SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 11:15 a. m., Hon William T. Byrne (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BYRNE. The committee will come to order.

Gentlemen, we are ready now to take your testimony. We have here a schedule of witnesses. The first witness is Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, general secretary, Federal Council of Churches.

We will be happy to hear you.

STATEMENT OF DR. SAMUEL MCCREA CAVERT, GENERAL
SECRETARY, FEDERAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Dr. CAVERT. My name is Samuel McCrea Cavert. I am general secretary of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America. I appear in behalf of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, which is a federation of 27 national denominations with a combined membership of more than 28,000,000.

The position which the council has continuously supported for 15 years is set forth in an official resolution of its executive committee on March 23, 1934, expressing the conviction that "national legislation is a moral necessity to bring the Federal Government into prompt and effective cooperation with the State and local authorities in the prevention of lynching and the prosecution of lynchers."

The executive committee of the council, on March 16, 1948, authorized the presentation of testimony at congressional hearings on the basis of this resolution. In accordance with the regular practice of the council which permits any denomination to disassociate itself from any position with which it may not be in full agreement, I make record of the fact that the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern) is not included in this presentation.

The council's support of antilynching legislation centers around the basic moral and spiritual principle that every person is entitled to protection of life and liberty, regardless of racial or national background. As the churches said in their official declaration on human rights adopted at the biennial meeting of the council in Cincinnati last December:

All of the rich gifts which God imparts to men should be available to all without discrimination as to race, color, sex, birth, nationality, social or economic status or creed.

Applying this principle to concrete problems, the statement defines the basic human rights to which all are entitled as including

Freedom from *

* mob violence and intimidation

and the right, when charged with crime, to a fair and just trial according to recognized law. On this point the statement clearly affirmed. that there should be

equal rights before the law, which include police protection, the right of an accused person to a fair and public trial, the right to counsel, the right to be confronted by written indictment, evidence, and witnesses against him, the right to present in his own behalf his own witnesses and evidence, the right to have the judgment of his actions depend upon an evaluation of the facts by an impartial jury of his peers.

I confine my testimony to these clear moral considerations, derived from the religious faith which the people of our Nation profess. I do not enter into any discussion of the administrative provisions of the bills before you, since on these points the churches have no special competence, but I cannot too strongly emphasize the conviction that the continuance of lynching presents a great moral challenge to our Nation and requires effective legislative action.

The ultimate remedy, as in the case of other moral problems, lies not in legislation but in the development of the conscience of the people. We believe, however, that the enactment of a Federal antilynching law would set a needed standard and serve as a deterrent to irresponsible groups in any community. Such action is urgently necessary not only as an expression of the national conscience but also for the sake of the good name of the United States in the eyes of the world.

If we fail to put our house in order with respect to such an elemental matter as the right to protection of life under due processes of law, we shall play directly into the hands of those who are today attacking the American way of life. To set up every possible safeguard against lynching is a part of the front-line defense of our democracy.

My official duties include rather extensive contacts with religious leaders in other lands, especially in Europe and in Asia. Through many years I have found that the fact of lynching is one of the most widely publicized things about the United States among other peoples, and one of the things that does most to lower our prestige abroad. Other people simply cannot understand why, if we really believe in justice and law, as we profess, we do not as a Nation do something about the flagrant disregard of justice and law which goes under the name of lynching.

I have never forgotten, if I may cite a single illustration, what Rabindranath Tagore, the famous Indian poet, said to me 30 years ago after he had made a visit to this country. He said:

Do you really think that there is any ethical or spiritual superiority in the civilization in which lynchings occur year after year and yet the National Government is indifferent to it?

I had no answer to that question. I had none then and I have none now. I hope that you will help to provide an answer.

The General Assembly of the United Nations recently adopted a universal declaration of human rights. In securing that action our own country, we may broadly say, has played a distinguished role, but, Mr. Chairman, our real leadership as a Nation in the field of

human rights will depend not so much on what we write into such a document as this but on what we do to provide an example of vigorous concern for human rights. I know of no more important and strategic point at which to begin than to put our Government on record as determined to remove the blot of lynching from our national

escutcheon.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. LANE. Dr. Cavert, as secretary of the Federal Council of Churches, would you be kind enough to tell me how many churches make up the council?

