sons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other citizens or other classes in the same places and under like circumstances. The equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of the equal laws and does not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of the power of the Government.

Mr. IGOE. This case I have in mind was a case which came up from Alabama. I do not know just the point that was involved, but I will look it up and find it. I thought maybe you had it there.

Mr. DYER. I have made an investigation and have some authorities. I submit the following:

The early theory that the United States has no police power, so called, or power to protect life or punish crimes of violence within the States, is already superseded by judicial decision. It is now determined by the highest authority that the United States has such power, when a Federal right or duty is invaded or involved. This principle is neither new nor startling, though modern applications of it have attracted attention. For example, it is now held that the United States, by the hand of its marshal, may lawfully kill one who assaults a Federal judge traveling through a State in the course of his duty, and that the State can not hold the marshal to account for such killing (in re Neagle, 135 U. S., 1); and that the United States may punish, as for murder, one who kills a prisoner in the custody of a Federal officer within a State (Logan v. United States, 144 U. S., 263). The principle is that the persons so assailed are within the peace of the United States; that the United States owes them the duty of protection; and that the power of protection follows upon the duty.

The equality clause of the fourteenth amendment forbids the States to deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This clause is judicially held to confer immunity from any discrimination as a Federal right. The protection which the State extends to one person must be extended to all. It does not forbid discrimination merely in the making of laws, but in the equal protection which the laws are designed to afford. Forbidding the State to deny equal protection is equivalent to requiring the State to provide it. Equal protection is withheld if a State fails to provide it, and the guaranteed immunity is infringed. The constitutional requirement may be violated by acts of omission no less than by acts of commission. The omission of the proper officers of the State to furnish equal protection in any case is the omission of the State itself, since the State can act only by its officers. (Tenn. v. Davis, 100 U. S., 257, 266; Strauder v. W. Va., 100 U. S., 303, 306, 310; Va. v. Rives, 100 U. S., 313, 318; Ex parte Va., 100 U. S., 339, 345; U. S. v. Harris, 106 U. S., 629, 639; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3, 13, 23; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S., 651, 660 et seq.; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356, 373; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 Ú. S., 683 and (Harlan, J.) 700; In re Coy, 127 U. S., 731; Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S., 442, 447.) It would seem to follow that when a citizen or other person is put to death by a lawless mob, in default of the protection which the State is bound to provide for all alike, there is a denial of equal protection by the State, in the sense of the equality clause, which Congress may prevent or punish by legislation applying to any individuals who participate in or contribute to it, directly or indirectly.

The United States has, as all governments have, a political and legal interest in the lives of its citizens. If it had not full power to protect them in their lives within the States as it has elsewhere, it can be, as already observed, only because that duty rests solely upon the States. If so, it is a duty owed to the United States as well as to individual citizens. It would seem that open and notorious neglect or omission of this duty on the part of the State, by suffering lawless mobs to murder citizens for want of legal protection, may be declared an offense against the United States, and if so, that the United States may punish all persons who contribute to it.

Section 5508 of the Revised Statutes, which is taken from the act of May 31, 1870, is as follows:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured, they shall be fined not more than $5,000 and imprisoned not more than 10 years, and shall, moreover, be ineligible to any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

A part of section 1980 of the Revised Statutes is as follows:

country in the manner he was, is it not a fact beyond any reasonable doubt that this Government is responsible for him?

At the beginning of the late rebellion in this country it was unconstitutional to impose military service on any man not a citizen. If they could have done so, it is a fact beyond question that 4,000,000 Negroes would have had to go to war. Then, if it were unconstitutional to start with, was it not also unconstitutional to end with? But simply because it became a military necessity military service was imposed on that 4,000,000 Negroes and one and a half millions perished on the battlefields of this country, in violation of every law, for the liberty they enjoyed. That is not all they have got to ask if they can not work out their destiny in this country. This is a white man's country. Water and oil don't mix. Vinegar and soda will not mix, yet they are both harmless. Fairly or unfairly, the two races can not dwell harmoniously together. It is the Negro who is dependent on the white man for his work. There are his wife and children at home staring him in the face for a living, and the Negro can not properly serve his family because he is dependent on the other fellow. Take this railroad out here. It is a white man's road, owned by white men, and on this railroad the Negro can not stick his face in a car except the Jim Crow car, yet that same road could be owned and controlled by Negroes in a country of their own. It could be done by Negroes. Cars must be built and trains must be run and it could be done by Negroes. He must educate his boys as lawyers, doctors, bricklayers, and machinists. He must educate his girls as stenographers and school teachers, and this the Negro must do if he wishes the future to hold out any hope to him and if he wishes to rise above being a common laborer and not have his children become common laborers after him.

