asked if we were willing to leave this country and said he believed three-fourths of us would not leave. No. Nine hundred and ninetynine out of every thousand would not leave. This man has falsely stated that this is a white man's country. He knows nothing of the history of his people. The Negro came here when the white man did, and he has contributed to the upbuilding of this country by his labor, by his suffering, by his sacrifices and blood. There are none of the highest callings he has not entered. In art, the highest calling of man, the greatest name is Henry O. Tanner, a Negro, whose paintings the French Government seeks and purchases and puts in her great art galleries as soon as they are painted. So it is foolish to talk about this being a white man's country; it is the country of all of us Americans, and we are not going to leave in spite of our sufferings, but are going to work out our destiny right here in our own land. We have almost enough law in this country. What we want is enforcement of the law. We have a Constitution with 19 amendments, and with its imperfections, it is the greatest political document that has ever come from the hand of man. What we want Congress to do is to enforce it. Think of it; even the House of Representatives has closed its public restaurant to Negroes, where we have been going for 50 years without friction. This was done at the very time that brave black boys were dying in the trenches in France. This is a new reward to give the returning black soldier for his heroic sacrifices in every part of far-off France.

In this town the theater, the great educational agency, supported by the black as well as the white, since it is a public institution, is closed to the black people, and I have to go to New York when I want the cultured entertainment of the opera. Is this right? No. We have done our full share of the dying for this country, and it is high time we were getting some of the living. This war, which was waged for world democracy, as President Wilson said, has meant no democracy for us. It has not only given us no relief for the thousand burning wrongs we were suffering before the war but it has increased discrimination against us. The black boy who left this country at the command of Woodrow Wilson to go to France to die for democracy comes home to find more obstacles placed in the way of those he fought to save. At this very hour there are thousands of brave black heroes who never knew what liberty was that are now sleeping on the hill slopes of France, and we, who are left behind, would be unworthy of the glorious tradition of sacrifice they left us, if we did not work to secure the democracy for which Mr. Wilson told them to die. We would be false to their sacred memories. We are determined to get democracy in this country. We expect the cooperation of our honorable Congress and all just white men, and we are going to urge it and continue until we set up here in this Western Hemisphere the first democracy the world has ever seen. Think nothing of segregation. We have difficulties in this country, it is true, but the solution is not surrender. We should face the problem with courage, with resolution, and with statesmanship. We should enforce the laws that are flagrantly violated in most of the States of this Union; admit all the citizenship, regardless of color, into all public places, and if there is friction punish the transgressor and not his innocent victim. That is justice; nothing else will we accept, and we ask nothing more.

STATEMENT OF DR. WM. H. WILSON.

Dr. WILSON. I thought, Mr. Chairman, I might have some thing to say; it has been said for me and I feel that if I should make any effort to say anything I might detract from what has preceded me. I shall not use the whole 10 minutes allotted me, making reference to but three things and to them only in passing. The three things I would mention in part are these: In the first place the bill brought before you, as I understand, from its reading, has as its reason for being the assumption that the Negro has concluded there is no justice in America; that you will not do the right thing; will not live up to your laws and will not abide by the Constitution and its amendments. Thus the Negro must leave America because you do not intend to be just. I am unwilling to agree that you gentlemen have any such idea. I do not believe you mean to be hypocrites; that you intend to disavow the country's laws. I am sure, therefore, you will consider no such bill as this.

Mr. DYER. You will understand that there is no such bill as that before us.

Dr. WILSON. I thank you and am very glad to know it is not pending and hope it will never be, even prospective. I had three things to mention, but will now mention only two; that is, one other. Yesterday, before another Judiciary Committee, I heard a report from the Departinent of Justice on the cause of race riots and Negro unrest in America. It said that these riots had their origin largely in the fact that the I. W. W. was doing its utmost among the Negroes to make them a force against the white man in America. This is an immaterial factor in the Negroes' discontent. It arises from the fact that the laws and customs of America as applied to him, are different from those applied to other Americans. He resents being made less than an American, and enjoying less than the protection guaranteed by American laws. I feel that it is possible for the Negro to have Americanization in America as the law stands to-day, because I can not conceive that the white man will forever insist that Negroes pay taxes and have no representation; abide by the law but not profit by it, support the Nation, but not be protected by it, and give their all without receiving a commensurate return.

I am bound to believe that insofar as the Negro is concerned his only concern in race riots is the fact that he is being made to feel that he has no hope but that which is in himself. Governments too often offer him no protection and he is forced to the protection of himself and it is unwise to expect that he will not do so. You tell us that the man who will not protect himself is no man. We are putting your teaching into practice. There exists no reason for a consideration of this proposition. The Constitution and the laws which do not abrogate it when obeyed make it possible for all Americans to thrive in contentment in America.

STATEMENT OF REV. R. D. JONES.

Rev. JONES. I represent the Ethiopians of Abyssinia. Until there is a consul established here I am the agent of the Ethiopians who are coming here. I saw that Congressman Mason was trying to gather facts. I have been there for 14 years and have some knowledge relative to Liberia, Africa, Ethiopia, and Abyssinia, but I can

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the law; or of equal privileges and immunities under the law; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the law; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States, or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy whereby another is injured in person or property, or deprived of having or exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, said person so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation against any one or more of the conspirators.'

This is taken from the acts of July 31, 1861.

These acts are construed to apply only to such rights as are granted by or dependent upon the Constitution, and valid and constitutional laws of the United States.

One of the matters which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be within the protection of these laws is the right of the Federal Government by penal laws to prevent discrimination against negroes serving on juries; and in ex parte Virginia (100 U. S., 339) the prosecution was maintained and conviction upheld, when the judge of a county court, whose duty it was to draw the juries for service, had discriminated against negroes in such jury service.

In Neal v. Delaware (103 U. S., 370) it was held that the exclusion because of their race and color of citizens of African descent from the grand jury that found and from the petit jury that was summoned to try the indictments, if made by the jury commissioners, without authority derived from the Constitution and laws of the State, was a violation of the prisoner's rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which the trial court was bound to redress, and the remedy for any failure in that respect is ultimately in this court upon writ of error. The court held that the exclusion of negroes from such grand and petit juries by officers charged with their selection, although such exclusion was no doubt by State constitution or laws, denies the equality of protection of law, denies the equality of protection secured by the Federal Constitution and law.

It has been more than once held that rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and manner of protection will be such as Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion, shall provide. These may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular rights to be protected.

In the case of Strauder v. West Virginia (100 U. S., 303) a law which denied colored persons the right to sit on juries was declared void. The court said:

"It (the fourteenth amendment) was designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons and to give to that race the protection of the General Government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States."

The court also said:

"It is not easy to comprehend how it can be said that while every white man is entitled to a trial by a jury selected from persons of his own race, or color, or rather selected without discrimination against his color, and a negro is not, the latter is equally protected by the law with the former. Is not protection of life and liberty against race or color prejudice a right, a legal right, under the constitutional amendment?"

The act of Congress of March 1, 1875 (18 Stat., par. 3, p. 336), enacts that:

"No citizen, possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law, shall be disqualified from service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who shall exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined not more than $5,000."

This was held to be constitutional in the case of Ex Parte Virginia, supra. The court laid stress upon the provisions of the fourteenth amendment, especially: "No State shall make or enforce a law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. * Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

*

*

And upon the last section, which gives Congress the power to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation.

One of the privileges or rights granted the colored man by this amendment is citizenship; another is that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; another is, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; another is, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a county judge can be punished for refusing to draw his jury so as to include any of the negro race, and if exclusion of negroes from the jury list is sufficient to deny equal protection of the law to a defendant who is to be tried by a jury to be drawn therefrom, the question arises as to why may not the Federal authority protect one of its citizens while in confinement or custody awaiting trial by a jury with the composition of which it has exercised material power.

Why is not a refusal to put into operation the laws against lynching as much within the jurisdiction of Congress as is the refusal to obey a State law by a judge in drawing a jury?

If Congress can punish a judge for refusing to include any negroes in the jury list for the purpose of trying a negro, why can it not punish a sheriff for refusing to protect a negro while awaiting trial?

If Congress has the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions which prevent a State from taking life and liberty or property of its citizens by due process of law, why may it not determine that in order to fulfill this guaranty it may make the sheriff directly amenable to its jurisdiction in such matters?

The Supreme Court has said:

"The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle if within its power. The duty was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no more. (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542, 555.)"

The power in the right of the Federal Government to see that the States do not deny any person the right to due process of law, and to see that they do not deny him the equal protection of the law will be construed to be equal to the task. No one of us dare say that the limit of this power has been reached. No person who genuinely believes in the necessity for the exercise of State rights in full vigor will desire to tempt the Federal Government to the full awakening of these latent powers. If the States fail to give adequate protection, how shall the Federal Government exercise its power to fulfill the guaranty of the fourteenth amendment?

