[S. 505. A bill to protect persons within the United States against mob violence of lynching]

VI. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO PROTECT AGAINST LYNCHING

What has been done in Congress to make lynching and other assaults by public officials or private citizens, acting either in concert or individually, on persons or property because of race, color, religion, or national origin, a Federal crime? Legislation to make lynching a Federal crime was killed by filibuster in 1922. This matter has been before Congress continually since that time but has not been brought to a vote in the Senate.

That the old style of lynch-type action is not dead (i. e., removal of a prisoner from jail and inflicting violence on him) has recently been illustrated in the Jesse Woods case in Florida. According to reports, Woods was removed in October 1956 from jail in Wildwood, Fla., by a mob, taken to an isolated spot, and flogged. Fortunately, he was not killed.

Organized mob violence and terror of the Ku Klux Klan variety, in collusion with enforcement officials, are reappearing in new forms. The modern-day lynchers organize economic boycotts and reprisals, or bomb or otherwise injure individuals who do not conform to established patterns in the community.

Examples of the worst of these incidents are the George W. Lee, Lamar Smith, and Emmett Till murders in Mississippi, and the wounding of Gus Courts in that State.

Each legal victory by Negro citizens brings a series of bombings or other violence by antidemocratic forces. The total is too large to enumerate, but a listing of some follows:

On Christmas 1956, in the evening, the home of Rev. F. L. Shuttleworth in Birmingham was bombed and his children were injured. Reverend Shuttleworth is the leader of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights.

Two days prior to this, mobsters had fired into the home of Rev. Martin Luther King, the leader of the Montgomery bus boycott.

In August 1956, the home of Lutheran minister, Rev. Robert Graetz, a sympathizer with the Montgomery bus boycott, was bombed.

In August 1956, the home of Booker T. Gulley, in Mobile, Ala., was burned after it had previously been blasted by shotgun fire. Mr. Gulley had moved into a previously all-white section of town.

A similar incident occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, on January 3, 1956, when the home of Attorney John G. Pegg was bombed. No successful prosecutions have taken place in any of these cases, either by State or Federal Governments. It is essential that antilynching legislation apply in all circumstances where the violence is precipitated because of race, color, religion, or national origin, and not just in those instances where law-enforcement officials are involved. Otherwise, acts of violence by private citizens will continue to go unpunished, and many of our citizens will remain inadequately protected.

The bill I now introduce is a revised version of S. 900 which was favorably reported by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights in 1956. It is designed to make it a criminal offense, punishable by a sentence up to 20 years, for 2 or more persons to commit violence on a person because of his race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, language, or religion, or for the purpose of punishing such person for alleged crime. It also makes it a criminal offense for any governmental officer charged with the custody of a prisoner to neglect to protect such prisoner or to fail to apprehend or prosecute any member of a lynch mob. It authorizes the Attorney General to investigate violations of the act. It provides civil remedies for the victim or his next of kin against lynch-mob members.

[S. 508. A bill to strengthen existing civil-rights statutes]

X. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO STRENGTHEN EXISTING CIVIL-RIGHTS STATUTES

This bill is identical to S. 905 of the 84th Congress. The need to enlarge the scope of Federal legislation protecting the rights of individuals to liberty, security, and citizenship is very clear. This can be achieved by enacting new legislation, and it must also be achieved by strengthening existing civil-rights laws. One such law to be strengthened is a criminal-conspiracy statute (18 U. S. C.

241) which has been used to protect rights secured by the Federal Government against encroachment by private individuals and public officers. Section 201 of our bill is designed to achieve that effect. It does so by extending the protection of the Federal Government to any "inhabitant" of the United States, not just a "citizen" alone. Our courts have ruled (Baldwin v. Franks (120 U. S. 678)) that an alien does not come within the protection of the statute. In deciding that case the Court stated:

"It may be by this construction of the statute some are excluded from the protection it affords who are as much entitled to it as those who are included; but that is a defect, if it exists, which can be cured by Congress, but not by the courts."

