ANTILYNCHING AND PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Met, at 10:30 a. m., Hon. William T. Byrne, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. BYRNE. Gentlemen, we have been a little bit delayed this morning, as you will observe, but we are ready now to proceed with these bills under previous discussion. We will be very happy to hear the Attorney General and others who may wish to give us their point of view on these civil rights bills. General, would you like to proceed first? Attorney General CLARK. If it is agreeable to the committee. STATEMENT OF HON. TOM C. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General CLARK. It is always good to be before the Judiciary Committee of the House and particularly pleasing to be here on a subject that is so important, I believe, to our country. Mr. BYRNE. You may be seated if you wish. Attorney General CLARK. Thank you. This bill that we were going to discuss with the committee today is H. R. 4682, known as the omnibus bill involving some of the recommendations that were made by the Civil Rights Committee that was headed by my friend who is here today, Mr. Charles Wilson, and some other distinguished Americans, and was later transmitted to the Congress by the President. This bill could, you might say, be divided into four parts. The first provision of the bill is the creation of a five-member commission. It is known as the Commission on Civil Rights. These members would be charged with the duty of studying the problem incident to civil rights through finding out facts concerning the over-all problem throughout the United States, compiling data, making research of caes that have occurred in the past, possibly acting as a clearinghouse where some case occurred in some State. Perhaps they would like to contact this Commission and let them clear some of the State action as well as the Federal action. But I think the main thing would be to act somewhat by way of education. By that I mean that this Commission, from time to time, would possibly make reports to the President and to the Congress and in that way bring to the attention of the American people: first, the progress that we have made. We have made tremendous progress in this field. Second would be the current problem. Third, perhaps they would point out some of the current cases implementing the document by showing some of the incidents that have occurred and perhaps making some suggestions. This commission does not have, you might say, any power. They cannot force anyone to appear. They have no subpena powers, as it is proposed in this act. It would be merely a sounding board, a place where one might go and state his case if he wanted to. This commission could look into various problems incident to the over-all picture in civil rights. In the past I think Congress has had a number of commissions. I noticed in the press this morning where the Hoover Commission wound up its work just a few days ago. That was a commission along this same line except it was along, as you well know, the line of reorganization of the Government. When you created the Council of Economic Advisors that advises the President, you also created the National Security Resources Board that acts in an advisory capacity and makes studies and carries on research in the field of our national resources. There is plenty of precedent for this type of operation. The second thing the bill does is create a joint committee of the Congress. I think the suggestion made by the commission, of which Mr. Wilson was the chairman, was that this continuing committee, somewhat like the Atomic Energy Committee, which is a joint committee of the Congress in the field of atomic energy, that this committee would function in the field of civil rights. That does not mean they would take away from other and standing committees of the Congress the right to pass on legislation that through the years has been assigned to standing committee. This joint committee would be what you might call a watchdog. They could also carry on studies that perhaps a standing committee would not be in a position to carry on. This joint committee of the Congress does have the right of subpena. I think the personnel of it would be seven from each House, seven appointed by the Speaker and seven appointed by the President of the Senate. This joint committee could do a very fine job in this field, I think. They could make a continuing study of legislation while the citizens' committee would make a study and correlate and collect facts with reference to what is going on in the field while the joint committee might make a study from a legislative standpoint with the view of sometimes strengthening a law here or perhaps passing some new law with reference to this problem. The third thing in the bill is the creation of a civil rights division in the Department of Justice and the authorization of the appointment of an assistant attorney general. As you well know, assistant attorneys general are appointed under authority only of the Congress. At the present time we have an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division. The Criminal Division of the Department handles some 50,000 cases a year at this time. During the war there were many more than that on account of the Selective Service Act. A portion of this division is what is known as the civil rights section. It is a small section. On the average during the 10 years since the creation of this section by Attorney General Murphy in 1939, the average personnel of lawyers in the section has been seven to eight. At the present time there are seven. There are three stenographers. This section handles a tremendous amount of work. I remember when I was the head of the Criminal Division. Mr. Schweinhaut, who is presently a justice in the District of Columbia, was the head of the civil-rights section of the Criminal Division. The civil-rights section also handles the wage-and-hour law. The Fair Labor Standards Act, I think, is the correct title. It also handles the Safety Appliance Act. That is with reference to safety appliances on railroads. It also handles what is commonly known as the "kickback statute." That is with reference to labor. I think we have had some prosecutions up in the chairman's country 2 or 3 years ago where someone is required to kick back a portion of his salary in order to get a job. That is handled by this section. The violations of the Hatch Act are handled by this section. Most prosecutions of this section, I expect, have been in the Hatch Act field. To give you a little thumbnail sketch of what goes through that section, in 1944 they had about 20,000 complaints in the civil-rights and Hatch Act field. You will find from this little statistical presentation that I have that in the election years there are more complaints, which shows, I think, that quite a number of these complaints are Hatch Act violations. In 1945, for example, the complaints dropped down to 4,421. That was down from 20,000. There were 64 prosecutions in 1944. Some of those, of course, did not arise out of the 20,000 complaints. Sometimes it takes us 6 or 8 months and sometimes a year to investigate a complaint sufficiently to where we have evidence to go into court. In 1945 without the complaints then on file there were 32 prosecutions. In 1946 complaints jumped to 7,229. In that year there were 15 prosecutions. These prosecutions are prosecutions under the civilrights statutes only. They do not include Hatch Act violations. In the group of sailor cases in Kentucky I think there were 99 cases that we prosecuted in that one county. That was in about 1944. This would not include those. These cases include only the civil rights. In 1947 the complaints