to any adverse legislation, and that both the CIO and the AFL are in favor of this legislation. I do not think they would be if they thought it would be used in industrial disputes.

Mr. DEVITT. Mr. White, a reference was made by the previous witnesses to the interest of minority groups in legislation of this kind. Have there been any instances in the United States of mob lynchings of persons of minority groups other than members of the colored race?

Mr. WHITE. Well, lynching originally was directed more against white people than against Negroes. That was particularly true in the days of slavery, when the Negroes were a chattel and their body had a value, just like that of a cow or horse, and were valuable property that could not be destroyed indiscriminately.

But the trend came later on after the Negro had been freed, where there was no likelihood of destroying valuable property.

Now mob violence and lynching as defined under the Case bill would be applicable to any activity by the Columbians or the Ku Klux Klan or by just an ordinary mob, against not only Negroes but other minorities as well.

There are, unhappilly, still active in this country some exceedingly dangerous organizations which are spreading anti-Semitism and antiCatholic, and anti-Negro and other prejudices, and I believe in the trying and dangerous days ahead we need the strong arm of the Federal Government supplementing the States themselves to prevent mob violence of any character.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, may I address myself to answer to the gentleman from Minnesota?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Keating.

Mr. KEATING. In my testimony I used a figure of 5,144 persons having been lynched during the period from 1889 through 1944. I do not have the figure here, but my recollection is that some 800 out of those were not Negroes but white people.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CRAVENS. And there have been, according to my recollection and information, Negroes lynched by Negroes. Is that true or not? Mr. WHITE. If there have been any such instances, they have not come to our attention. Of course, we are just as opposed to Negroes engaging in lynching as we are to white folks.

Mr. CRAVENS. Well, I had in my mind somewhere a case of the lynching of a Negro by a Negro mob.

Mr. WHITE. I have no knowledge of that, sir.

Mr. CRAVEN. Whether that was an Indiana case or a Georgia case I cannot remember. But I had some recollection that one of the cases was a Negro mob enforced against a Negro victim. Of course, there have been cases of white mobs lynching white people.

Mr. WHITE. Oh, yes. You remember the famous San Jose case in California. I do not want to see white people lynched.

Mr. CRAVENS. I do not want to see Negroes lynched. I do not condone it at all, but from a factual or historic standpoint it has not been purely a racial question. There have been white people lynched by white folks, and it is my understanding that there has been a Negro lynching by a Negro mob. It has been the result of a flare-up and a desire to do vengeance against somebody on the spur of the moment, and that lynch law does not discriminate very much. When they get on the warpath they do not stop to do much thinking.

Mr. WHITE. Let's try to stop them lynching anybody.
Mr. CRAVENS. Well, I am in favor of that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?
(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. White.

The committee has several other witnesses to hear and we have been given permission to sit during general debate this afternoon.

I think we might hear one or two more witnesses and then adjourn until 2 o'clock.

Mr. Masaoka, we shall be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF MIKE MASAOKA, ON BEHALF OF JAPANESE-AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE ANTIDISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE

Mr. MASAOKA. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee: I have already prepared a statement in accordance with the legislation and, therefore, I would just like to make two or three observations and conclude my testimony.

I would like to follow up the comments of the gentlemen addressed to Mr. White, namely, that that matter of lynching and mob violence is not a matter necessarily directed just against the Negro group.

I think my presence here today should be indicative of the fact that although the Negro has been and still is the victim of lynchings as such, that other minorities are concerned with this particular problem and we are particularly gratified to know that the bill introduced by the comment, H. R. 3488, broadens from the popular contention of somebody being strung up by a mob in the deep South. Because several near-lynchings, and what would constitute lynchings under the interpretation of H. R. 3488, took place at the time when people of Japanese ancestry tried to return to the west coast after the Government of the United States had cleared them individually, and after great numbers of their sons had served and gallantly, in the armed forces of the United States. ·

I think people are prone to forget that what happens to a Negro or any other man in the United States can also happen to them. That has been the experience of the Japanese-American society.

At one time when a Negro was lynched in Georgia, for example, we simply said, "That is too bad. Something should be done about it." It was not until some of us came into that same situation where it could happen to us too did we realize the seriousness of such a thing. I would like to cite two examples:

S. Cosmo Sakamoto, still a victim of malaria, as a result of his fighting in the Army of the United States in the Southwest Pacific, returned home from the United States Army.

One brother of his had been killed in Italy fighting for America. Two others were still fighting Japan and later went on to occupation duty in Tokyo.

In, I think it was November 1944, Sergeant Sakamoto returned to Loomis, Calif., wearing the uniform of the United States Army, mind you. He was shot at. His home and his brother's were destroyed. Mr. CRAVENS. Where did that take place?

Mr. MASAOKA. Loomis, Calif., sir.

In Newcastle, Calif., just a few miles distant, PFC Wilson Makabe, who lost one leg in the European war and permanently injured the other, returned to his home during convalescent leave. His home was burned down. The neighbors told him to get out or they would carry him out. I believe that the United States War Department authority has over 100 such documented cases where persons of Japanese ancestry have been fired at or had their homes burned down or dynamited.

I simply cite these illustrations to point out that strong Federal intervention is necessary, because we noted in California this very curious pattern: In certain areas where race prejudice against people of Japanese ancestry is great, when internees returned to the west

coast there was actual violence or threats of violence, but when the United States Army investigated these particular cases, when men in the uniform of the United States Army, in the Military Intelligence Department, appeared on the scene and gave to the community at least a color of Federal interest in the case, in every case the local community subsided and there were no further burnings or even threats against the Japanese.

