arrangements.

Rev. L. G. Ganes, Dear The For Banner bra flari, b' lot di ior Ellisville de uwe fier

A thing the fat vete in the lily pares United States of Amenea If that is US 200 on the part of the Gotamment

move it. And now the 12.000,00 2 150CC United States na dei talerstand this committe quibbling over whether the prep aderance of spina the constitutionality of a measure such as CONTENIE

Mr. YATES. If you will pardon me, I do not suppose there is possibly a citizen in the United States who does not only want to see lynching stopped, but who is not willing to do everything in his power to stop it. What we want to do, though, is to pass an effective measure that will stop it; we do not want to pass an ineffective measure that is not going to accomplish the purpose. We want to stop it, and I would be very glad to hear your opinion as to just what Congress should do in order to effect what everybody wants to do, what everybody is anxious to do.

Mr. JOHNSON. Of course, I should think that one of these bills, or a consolidation or amalgamation of these bills ought to get an effective measure. I am not constitutional lawyer enough to pass on that, but I read these names here to show

Mr. IGOE. Pardon me, but listened to what you read-what was stated in that pamphlet, and it seemed to me it recommended an investigation. Now, want of investigation is not the cause of the trouble. As was said the other day about investigations, on some of these questions investigations do not get us anywhere. I do not know that they have stated in there just what Congress should pass in a Constitutional way. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case I was speaking of, referred to section 19 of the Criminal Code, "Conspiracy to hinder persons in the exercise of civil rights,' which provides:

27

If two or more persons comspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate, any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or 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 thus secured, they shall be fined, etc.

The Supreme Court of the United States in passing on an Alabama case did not render any opinion except to affirm the judgment of the court below in the case of United States v. Powell (212, U. S., 564), and this is the syllabus in that case, which says private citizens who take a prisoner from the custody of State officers and murder him, to prevent his trial, do not thereby deprive him of any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States in violation of the fourteenth amendment and they are not indictable under these sections for conspiracy to injure the prisoner.

Mr. JOHNSON. Might I say, just to clear up this point, that they urge upon the Congress of the United States "nation-wide investigation of lynching and mob murder to the end that means may be found to end this scourge," from which I suppose they must have had in mind the passing of some measure to do so. Now, might I ask the committee, is it not true that the committee itself is divided in opinion upon whether this law is constitutional or not; I mean, the committee does not feel confident that such a measure is constitutional. Is that not true?

Mr. IGOE. For myself, I will say that the matter has never gotten to that point and, so far as I know, in the meetings of the committee, the matter has not gotten down to a final decision of the case.

Mr. JOHNSON. From the mere fact we are having this hearing on the constitutionality would show there is some dispute on the question.

The CHAIRMAN. It would show there is some doubt.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would show there is some doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. That is probably as far as it has gone.

Mr. JOHNSON. But is it not true that Congress has passed a law, even perhaps where there was less urgent need for a remedy than in this case, in which there was doubt as to the constitutionality as, for instance, the first income tax law, and it has a psychological effect upon these twelve or fifteen million people-they are watching, they are wideawake, and they are listening, too.

Mr. DYER. Some two years or so ago, I took this matter up with your organization. I think Mr. Storey was the president at that time. I asked him to have this investigated or to investigate it himself and to give to me his opinion as to the constitutionality of the bill which I sent him. He wrote me that he did not believe it was constitutional. Now he is the president of the National Association for Colored People.

Mr. JOHNSON. It may be he thought that specific bill was not constitutional.

Mr. DYER. The same principle is involved in all these bills. It is the same question. And that is the only matter I think the committee could be seriously in doubt about; I do not believe any one would refuse to vote to enact a law that would give protection to the lives of the people.

Mr. JOHNSON. Of course, I may say without any disrespect to the opinions that the courts have rendered, we know practically that the courts themselves, and the higher the court the more has been the inclination, have not met these issues squarely. Of course, we know that is the practice of the courts. The court is not going to decide on the main issue if they can sidestep on a minor issue. Everybody knows the history of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, and the fourteenth amendment was drawn and adopted for the specific purpose of protecting the colored race.

Mr. IGOE. I ask you right there: This section is pretty broad that I read there, and it is upon somewhat the same theory this proposed law is based-I mean the principle underlying that section is also the principle underlying the Dyer bill and these other measures. For my own information, can you tell me has your association in New York any knowledge of any other proceedings that may have been brought under this section, in line with this Alabama case I have spoken of? Do you know of any case or effort made to bring prosecutions under that section?