The amendment which this bill proposes would bring the language of the statute into conformity with other supplemental protective statutes (18 U. S. C. 242). Under the broader statutes, the courts have already decided (United States v. Classic (313 U. S. 299)) that an inhabitant is protected from interference by a State official in his constitutionally protected right to vote in a congressional election or primary. There is more than the need for conformity to support this section, however. The protection of inhabitants is a well-established public policy of our country. We, in fact, subscribed to that policy in the United Nations Charter to promote respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.

This bill would make a further change in the existing statute by protecting inhabitants not only when their Federal rights are infringed upon as a result of the conspiracy but also where the infringement is performed by persons acting individually. Whenever a person enjoins, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any inhabitant of the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of his rights and privileges, that inhabitant should be protected by our laws.

Our bill would also plug gaps in the existing laws insofar as civil remedies to the aggrieved are concerned. The present statute (sec. 47, title 8) appears to provide a civil remedy whenever a citizen's rights are interfered with as a result of a conspiracy. Even this remedy is inadequate, as demonstrated by a recent Supreme Court decision (Collins v. Hardyman, June 4, 1951). It appears to me, and I am pleased to report that this and the other recommendations of the bill apparently have the support of the Department of Justice, that a civil remedy should be provided the injured person, either where he has been the victim of a conspiracy or the victim of individual action to interfere with his rights and privileges as an inhabitant of the United States. Such an individual, therefore, should have the right to sue those found guilty of violating the law, whether the violators are public officials or private citizens. These suits should be brought in the Federal courts or appropriate State courts no matter what the sum of money involved in the controversy.

One other question has been raised by the courts (Screws v. United States (325 U. S. 91)) with regard to the rights, privileges, and immunities which inhabitants of the United States should enjoy. The courts have held (Pullen v. United States (164 F. (2d) 756)) that our statutes protect inhabitants only against being deprived of their constitutional rights "willfully." The proof of a general "bad" purpose alone may not be enough. We therefore consider it essential to enumerate in some detail some of the rights to be protected by our laws. All of these rights have already been sustained by the courts and are not new. The rights we desire specifically to set forth follow:

1. The right to be immune from exaction of fine without due process of law. (Culp v. United States (131 F. (2d) 93).)

2. The right to be immune from punishment for a crime except after a fair trial and confession after due process of law. (Screws v. United States (325 U. S. 91); Crews v. United States (160 F. (2d) 746); Moore v. Dempsey (261 U. S. 86); Mooney v. Holohan (294 U. S. 103).)

3. The right to be immune from physical violence applied to compel a confession of a crime or to exact testimony (Chambers v. Florida (309 U. S. 227); United States v. Sutherland (37 F. Supp. 344).)

4. The right to be free of illegal restraint such as being detained by a sheriff without jurisdiction. (Catlette v. United States (132 F. (2d) 902); United States v. Trierweiller (52 F. Supp. 4).)

5. The right to protect the person and property without discrimination by reason of race, color, or national origin. (Catlette v. United States; Yick-Wo v. Hopkins (118 U. S. 35).)

6. The right to vote as protected by Federal laws. (United States v. Classic (313 U. S. 299); United States v. Saylor (322 U. S. 385); Smith v. Allwright (321 U. S. 649).)

[S. 509. A bill to strengthen the criminal laws relating to peonage, slavery, and involuntary servitude]

XI. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO STRENGTHEN THE LAWS RELATING TO CONVICT LABOR, PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

The bill I send to the desk is identical to S. 904 of the 84th Congress. I earnestly hope that this measure will achieve the merited attention which it has been denied in the past.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, the Department of Justice received 85 complaints concerning possible peonage and involuntary servitude. I have not checked to see what the present rate of complaints is, but I have reason to believe that the number of complaints has not diminished in recent years. Peonage, of course, is a form of unvoluntary servitude rising out of a payment of a debt. It is essential that our laws be strengthened so that this form of involuntary servitude will be eliminated once and for all from our society. This is certainly the intent of the 13th amendment to our Constitution. Our existing laws (secs. 1581, 1583, and 1584 of title 18, U. S. C.) declare the following to be a crime: Holding or returning persons to conditions of peonage; arresting persons with the intent of pressing them or returning them to conditions of peonage; kidnaping, arresting, or carriyng away persons with the intent that they be sold into involuntary servitude or held as slaves; enticing, persuading, or inducing persons to go on board vessels with the intent that they be made or held as slaves; and knowingly and willfully holding persons to involuntary servitude or selling a person into any condition of involuntary servitude. There are two basic changes which must be made to strengthen these laws. First, it is essential to make clear that to hold an individual in involuntary servitude is punishable. Secondly, it is important that not only the acts described above be considered criminal, but an attempt to commit the acts be in itself criminal. Every human being must have the right to be protected in this most vital area of his personal security and human dignity.