It is my belief that if local community and local police officials knew that the Federal Government was concerned in these things, that Federal agencies and officials were going to investigate every threat and every crime of violence against both person and property-and which I wish to commend the chairman for including property in his particular bill-if the local people knew that the Federal Government had a particular interest in it, we believe that the crimes of violence and lynchings would materially lessen and in time disappear.

I would like to conclude by making one other comment.

First of all, I am not an attorney and I am not qualified to discuss the legal technicalities of this particular bill, but it appears to me as a layman that when States have certain duties to perform, and when they cannot perform those duties, then it becomes a responsibility and obligation of the Federal Government to step in and protect those constitution guaranties.

Mr. CRAVENS. What constitutional principle do you base that on? Mr. MASAOKA. Again, speaking as a layman, it appears to me that the fourteenth amendment, which extends or purports to extend to all people the equal protection of the laws, should be relied upon. Furthermore, that the civil-rights statute can be so construed.

I would like to say as my final conclusion, that as an American soldier who fought overseas with Americans of all nationalities and proudly, that I believe that this kind of legislation embodies a principle of something that we are fighting for, namely, the right of every individual to be free from fear, both to his person and to his property. I would like to thank you gentlemen of the subcommittee for giving their attention and for the opportunity of appearing. The CHAIRMAN. You have filed a statement?

Mr. MASAOKA. I have.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be included at this point in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MIKE MASAOKA ON BEHALF OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is Mike Masaoka and I am appearing in behalf of the Japanese American Citizens League AntiDiscrimination Committee.

The organization I represent in the capacity of national legislative director has 56 chapters in 20 States and the District of Columbia. Our membership is open to all American citizens, irrespective of race, color, creed, or national origin.

As a preface to this statement, may I make the following three observations: First, I am not an attorney. I appreciate the fact that grave constitutional issues have been raised regarding these so-called antilynching measures, but I must confess that I am not qualified to discuss the technical and legal implications involved. It occurs to me, however, that when the various States have demonstrated their inability to maintain certain constitutional guaranties, the Federal Government is obliged to step in and do so.

Second, as an American soldier who fought overseas with Americans of all faiths and nationalities, these bills seem to embody the very spirit of what we were fighting for, the right to be free from fear regardless of our race and color.

Third, as an American of Japanese ancestry, I trust that my testimony this morning will indicate that while the Negro may have been, and is, the principal victim of lynchings, other minorities too have a stake in this all-important issue.

As the only national organization representing the interests of persons of Japanese ancestry in the United States, may I emphasize here, as I did at the Senate hearings on this same subject several weeks ago, that the Japanese American Citizens League is heartily in accord with the principle expressed in the many bills under consideration this morning.

Of the many measures before this subcommittee, we are particularly interested in H. R. 3488, introduced by the chairman, and other comparable bills, because we believe that they are more comprehensive than many of the others.

The phraseology of H. R. 3488, and other comparable legislation, broadens the definition of lynching from the narrow and restricted popular conception to include the inaction of the States that results in the discriminatory withholding of protection or in the condonation of mob action, the terrorization of groups in a community, and the right of every individual to be secure in his person and in his property against violence "by reason of his race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, language, or religion."

This enlightened view of the Federal Government's responsibility for the safety and the security of its citizens is one that commends itself to all people, especially those who have been the innocent victims of hysteria and violence.

We are confident, for example, that had H. R. 3488 been law, effectively and efficiently enforced, most of the burnings and shootings experienced by persons of Japanese ancestry when they tried to return to their former homes on the West Coast after the Army had removed its exclusion ban would not have happened.

Here are a few instances where we feel that this kind of law would have been most useful and helpful.

Early in 1946, the three Yanagimachi brothers, all of whom had served with our armed forces, two in Europe with the famed Four Hundred and Forty-second Japanese-American combat team, and the third with military intelligence in the Pacific, tried to return to southwestern Washington to take over their oyster farm. Competitors ordered them to leave the area, threatening to not only do them bodily harm, but also to scuttle their oyster beds. An ex-marine who had fought with Japanese-American troops in the Pacific tried to protest this un-American attitude but left town when some aroused fishermen threatened to tar and feather him and then ride him out of the community on a pole.

On March 11, 1945, arsonists on Vashon Island, Puget Sound, Wash., set fire to three homes when it was learned that their former Japanese owners were returning to reclaim them. All the homes were destroyed.

While there were other scattered incidents in Washington and Oregon, more than 100 separate cases of arson, intimidation, and shooting of persons of Japanese ancestry took place in California between December 1944 and July 1946. Here are a few of the reported instances in the State of California. In November 1944, Sgt. Cosma Sakamoto, who is even today a victim of the malaria he contracted while serving in the island-hopping campaigns in the Southwest Pacific, returned to visit his home near Loomis. Wearing the decorations he had won and in the uniform of the United States Army, he was fired upon and his home burned to the ground. Sakamoto had a younger brother who was killed while serving with the Four Hundred and Forty-second in Italy, and two other brothers who fought in the war against Japan.

In January 1945, Pfc. Wilson Makabe, who lost one leg and permanently injured the other while fighting with the Four Hundred and Forty-second in Europe, returned to Newcastle to find his home burned down and his orchard destroyed. He was told: “If you don't leave town, we'll carry you out!”

On January 22, 1945, the packing shed of Sumio Doi, of Mount Vernon, was partially burned. Nine sticks of dynamite had been planted near the shed. When Doi tried to put out the fire, nightriders fired upon him. The father of two sons who were then overseas in the Army, he saw four men who were arrested for arson and attempted murder acquitted when their defense attorney told the jury: "This is a white man's country and we've got to keep it that way!"

« AnteriorContinuar »