Now, his wife goes out washing, but when the avenues of life are open to him and he tries to get ahead his wife will be able to stay at home with her children. He will be better himself, will be happier, and the world at large will be better. If the same money had been spent to put the Negro in a country to himself that has been spent to educate him in this country and keep him satisfied, it would have been spent to better advantage. What we want to do is this: We want to form a State between the United States and Mexico, part in the United States and part in Mexico, and each Negro given what land he can attend to with Government assistance and as fast as the Negroes become dissatisfied in the United States, when he has run from the east to the west, he can run home.

Mr. HUSTED. There is nothing pending before this committee on which this speaker is addressing the committee; there is nothing in it on the separation of the races and no construction of it of that nature. I do not understand his purpose in taking up the time of this committee on something we can not consider.

Mr. MADDEN. I am only endorsing my resolution. I have a bill to introduce and am speaking in relation to it in amendment to Mr. Mason's resolution.

Mr. DYER. If there is anything pending before this committee. Mr. MADDEN. You want me only to comment on the Mason resolution?

Mr. DYER. There is nothing pending before this committee providing for the separation of the races.

Mr. WALSH. It is within the scope of it.

Mr. GARD. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you ascertain how many desire to speak on this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. How many?

Mr. MADDEN. Just myself.

Mr. WHALEY. I think he should have all the latitude he wants. The CHAIRMAN. Be as brief as you can as we have other matters to take up.

Mr. MADDEN. I simply want to form a State down there in which the citizens would take an oath to support the United States' doctrines and the two races would be friends forever. This State would serve as a buffer State between the United States and Mexico, and would also serve to eliminate the Negro from the list of problems that face the United States, for all time to come. That is what we want to do but when we can not do what we want to do we will do the next best thing. Whenever you send a man to the penitentiary, on his release he is given a suit of clothes and $5; and the Negro, after 200 years of slavery, through no fault of his own, I think that $3,000 in money and transportation back home is little enough to ask for. Whenever the time comes that the United States will make provision for the Negro to live and set aside a plot of ground for him, they would go there faster than molasses will draw flies.

Mr. SUMNER. Would it interrupt you to suggest that you make some statement to the committee as to why it is more colored people do not show a disposition to return to Liberia, and what, in your judgment, is the opinion of colored people on the segregation of their race?

Mr. MADDEN. Africa has been pictured to the Negro as a land of snakes; a land of monkeys, tigers, and lions, and that is the way it has been described to him, and it is a feasible thought to him and has tended to confuse rather than to enlighten him. Liberia was set apart at one time for the Negro to colonize, but there was no Government assistance for him to get there, so it was impossible for him to go. Mr. CURRIE. Are there not communities in this country now practically governed by Negroes, where the banks are run by Negroes, and the business places owned by Negroes?

Mr. MADDEN. Bodey, Okla., a town of 6,000 inhabitants, which has three banks, postmaster, and the operator at the depot, all colored men, and they do anything in that town that they are doing in any other town of its size. The Negro has been trying many years to solve the race problem and to be the white man's equal in the white man's country, but has found that everything has proved a failure.

Mr. DYER. Who would do the work if the Negro were to go away? Mr. MADDEN. I was in England, Germany, and France, and they get along nicely without the Negro, and you can do the same here. Mr. DYER. Suppose there were 25 per cent of the Negroes who did not want to leave the United States, are you advocating force to compel them to go? Do you seriously think of such a thing as that? Mr. MADDEN. This is to be a voluntary act.

Mr. DYER. Then would not three-fourths of the Negroes stay where they are?

Mr. MADDEN. There might be 25 per cent stay here, but there would not be enough to raise riots or support the Jim Crow car.

Mr. DYER. I am afraid that is just conjecture on your part.

Mr. MADDEN. I feel safe in saying that 90 per cent of the Negroes in the United States would be glad to go.

Mr. DYER. I am afraid you have no solid basis for that opinion. Mr. GOODYKOONTZ. Your idea is to erect a nation to be run by the Negroes?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, sir; I say that by virtue of the fact that this is a white man's country and should be conducted by the white people, and by virtue of the fact that I believe there have been enough white women and girls offered upon the bloody altar of African lust. I believe enough Negroes have died at the stake, tied there and coal oil poured upon them, with their groans going up to God and the earth swallowing up their blood as a protest of the highly civilized people. I believe that you will agree with me that the only solution is to separate the races.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you have a bill or resolution to offer? Mr. MADDEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone who wishes to be heard in opposition?

