"America in coming into this war thought that all the world had now become conscious that there was a single cause of justice and of liberty for men of every kind place.

B. By Premier Lloyd George of Great Britain:

"I feel sure that at the peace conference we shall be able to cooperate faithfully to promote the reign of peace with liberty and true democracy throughout the world. C. By M. Clemenceau, of France:

"Those sons of America who succumbed in our common battle for justice and for right repose in our fields where the liberty of the world was won.

ANNEX B. CONTRIBUTION BY COLORED AMERICA TO PROSECUTION OF WORLD DEMOCRACY WAR.

A. Soldiers:

1. Four hundred thousand plus, under selective service draft.

2. Four regiments of Regular Army.

3. Two regiments and several companies of National Guard.

4. Thousands joined French and British armies.

(Many thousands volunteered and were refused because of their color.)

B. Money, work and sacrifice contributing to—

1. Five Liberty loans.

2. War savings stamps.

3. Y. M. C. A. and Knights of Columbus charities.

4. War community service.

5. United war work fund.

6. Food conservation, etc.

ANNEX C. DENIALS OF LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY TO COLORED AMERICANS.

From the official records of the Congress of the United States of America, the House of Representatives, the Congressional Record, June 29, 1918:

First. We are the victims of civil proscription, solely because of race and color, in three-fourths of the States and in the national capital (Federal territory), barred from places of public accommodation, recreation, and resort-yes; from such places within Government buildings.

Second. We are the victims of class distinctions, based solely on our race and color, in public carriers in one-third of the States; segregated even when passengers in interstate travel and with the railroads under the control of the Federal Government.

Third. We are the victims of caste and race prejudice in Government, military and naval schools and in officer schools with other citizens solely on the basis of race and color, and in the Navy itself, except in the service below deck.

Fourth. We are the victims of proscriptive discrimination, based on our race and color, in the executive departments of the Federal Government, refused employment in many after appointment through the civil service, segregated at work in the appointments of health and comfort.

Fifth. We are the victims of political proscription in one-third of the States, even in the election of Federal officials, in violation of the Federal Constitution, both indirectly by congressional representation based on disfranchisement and directly through intimidation, trickery, or State statutes and constitutions.

Sixth. We are the victims in many States, as a consequence of the foregoing civil and political proscriptions, of imposition, robbery, ravishing, mob violence, murder, and massacre because of our race and color; denied protection of police, of sheriffs; denied trial by court and jury; rendered impotent to protect our daughters, wives, or mothers from violation by white men or murder by the mob. (From petition of National Colored Liberty Congress, introduced in the House by Representative Gillett, now the Speaker of the House.)

Seventh. Refused accommodation in public inns to some extent in Cuba, since Spanish-American War and in Canada by persistency of United States propaganda.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES W. JOHNSON, OF NEW YORK, FIELD SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE COLORED RACE.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am going to speak very briefly because there are others, of course, who want to be heard. I want to reinforce what both Capt. Spingarn and

Mr. Trotter have said about the doubtfulness of the constitutionality of this bill which leads to Congress taking action. I wish to say that those who differ in the opinion generally expressed that such a measure is unconstitutional, we have these names which I am going to read (not all of them), signers of an address to the nation, and in this address to the nation the last paragraph reads as follows:

The undersigned, therefore, as citizens of the United States without sectional or party bias, with the interest only of the Republic at heart, urge all public-spirited men and women to oppose with all their power the recurrence of the crime and the shame of mob murder: they urge the governors of the several States to do all that is possible to prevent and punish lynchings; they pledge their support to the officers of the law, who, in the face of mob excitement, discharge their duties; and 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.

Among the signers of that appeal who urge Congress to take this action seeking to remedy this matter, are William Howard Taft, former President of the United States; A. Mitchell Palmer, Attorney General of the United States; Edward Osgood Brown, former judge of Cook County circuit court; Charles J. Bonaparte, former Åttorney General of the United States; Charles Nagel, former Secretary of Commerce and Labor of the United States; Charies Evan Hughes, former justice of the United States Supreme Court; Elihu Root, former Secretary of State of the United States; George W. Wickersham, former Attorney General of the United States; and I could name a great many others, presidents of bar associations and governors of States, both North and South.

That raises a doubt in favor of Congress taking action upon this thing.

There is no need for me to rehearse these facts about lynching. Mr. Trotter himself has already set forth one of the most horrible cases, but that does not stand unique, the case of Mary Turner does not stand unique.

There are cases after cases that could be duplicated, time after time. As has been said, in this present year, there were 14 of them burned at the stake. And not always for the usual crime, for the usual crime has come to be the unusual crime. You will see in the statistics put out for this year, that out of 84 lynchings, in only 14 cases was there any accusation of an attempt against womanhoodonly 14 accusations out of 84 lynchings.

But aside from all questions of constitutionality, it is a question of action on the part of Congress. Twelve or fifteen millions of people can hardly understand why the National Government can not do something to protect them in this matter. I hold in my hand here a reproduction, a facsimile reproduction from the New Orleans States, the top one, and then on the side from the Jackson Daily News.

In large headlines "3,000 will burn Negro." I am just giving you an example of what goes on in the United States, not a solitary example, but merely an illustration of what is more or less common. The article is headed:

[New Orleans States, Thursday, June 26, 1919.]

THREE THOUSAND WILL BURN NEGRO-NEGRO JERKY AND SULLEN AS BURNING HOUR NEARS TO BE TAKEN TO SCENE OF CRIME AND STOOD BEFORE CROWD. ELLISVILLE, Miss., June 26 (Special).

As 4 o'clock approaches, John Hartfield, assailant of the Ellisville white girl, is being carefully guarded in the office of Dr. Carter of this city. The wounded Negro has confessed and seems very nervous.

Dissention has broken out among the indignant citizens as to what disposition should be made of the prisoner.

It is said the Negro will be taken to the scene of his crime, near the Ellisville railroad tracks, where he attacked Miss Meek, and will be stood up where everybody can see him.

Some of the angry citizens, it is said, want Hartfield lynched, while others want him burned.

ELLISVILLE, Miss., June 26 (Special).

Walter Crawley and Will Rogers, two farmers, were members of the posse who shot Hartfield in the shoulder and effected his capture.

Three thousand strangers are in Ellisville to-day to witness the disposition of John Hartfield, Negro assailant of Miss Meek.

Officers are unable to control the crowds.

HATTIESBURG, MISS., June 26.

John Hartfield, Negro assailant of an Ellisville young woman, has been brought to Ellisville from Collins and is guarded by officers in the office of Dr. Carter in that city. He is wounded in the shoulder. The officers have agreed to turn him over to the people at 4 o'clock this afternoon when it is expected he will be burned.

[From the Jackson, Miss., Daily News, Thursday, June 26, 1919.]

JOHN HARTFIELD WILL BE LYNCHED BY ELLISVILLE MOB AT 5 O'CLOCK THIS AFTERNOON-GOVERNOR BILBO SAYS HE IS POWERLESS TO PREVENT IT-THOUSANDS OF OF PEOPLE ARE FLOCKING INTO ELLISVILLE TO ATTEND THE EVENT SHERIFF AND AUTHORITIES ARE POWERLESS TO PREVENT IT.

HATTIESBURG, June 26.

John Hartfield, the negro alleged to have assaulted an Ellisville young woman, has been taken to Ellisville and is guarded by officers in the office of Dr. Carter in that city. He is wounded in the shoulder but not seriously. The officers have agreed to turn him over to the people of the city at 4 o'clock this afternoon, when it is expected he will be burned. The negro is said to have made a partial confession.

GOV. BILBO SAYS HE IS POWERLESS.

When Gov. Bilbo was shown the above dispatch and asked what action, if any, intended to take to prevent the affair, he said:

he

"I am powerelss to prevent it. We have guns for State Militia, but no men. It is impossible to send troops to the scene for the obvious reason that we have no troops. A committee of Ellisville citizens has been appointed to make the necessary arrangements for the event, and the mob is pledged to act in conformity with these arrangements.

Rev. L. G. Gates, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Laurel, left here at 1 o'clock for Ellisville to entreat the mob to use discretion.

A thing like that, possible in the daily papers, published in the United States of America! If that is not enough to call for action on the part of the Government, I know of nothing that could possibly move it. And now the 12,000,000 or 15,000,000 Negroes in the United States can not understand this committee or Congress itself quibbling over whether the preponderance of opinion is for er against the constitutionality of a measure such as contemplated here.

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 ar 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:

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