jumped to 13,000. That is an off-year, as far as elections are concerned. There were only 12 prosecutions that year, however, in the civil-rights field. In 1948 complaints were a little over 14,000. There were 20 prosecutions in 1948. We estimate this year complaints will run about the same as last year. I think the economic conditions have something to do with the complaints. We know that when times are hard we have found that complaints run higher. On the average, during the 10 years of the existence of the section, I would say 10,000 complaints a year would be a fair average. There were about a hundred thousand complaints during that 10 years. In addition to processing these complaints and requesting the FBI to investigate those that seemed to have some substance, and also appraising the investigative reports, handling the prosecutions through the United States attorneys, usually, this section also handled some of the briefing. For example, in the restrictive covenant cases that we intervened in in the Supreme Court, that section briefed that case insofar as the Government's brief was concerned. That is a celebrated case in the civil rights field. The section is kept very busy. In fact, the boys really need additional help. I think the idea of creating a division is being put forward with the view of perhaps placing these prosecutions on a little higher level, giving a little more dignity to the division by having an assistant attorney general at the head of it. It would possibly have more attention. They would have more than the seven lawyers they have now in there with a division. The cost of creating the division would depend on the number of lawyers you placed in it. The cost of making the section chief an assistant attorney general would be negligible. However, if you increased the division to the size that possibly would be commensurate with the number of complaints and the importance of the legislation and the prosecution, you ought to have perhaps as many as 50 lawyers in the section, which would be about seven times as large as it is now. That would cost approximately $6,500 to $7,000. That would be a total of about $50,000. Mr. KEATING. Was that part of the recommendations of the commission, the creation of this new division? sir. Attorney General CLARK. Yes, sir; and that is part of this bill, too, The commission recommended that very strongly. They came into the department through some of their executive help and went through most of the files with reference to prosecutions and with reference to these complaints. In that way they got a very fine picture of the operation of this section in the department. The fourth division of this proposed act is with reference to an amendement to existing law. One section is a new section altogether. I thought if you would turn to page 10 of the committee print I could point out to you just what some of the changes are. In that way we will be able to follow it a little better, I think. It is our position that the Congress has the authority to enlarge in this field and to set out more definitely just what an offense is, as well as to make certain that the protection and provisions of the Constitution with reference to this field are carried out by legislative acts. It has been contended that the Constitution itself is sufficient, and that the amendments, particularly the thirteenth amendment, were selfexecuting. But Congress has seen fit, and the courts have upheld its action, to implement these amendments by the passage of such acts as the Congress felt were necessary in the public interest in order to see to it that the provisions of the Constitution were properly applied. In doing that, the Congress passed, in 1870, I believe it was, a very comprehensive act. Since that time I would say it has been whittled down either by decisions of the courts or by direct repeal by the Congress itself, to just a handful of acts. Insofar as civil rights are concerned, you might say there are just three or four. The old sections 51 and 52 and section 241, which is the same as section 51, have to do with any persons that conspire to injure or oppress or take away any of the federally secured rights of any other person. It has been held that the word "citizen" that is presently in section 241 does not include an inhabitant who is an alien. That is an old case that I think was decided in 1887, Baldwin against Franks. We thought that ought to be changed. In section 242 it does include inhabitants. We had suggested in this bill that the word "citizen" be stricken out and in lieu thereof the words beginning on line 17 "inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District" be substituted. That is in order to enlarge the statute so it would include any person rather than just a citizen. We thought it a little strange that the Congress creates an offense here where two or more people get together and conspire to do these things but it does not make it an offense for a individual to do so. Section B on page 11 is a new section. That merely extends the same penalties to individual action. Section A that we were just speaking about is with reference to conspiracy of two or more people while B is limited to individual action so if any one person commits the offense he is guilty. The Commission had suggested that the penalties in some instances were very small. These sections are what we call misdemeanor statutes. The penalty is a year and $1,000 fine. In some cases it is very meager. For example, in the Screws case where a sheriff was alleged to have tied a boy to a car and dragged him for several miles, the idea is ridiculous of the maximum penalty for an offense like that, resulting in death by the way, being so low. Mr. JENNINGS. That is where the sheriff killed his prisoner? Attorney General CLARK. Yes, sir; he died in jail later. The Supreme Court reversed the case, holding that the court erred in not instructing the jury that they had to find that at the time Screws, the sheriff, was committing this offense, that he had the intent to deprive the victim of a federally secured right, which is quite a burden for any prosecutor to prove and quite a burden for a jury to find. On the retrial of the case Screws came clear. He was not prosecuted in the State courts. We have another problem which is the Crews case. That is a Florida case. He was beaten up by an officer and became unconscious and was thrown over a bridge into a river and he drowned. Mr. CELLER. I think he forced the Negro to jump into the river. Attorney General CLARK. In that case, the penalties were very small and there was no prosecution on the State's part. We have provided that where death or maiming results the penalty should be increased to $10,000 or 20 years or both. That certainly makes it commensurate with the offense. If it does not result in death or maiming the same penalties that are presently in the law would apply. Section C on page 11 is a new section. Section C is an attempt to give a person a civil remedy where his rights have been violated under section 241A or B. Presently a person can bring a suit for damages for the injury that he suffered. That is all he can do. This section would also give him the right to proceed by injunction or by securing a declaratory judgment. That would be particularly good in these personal-injury cases where someone has a feud on and perhaps you could get an injunction against being bothered. Sometimes they do that in divorce cases. In that way you might have a little ounce of prevention. Also in voting cases you might be able to get an injunction where you had notice or information that one or more people were conspiring to deprive you of a proper count of your ballot. That is the |