STATEMENT OF MR. NEVAL H. THOMAS.

Mr. THOMAS. In the first place, I am representing the National Association for the Advancement of the Colored People. Locally we have 7,000 members whom I am representing, and nationally we have 100,000 members in 310 branches, which are organized to oppose just such a recommendation as has been presented here to-day. I do not know where this man comes from

Mr. DYER. He says he comes from St. Louis. How long have you lived in St. Louis, Mr. Madden?

Mr. MADDEN. About two years; I came there from Oklahoma.
Mr. DYER. I thought so.

Mr. THOMAS. I am acquainted with the leaders of thought among colored people all over this country, and I never even heard of this man before. He represents nothing but himself. Beware of any Negro who comes recommending a segregation scheme to you; he is simply seeking to be head of the group if we are segregated. When Woodrow Wilson became President, there were some venal Negro politicians who asked him to segregate the colored clerks in one department, and at the same time everyone presented an application for the headship of that department; so pay no attention to them. The masses of the colored people are unalterably opposed to segregation. Civilization has been spread and prejudices softened by the contact of peoples with each other. Even President Wilson is on record as saying that you can not hate a man whom you know, although he has segregated men to keep them from knowing, so that they can hate.

We recognize, in the first place that every man is lord of his castle; complete master of his own home. We seek no association, but cooperation with the white people of this country in the up-building of the things which belong to us all. When we go upon a common carrier, we are not seeking contact with the other people, we simply want to travel from place to place; we do not even expect another passenger to say "Good morning" to us. That is an ordinary civil right. The common carrier, like all other institutions, belongs to all of us alike. They are supported by our taxes, protected by the

police power of our State, and every one is a taxpayer because the ultimate consumer is the taxpayer. The owner of property does not pay the taxes. He charges enough rent to make a profitable return on his investment, plus the insurance, water rent, and all other expenses, and the tenant pays it. The owner of the property is simply a messenger through whom the tenant sends his taxes to the taxgatherer. Therefore, we have equal right to all public places, such as the common carrier, the theaters, restaurants, and hotels, and we will never cease to clamor for our rights until we gain admission. What we want the Congress to do, and also the Department of Justice, is to enforce the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth amendments to the Constitution. Even the thirteenth amendment, forbiding slavery and involuntary servitude, is violated in the Southern States by the infamous system of peonage. We demand the ballot, for in a Government where men vote the voter is king, and the disfranchised man is the victim of the man who does vote. We demand the abolition of the infamous "Jim-Crow" car, which was simply made to insult us. We demand admission to all public places, in fact, we demand equality of treatment everywhere, and equality before the law. Again, I say that segregation keeps men apart and is opposed to all sound principles of Government. My own experience in this country and Europe with white people has taught me how segregation works against my people. I have met people in this country and in Europe who were surprised that I could write; that I knew history; that I knew what I was traveling for; could explain a painting or piece of sculpture or a great work of architecture. They had lived side by side with me for all these years, the segregation had kept them from knowing me. Suppose there were no prejudices in this country, the races would mingle and discover their common humanity, and learn that color is the least of differences among men, and we would have no resulting friction. There are people living right in Boston who have gone over Boston Common, the most historic park in this country, where there is a statue of Crispus Attucks, a Negro, the first to shed his blood in the American Revolution. Near by is the famous Robert Gould Shaw statute, dedicated to the Fifty-fourth and Fifty-fifth regiments of Negroes in the Civil War, who died like men at Fort Pillow for the preservation of the Union, and yet have never looked up to find how much the colored men of this country have done for it. The system of segregation prevents that mutual interest that should exist between the races; we are all opposed to segregation. The African Methodist Episcopal Church is the largest institution among the negroes, with 700,000 members. This church issued a declaration of 14 points, the number of which is in imitation of the President's 14 points, and the strongest point in it is a declaration against segregation. This church supports 24 institutions in the South and collects from the pockets of washerwomen $350,000 every year for the education of the Negro youth, and this in addition to the expense to which colored people are put for education of their own in the South because all the people are taxpayers.

As this great church is against segregation, so are the Baptists and other denominations. The great organization for which I am talking to-day is opposed to it. We are all opposed to it, and this man is simply seeking his own personal gain. The gentleman from Oklahoma