During the 82d Congress I was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations. We had brought to our attention specific evidence of peonage which our staff investigated. The staff informed me that the persons reduced to peonage are impoverished, uneducated colored men, and that all persons having knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the peonage are for one reason or another extremely reluctant to discuss it.

The system apparently calls for certain law-enforcement officers to release prisoners to the custody of employers when theose employers pay the fine or post the bond necessary. The prisoners remain with their employers until the fine is repaid through payroll deductions. When the bond is posted, employment continues until the time of trial. If the accused leaves employment before the time of the trial, the bond is withdrawn and the accused is again put in jail.

This is an outrageous state of affairs. There is evidence of conspiracy with police officials which the Justice Department must investigate. Our laws must be strengthened to deal with this problem, and our enforcement officers must be reawakened to the need for firm and serious activity.

[S. Con. Res. 5. A concurrent resolution to establish a Joint Committee on Civil Rights]

VII. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A JOINT COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The concurrent resolution I now submit is similar to Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 of the 84th Congress. It would establish a Joint Congressional Committee on Civil Rights. Its purpose is to have the joint committee make and conduct a study on matters related to civil rights and civil liberties, to study means of improving responsibility for and enforcement of civil rights; and to advise with the committees of the Congress who have the legislative responsibilities relating to this vital area.

The joint committee would not be a legislative committee, but it would have the authority to hold whatever hearings it deems necessary with the power of subpena to carry out its functions.

Its functions would not only be be advisory with regard to the Congress and its legislative committees but it would also have the function of consulting with representatives of State and local governments and with private organizations vitally interested in the preservation of human rights.

The purpose of the resolution is to help highlight congressional responsibility in this crucial area.

Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR.,

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
Washington, D. C., February 14, 1957.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS :I am enclosing herewith my statement on behalf of the AFL-CIO in connection with the current civil-rights hearings being conducted by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I request that this statement be made a part of the proceedings of the hearings.

You are aware, I am sure, of the deep interest which the AFL-CIO has in the enactment of meaningful civil-rights legislation. Experience has demonstrated, unfortunately, that such legislation has failed of enactment not because of the merits of the case against enactment but because of the great difficulties involved in defeating the obstructionist tactics of the opposition. Because of the great need to complete the current hearings as expeditiously as possible, the AFL-CIO is forgoing the privilege of asking for a personal appearance before your committee.

In forgoing a personal presentation, however, we should like to make one reservation. There has been submitted to the Senate by Mr. Goldwater, of Arizona, a proposed amendment to S. 83 which would make the so-called right to work one of the civil rights covered by the proposed legislation. This is so obviously unrelated to the purposes of civil-rights legislation as to suggest a willful desire to hamstring the civil-rights deliberations and thus prevent any action. Clearly, the Goldwater proposal properly belongs before the Labor and Public Welfare Committee for consideration along with other proposals for the amendment of the Taft-Hartley Act.

If in the course of the present hearings there is presented a defense of the Goldwater proposal and there develops any significant consideration thereof, the AFL-CIO wishes to reserve the right to present direct testimony to show how irrelevant and how vicious the proposal is. Furthermore, if the subcommittee does give serious consideration to such an extraneous issue, then we believe that it should consider another matter with real civil-right implications. I refer to the violence being visited upon representatives of labor organizations in the exercise of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly, frequently with the help of local officials. Our only reason for not pressing this matter at this time is the need to expedite consideration of and action on the bills now pending before you.

You and the members of your committee are to be commended for proceeding so early in the session in this vital matter.

Sincerely yours,

ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,, Director, Department of Legislation.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations takes this opportunity to express its great satisfaction at the speed at which the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proceeded to consider and act upon civil-rights legislation in the 85th Congress. The chairman of the subcommittee, the Honorable Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri, and the other members of the subcommittee are to be commended for this determination to bring to a successful conclusion this very vital piece of unfinished business.

Civil-rights legislation has been unfinished business for altogether too long a time. The Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights voted out four civil-rights bills on March 2, 1956, but the full committee never took any action on these bills or on the administration proposals which were made following the actions of the subcommittee. When the House-passed bill covering the administration 89777-57--12

proposals, H. R. 627, came over to the Senate on July 23, it was referred to the Judiciary Committee and there it lay pigeonholded until the end of the session. The AFL-CIO expresses its earnest hope that the Senate will not again in 1957 be the burying ground for civil-rights action. This need not be so if the preponderant majority of the Senate which favors civil-rights legislation will make a determined effort to see the fight through once and for all. If necessary, the Senate must be prepared to break a filibuster. Let us at long last have a showdown on the merits of civil-rights legislation-not on parliamentary maneuvering skill.

During the first week of the 85th Congress there was a hopeful sign that the Senate would succeed in doing in 1957 what the Senate has been prevented from doing for too many years.. The near doubling in just 4 years of the number of Senators ready to change rule 22 is an indication of the strong support for action which has developed. The very wide sponsorship of civil-rights bills is another indication of the support.

What possible excuse can there be for further failure to enact some meaningful civil-rights legislation? We have just gone through a national political campaign. Both major political parties, the President of the United States, and the vast majority of all those elected to the Congress in 1956 have pledged themselves to work for the enactment of such legislation.

The Democratic platform of 1956 said, in part:

"The Democratic Party is committed to support and advance the individual rights and liberties of all Americans. Our country is founded upon the proposition that all men are created equal. This means that all citizens are equal before the law and should enjoy all political rights. They should have equal opportunities for education, for economic advancement, and for decent living conditions * * *.

"The Democratic Party pledges itself to continue its efforts to eliminate illegal discriminations of all kinds, in relation to (1) full rights to vote, (2) full rights to engage in gainful occupations, (3) full rights to enjoy security of the person, and (4) full rights to education in all publicly supported institutions."

The Republican Party platform of 1956 said, in part:

"We support the enactment of the civil-rights program already presented by the President to the 2d session of the 84th Congress

"The Republican Party has unequivocally recognized that the supreme law of the land is embodied in the Constitution, which guarantees to all people the blessing of liberty, due process, and equal protection of the laws. It confers upon all native and naturalized citizens not only citizenship in the State where the individual resides but citizenship of the United States as well. This is an unqualified right, regardless of race, creed, or color."

In his state of the Union message earlier this year, the President reaffirmed his campaign pledges by calling upon the Congress once again to enact civil-rights legislation which he had recommended to the 84th Congress. In this message, he stated:

"Steadily we are moving closer to the goal of fair and equal treatment of citizens without regard to race or color. But unhappily much remains to be done. "Last year the administration recommended to the Congress a four-point program to reinforce civil rights. That program included:

"(1) Creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate asserted violations of civil rights and to make recommendations;

"(2) Creation of a Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice in charge of an Assistant Attorney General;

"(3) Enactment by the Congress of new laws to aid in the enforcement of voting rights: and

"(4) Amendment of the laws so as to permit the Federal Government to seek from the civil courts preventive relief in the civil-rights cases.

"I urge that the Congress enact this legislation."

The AFL-CIO expresses the hope that the Senate will proceed expeditiously to adopt at the very least the recommendations outlined in the President's messagerecommendations which coincide with the action taken by the House last year in H. R. 627 and now included in S. 83. Certainly the needs in 1957 are no less than they were a year ago.

We do not intend to burden the record with information or augmentation which duplicates the detailed material, already available to the committee. We wish, however, to make several observations regarding the AFL-CIO's attitude about the general problem of civil rights and the overall program needed to help solve this problem.