Digital History>eXplorations>Lynching>Anti-Lynching Legislation of the 1930s>Walter White's Statement About Gavagan and Mitchell Bills

Walter White's Statement About the Gavagan and Mitchell Bills (April 3, 1937)

Source: NAACP Papers, Library Congress

MITCHELL'S PLEDGE TO GAVAGAN

1. January 5, 1937, Congressman Gavagan introduced his anti-lynching bill, H. R. 1507; January 8, 1937, Congressman Mitchell introduced his anti-lynching bill, H. R. 2251

2. Congressman Mitchell promised Congressman Gavagan he would not press his anti-lynching bill but would support Congressman Gavagan's anti-lynching bill, in exchange for Gavagan's support of Mitchell's civil service bill, H. R. 3691

3. February 18, 1937, Congressman Mitchell told these mutual promises in a speech before the Washington, D. C., Bar Association, at the Mu-So-Lit Club, Washington, D. C.

4. The same week Congressman Mitchell asked Congressman Gavagan when Gavagan was going to file his discharge petition, and asked permission to sign it as No. 2.

5. March 3, 1937, Congressman Gavagan Filed his discharge petition, No. 5.

6. March 8, 1937, Congressman Mitchell announced the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee had agreed to hold a hearing on his anti-lynching bill.

7. Congressman Mitchell never signed the Gavagan discharge petition, and approached certain other Congressmen and tried to dissuade them from signing.

Chairman Sumners himself announced that hearings on the anti-lynching bills would be held Wednesday, Mach 31. On March 29 Congressman Gavagan obtained the 218 th signature, and the petition became binding, and his bill became scheduled to come before the House on his motion April 12th .

Wednesday, March 31, Chairman Sumners held his Judiciary Committee hearing on the Mitchell anti-lynching bill. April 1, the next day, he made a favorable report on the Mitchell bill with emasculations. Such speed is almost unheard of; and what was the reason for Chairman Sumners to be in such a rush after refusing hearings on anti-lynching bills for years? The reason is that under the House Rules he has the privilege as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of calling up the Mitchell bill before the House on April 7 th , wheras the Gavagan bill cannot be called up until April 12th . Since there is no way for him to escape an anti-lynching bill coming before the House, he and his Southern bloc prefer an emasculated bill as the "lesser of two evils."

The Mitchell bill, H. R. 2251, if passed does not come into operation unless the officer, without lawful justification or excuse, permits the prisoner to be taken from his custody or the latter unlawfully injured while in his custody. No affirmative duty is placed on the officer to use all diligent efforts to protect his prisoner; no affirmative duty is placed on any other officer to come to his aid. The Gavagan bill makes it a felony for any officer who is charged with the duty or possesses the authority to fail to use all efforts to protect a person in the custody of the law, whether in his particular custody or not.

The Mitchell bill punishes the sheriff for letting the prisoner be taken but does not attempt to punish him for failing to arrest the members of the mob. The Gavagan bill not only makes it a felony for the sheriff to fail to make all diligent effort to arrest the mob, but also makes it a felony for him to fail to keep them in custody, and a felony for the prosecuting attorney for failure to prosecute. The Mitchell bill has no such provisions…

Wire your Congressman immediately not to vote for the emasculated Mitchell bill but to vote for the Gavagan bill, H. R. 1507. Urge him to be on the floor Wednesday, April 7, to see that
Chairman Sumners does not ease over the ineffective Mitchell bill, and on the floor April 12, to vote for the Gavagan bill, H. R. 1507. Make it clear to him that the friends of Federal anti-lynching legislation will not be satisfied with just a complimentary gesture and an ineffective bill, and that they want an anti-lynching bill with teeth in it, the Gavagan bill, H. R. 1507.