Mr. SPINGARN. None have been reported.

Mr. IGOE. There was one case, as I stated, in the Federal Reporter. I think it was United States v. Moore, or something of that sort, in which, prior to this decision, the courts had held, that is, the court of appeals, I think it was, that under this section prosecution similar to that in the Alabama case might be brought. But that case never went to the Supreme Court of the United States so far as I know; and the Alabama case is the last one I know of before the Supreme Court. That was in 1909, I think.

Mr. SPINGARN. May I ask if it is the opinion of this committee that if a constitutional law can not be passed to remedy an evil which one of the Members has said is an evil which every right minded man in the country wishes to correct, that this committee

163953-20- -4

wishes to drop that matter; or is it not the fair thing to say that the only opportunity one has to pass a constitutional amendment is to make the best law you can, and, if it should be found unconstitutional, to open the way for a constitutional amendment. We have done that in the income tax, we have done that in numerous ways. The only way the constitutionality of a measure can ever be brought up is after the Supreme Court has held there is no possible way to remedy it. Mr. IGOE. I do not think this committee has finally decided this bill is not constitutional or that one can not be drafted which is; but we are talking about a principle (at least I am) of law that has been on the statute books for over 30 years, and several sections of the law have been declared expressly unconstitutional and are now eliminated from the statute which has to do with the right of suffrage, as I recollect. And I am merely discussing the matter for my own information, to get your views about it. Of course, if the principle was the same, and the Supreme Court has held that that present statute which, I think, is quite broad

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not believe so.

Mr. HUSTED. I would like to ask the gentleman what, in his opinion, the effect would be upon the country and especially upon the colored people of the country, if Congress passed a law to stop this terrible wrong and evil and the Supreme Court of the United States held it to be unconstititional?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the colored people would feel that the Government of the United States was, for the first time, sincerely interested in their welfare and the Congress of the United States had done all it could do to bring that about.

Mr. HUSTED. You do not feel that it would have any evil effect? Mr. JOHNSON. None whatsoever.

Mr. HUSTED. For the United States Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional?

Mr. JOHNSON. None whatsoever.

Mr. HUSTED. The only question in my mind was whether it would not be better policy to put through a constitutional amendment which would make it really constitutional, or whether we should take a chance on passing a bill which might be declared unconstitutional by the court?

Mr. JOHNSON. I might say, sir, that the colored people of the United States are peculiarly law-abiding people. I do not know of a single instance, even in the most radical members of the colored people, where they have fought against proper adjudications of the

courts.

Mr. HUSTED. I think that statement is very correct and justified by the history of the colored race.

Mr. SUMNERS. They show no disposition to rebel against the Government under any circumstances.

Mr. JOHNSON. Not against the laws of the Government, sir. They have shown the greatest disposition to inveigh against crimes committed against the Government. If one will read that remarkable. document prepared by the Department of Justice, "Sedition among the Colored People," he will find that practically every single thing in which the colored people are accused of sedition is a thing which every law-abiding citizen should get behind him and fight for. They are only insisting upon the enforcement of the now-existing laws.

in finding atbreng die the restrict

rely exclusively in the fond memen also, in the Classmann rauĆ TOM ISTA İ

government de Yan

The States are the dive

choose to prevents the 12 DOVELLASS 1. DOETRO1 lynchings, the retire mot them the Su

the violation of the Consumer need Get godem and they do not prevent polartrate of the focacch

in that we do not give eLL TOADIL

Mr. YATES. In what burning suested this might be unconstitutional! Wonen is a supposed to vilate the Constinetion of the United States

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Constation grant power to do any thing of this kind! You see the Constitution does not give us any power not specifically contained therein.

Mr. YATES. Not delegated!

The CHAIRMAN. Not delegated to Congress.

Mr. YATES. Yes. I understand that. It is just a general objection, then.

Mr. TROTTER. I just want to say to the Congressman in regard to that question about the amendment. first: The colored people (I want to speak for them: Mr. Spingarn has spoken for the friends and has spoken very well for them feel that we ought to have the benefit of the easier way. It is a good deal harder to pass an amondment than it is to pass a Congressional law. If we pass a Congres sional law and then the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional