Digital
History>eXplorations>Lynching>Anti-Lynching
Legislation of the 1920s>Comments by Patrick Drewry
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Comments by Patrick Drewry (January
17, 1922)
MR.
DREWRY. Mr. Chairman, in a legislative experience of some years
I thought I had seen bills presented for attention that held within
them possibilities of evil so great that it was inconceivable
how the human mind could imagine such measures being enacted into
law; but in my whole experience I have never seen a bill that
seemed to me to be fraught with so many and such possibilities
of danger in it as this, known as the anti-lynching bill. This
measure is unnecessary and would be useless if enacted. It is
unjust and unfair to a certain section of our country, because
it would create a dangerous condition among the people of that
section. It is unconstitutional in that it nullifies the most
fundamental principles of our government, principles which have
been established for nearly 50 years. I am not opposed to a proper
law to prevent lynching. No one denies that lynching is a crime.
I admit, however, I can see no real necessity for another law
to punish murder-for that is what lynching is, of course. We now
have laws to prevent homicides, but you can hardly pick up a newspaper
that you do not read of several. The trouble is not a lack of
laws but a lack of enforcement. We have too many laws, and the
country would be better off if there could be a suspension of
legislation for a few years while the authorities have a chance
to catch up with those already on the books. The Republican Party
is now being blamed by the country for its continuous sessions
of law enactment. Business men everywhere are saying that if they
had been allowed to struggle along and depend upon themselves
they could have worked out their own salvation by this time; instead
of that they waited on Congress to pass laws to make t hem prosperous,
and in a Micawber-like attitude you can see them all over this
country of ours still waiting; and they will continue to wait,
for legislation of itself does not make men prosperous any more
than it makes them good.
Human
nature is the same today as it was yesterday and as it will continue
to be 100 years hence. You may have a law that prescribes punishment
for a murderer, but murders are still committed and will be committed
until you impress in the heart of man the love for his fellow
man that crowds out the blackness of hate and ignorance. You can
then go further and pass a law penalizing every specific method
by which a homicide is committed. In the pursuance of that you
can specifically describe the punishment to be meted out to anyone
who deprives or attempts to deprive another of life without authority
of law. You will then have another law on your statute books,
that is true. But when the good wife, bleeding and choking and
gasping for breath from the cruel fingers at her throat so recently
released, staggers out into the field where her husband is working
and tells him that a fiend in human form attacking her while she,
singing in her home, was preparing for his home-coming, and that
her tender body had been outraged and the sacred purity of her
womanhood had been violated; when that husband picks her up senseless
from the shock and bears her back to the home which they were
making together, and after the doctor has arrived and the woman
is told that the death she craves to hide her shame will not come,
what then becomes of your man-made laws? Back to the old Mosaic
law the husband goes, back further than that, way back to the
jungle days of his primitive ancestry, when the male protected
his female from those who would do her harm. All the laws under
heaven will fail to restrain his desire to punish the injury.
His friends and neighbors join him with the same instinct aroused
in them, and the further fear that the same horrible thing may
happen to them if that brute or other brutes who hear him boast
of his exploits were to escape the consequences of their crimes.
Only too well they know the law's delay-their minds revolt at
any chance of uncertainty of his punishment. It is the primal
instinct of man and can not be trifled with. The criminal must
be punished, and without delay. Those are the two elements that
cause what is called "lynching"-a feeling of retributive
justice to be meted out, and the desire that there should be no
possibility of escape for the criminal.
|