The amendment itself says that this shall be done by appropriate legislation. Who shall determine what is appropriate legislation? Manifestly Congress in the first instance, finally the courts.

The States lagged in the making of adequate pure-food laws. The result is that this is now nearly entirely regulated by the Federal Government.

The States did not adequately meet the narcotic-drug nuisance; the result is that the Federal Government is now reaching down into the daily lives of the citizens in this respect to a degree which would have been thought impossible a few years ago. Congress has exercised its rights in enacting legislation with reference to child labor in the various States. It has done likewise with reference to intoxicating liquors. If Congress has felt its duty to do these things, why should it not also assume jurisdiction and enact laws to protect the lives of citizens of the United States against lynch law and mob violence? Are the rights of property, or what a citizen shall drink, or the ages and conditions under which children shall work, any more important to the Nation than life itself? I believe that Congress has ample power to enact the legislation that I have recommended. I believe it would stand the test of the courts and be a great blessing, as well as aid in wiping out the greatest blot upon the honor of the American Nation.

Mr. DALLINGER. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that Congress ought to pass some such legislation as this and put it right up to the Supreme Court of the United States. I think there is a need for Congress to attempt at least to pass legislation, and of course if the Supreme Court of the United States sees fit when a specific suit is before them to declare it unconstitutional, why the responsibility is on them.

In regard to this question of constitutionality, I have a letter here from Hon. Moorfield Storey. I had hoped he would have been able

163953-20-2

to be present at the hearing on this bill, but he has not been able to do so. He wrote me on August 25 last, and this is his letter. With your permission I will read it:

DEAR MR. DALLINGER: I have your letter of the 23d with the inclosed copy of your bill, and I am very sorry that the approaching meeting of the American Bar Association in Boston and my responsibility in the matter of entertainment will keep me in the city for at least two weeks, so that I can not attend the hearing.

Moreover, it has seemed to me a very doubtful question whether legislation by Congress against lynching in the States is constitutional, but I am very clearly of opinion that it ought to be tried. I think the South expects it, and many of our southern citizens who are opposed to lynching will welcome it. At the most, the country will be no worse off if the experiment fails than it is now.

I would suggest that your first section be altered a little, so as to make the putting to death of a citizen by a mob, if no attempt is made within a certain time by the authorities of the State to punish the offender, a denial of the equal protection of the laws, etc.

A murder, in the ordinary course of things, is an offense wholly within the jurisdiction of the State, and if the authorities of the State do their best to prevent such offenses or to punish the offenses the United States can not, in my judgment, interfere. If, however, the authorities do not prosecute the offenders in earnest, or if, like the governor of Mississippi the other day, when advised that a lynching was to take place, they profess absolute inability to act, then it would seem to me that the Government should step in. I hope your act will be reported favorably by the committee and that it may become a law, for I feel very sure that unless lynching of colored people is stopped we are drifting into what may well become civil war.

Mr. HUSTED. Mr. Ballinger, may I ask you a question?
Mr. BALLINGER. Certainly.

Mr. HUSTED. On this constitutional question, so long as the laws of any State operate equally upon all individuals or classes of individuals in the State, is there any decision of the courts holding that the failure to enact legislation for the protection of individuals or classes of individuals, or the failure to execute statutes for the protection of individuals or the protection of any classes of individuals, is a denial of the equal protection of the laws within the Constitution? Mr. BALLINGER. In answer to that question, I would say that it seems to me self-evident that in certain sections of the country a certain class of citizens are denied the equal protection of the laws.

Mr. HUSTED. My question, if you will permit me, was this: So long as the law itself operates equally—that is, within the contemplation of the law it will operate equally upon all individuals or all classes of individuals has the court held that failure to enforce the provisions of that statute for the benefit of individuals or any particular class of individuals is a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

Mr. BALLINGER. As I say, I do not know of any case where this particular question has been raised; but the decision which you read a few moments ago would seem to imply that, where the protection of the laws was denied to any class of persons, then Congress would have power to act under the Constitution. Now, it is a fact that one class of our citizens is denied the protection which other classes receive. In other words, there is practically no lynching of white people in the Southern States. There was, I believe, one case in the State of Georgia, I believe, where a white man was lynched; but as a rule in most of the States the white man is protected. If he is charged with a crime, the whole machinery of the Government is used to protect him so that he can have a fair trial, and he is protected by the courts down there the same as he is in other parts of the country; but the colored race is denied that protection.