Digital
History>eXplorations>Lynching>Anti-Lynching
Legislation of the 1920s>Comments by Edgar Ellis
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Comments by Edgar Ellis (January 18,
1922)
Mr.
Ellis: I will not discuss the evidence of this in detail, but
if anyone will read the matter my colleague [Mr. Dyer] has inserted
in the record of this debate, he will be convinced not only of
the demand but that the demand was quite as insistent and almost
as general in the South as in any other part of the country. In
1920 the Republican Party was out of power. It was appealing to
the American people to be put back into power. As a part of that
appeal to voters it engaged to grapple— held out assurance
that a Republican Congress would grapple— with this monstrous
evil. This bill is the effort of the Republican Party now in power
to keep faith. Now, why and where does the shoe pinch? The shoe
pinches because our brethren of the minority, fine gentlemen all
of them, smart politicians, clearly see and realize that if this
bill shall be perfected, shall be enacted into law, and shall
work— shall be effective in suppressing in some substantial
degree the lynching evil— the Republican Party will profit,
just as a political party always profits that keeps faith with
the people in doing things that ought to be done. But that is
not all. It is just as clearly seen that if the Republic Party
should make no effort, or if, making the effort, shall fail in
this program, it will suffer loss, just as a party always suffers
loss when it breaks faith or fails to keep faith with the people.
So the spirit that is troubling the waters here is not the spirit
of a mob; it is the spirit of the politician. The party responsible
for what is not done is not to be stampeded by threats. Gentlemen
of the minority, in the play of politics, may prance before us,
call us names and apply epithets, we shall not be perturbed if
only they do not forget to smile.
But,
Mr. Chairman, they tell us in thunder tones that this proposal
is unconstitutional. It may be, in little part or big part or
altogether. As I said at the beginning, I am disposed to discuss
the policy of this proposal. I shall be troubled neither by the
constitutionality question nor by my duty under my oath with respect
to the measure until it is perfected here. The people want something
done, and so help me, so far as I am concerned, the opponents
of this bill must marshal some other argument beside the old,
pestiferous bugaboo of State rights. I demand to be shown that
my National Government has not the inherent right and power to
protect its citizens from mobs and to preserve its very life and
conserve its civilization.
|