|
Digital
History>eXplorations>Lynching>Anti-Lynching
Legislation of the 1930s>Walter White to Senator
Costigan
Walter White's Letter to Senator Edward Costigan (November 27,
1933)
Source:
NAACP Papers, Library of Congress
My
dear Senator Costigan:
I
am writing to inquire if you would be willing to introduce in
the coming session of Congress a federal anti-lynching bill.
"As
you doubtless know, a bill which was drafted by our Legal Committee
was introduced in Congress some years ago by Congressman L. C.
Dyer of Missouri. This bill passed the lower house in 1922 but
was defeated by a filibuster in the Senate led by senators from
states which had the worst lynching record. The publicity on the
bill played a very important part in the stirring public sentiment
against lynching and there has been a steady decrease in the number
of lynchings since the Dyer Bill passed the House. This year,
however, there has been a most alarming recrudescence. On November
17 the twenty-third lynching since January 1 occurred, against
ten during all of 1932. One of the worst of these was the burning
of George Armwood at Princess Anne, Maryland. Attorney General
Preston Lane sent the names of nine of the lynchers, with evidence
against them, to the prosecuting attorney at Princess Anne who
refused point blank even to arrest these men. His refusal was
based on the belief, so he asserted that if he arrested the men
a mob would come and free them.
It
is out conviction that only a federal law will be effective in
reaching lynchers in those states and those sections of states
where no state authority will be effective.
Under
separate cover I am sending you a copy of the Dyer Bill and copies
of briefs sustaining its constitutionality. I send you also copy
of "Lynching and the Law" by J. H. Chadbourn, published
by the University of North Carolina Press and of "Rope and
Faggot", a study of lynching made by myself under a fellowship
from the Guggenheim Foundation.
There
are, of course, lawyers who have doubts as to the constitutionality
of a federal bill against lynching. It is our conviction, however,
that only the United States Supreme Court can determine whether
a bill is constitutional or not. It is our further conviction
that the situation is so grave that it is the duty of Congress
to pass such a bill and let the United States Supreme Court determine
is constitutionality.
It
is also our feeling that the contention of some of the defenders
of lynching or of the opponents of federal legislation that lynching
is nothing but murder is not altogether a sound argument. Lynching
is more than murder. It is anarchy when a mob sets itself up as
a judge, jury and executioner. In doing so it not only violates
whatever rights the lynched [man has] but also deprives him of
his rights as a citizen of the federal government…"
P.
S. – Since this letter was dictated there have occurred
at San Jose, California, two lynchings: Thomas H. Thurmond and
John Holmes, confessed kidnapper-slayers of Brooke Hart, were
taken from jail and hanged on November 26. It is reported in the
press that when Governor James Rolph, Jr., was advised of these
lynchings he said, "This is the best lesson that California
has ever given the country. We show the country that the state
is not going the tolerate kidnapping." Later dispatches declare
that Governor Rolph has stated that he will pardon any person
convicted for this lynching.
No
one can question the horribleness of the kidnapping and murder
with which these two lynched men were charged. At the same, Governor
Rolph's attitude can lead to nothing but a complete breaking down
of our whole system of law enforcement. His attitude and that
of the DistrictAttorney in Maryland are glaring examples of the
need of federal legislation against lynching. -WW
|