Dr. CAVERT. There are 27 national denominations, which include approximately 150,000 local congregations.

Mr. LANE. And those congregations are from all over the United States?

Dr. CAVERT. Oh, yes.

Mr. BYRNE. North, south, east, and west?

Dr. CAVERT. North, south, east, and west. I should add that the strength of the council is perhaps not quite so great in the South because one numerous body in the South does not belong to the council, since on general principles it is not particularly concerned about cooperation with other churches.

Mr. BYRNE. Is that the Baptist or the Methodist?

Dr. CAVERT. The Southern Baptists.

Mr. BYRNE. Known as the South Baptists?

Dr. CAVERT. That is right.

Mr. BYRNE. Have they joined the North Baptists?

Dr. CAVERT. No.

Mr. BYRNE. The Methodists have.

Dr. CAVERT. Yes.

Mr. BYRNE. The Methodists of the South and the Methodists of the North are now united?

Dr. CAVERT. Yes.

Mr. DENTON. Are those the southern missionary Baptists?

Dr. CAVERT. The official name is the Southern Baptist Convention. You are thinking about another organization.

Mr. LANE. How many people would be represented by your Council of Churches?

Dr. CAVERT. Between 28 and 29 million.

Mr. LANE. You are speaking for that entire group?

Dr. CAVERT. I am recording the official position of the council which it has taken through the delegated representatives of this entire group, with the exception which I noted of one of the southern churches which asked not to be included in this presentation.

Mr. LANE. Is there a substantial membership in your association of churches from the South?

Dr. CAVERT. Oh, yes; with the exception of the Southern Baptists. Mr. BYRNE. We will now hear from Elmer W. Henderson, Director of the American Council on Human Rights. You are the director of it?

62936-50-ser. 18- 8

STATEMENT OF ELMER W. HENDERSON, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. HENDERSON. I am.

Mr. BYRNE. You may proceed, Mr. Henderson.

Mr. HENDERSON. Gentlemen, I have the honor to represent the American Council on Human Rights, a cooperative program of seven national fraternities and sororities dedicated to seek the extension of fundamental human and civil rights to all citizens of our country and to secure equality of justice and opportunity to all without discrimination because of race or religion.

The American Council on Human Rights fully endorses the Civil Rights Act of 1949 and urges you to report it favorably for speedy action on the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill can be passed by the House before adjournment this summer, and we hope you will conduct your deliberations with that aim in view.

The arguments for the passage of this legislation have been set forth with great cogency in the report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights. This document, released nearly 2 years ago, has been discussed and debated throughout the length and breadth of the land. It has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the people. Those who have opposed it have been, for the most part, hysterical and unreasoning. They have sought to play upon the fears and prejudices of groups in certain sections of the country rather than meet this problem squarely. I hope the members of this committee will not be swayed from your solemn duty by that dwindling minority of racists and bigots.

The objectives of this bill have been recommended either explicitly or implicitly in the 1948 platforms of both major parties. Civil rights was a prime issue in the election of the President and of many Congressmen and Senators. The results of the election indicated that the voters of this country want action, such as proposed here, to bring our day-by-day practices in line with our democratic professions. Speaking for at least one part of them, we are disappointed that so little action has been taken by the Eighty-first Congress to date.

We are heartily in favor of parts 1 and 3 of title I of H. R. 4682 on the creation of a Civil Rights Commission in the executive branch and Joint Congressional Committee on Civil Rights. We are particularly interested in part 2 of title 1, which will reorganize the civil-rights activities of the Department of Justice. In our judgment, these activities are of such importance and demand such specialization that they should be incorporated in a Civil Rights Division under an Assistant Attorney General. Unfortunately, the civil-rights activities of the Justice Department are currently languishing because the Attorney General has not seen fit to appoint a chief of the Civil Rights Section, a vacancy nearly 9 months old. We do not know the reason for this, but we feel the post should be filled as soon as possible.

Under title 2, we are glad to see the civil-rights statutes of the United States strengthened. There has been no question but that the Federal authorities have been handicapped in the investigation and prosecution of many cases because the statutes are ineffective and ambiguous. The pending bill seeks to deal with this and spells out specific immunities the invasion of which will warrant Federal action.

There should be no controversy over these points. They are already implicit in the law. The courts, however, have been reluctant at times to allow prosecution unless the specific immunity was spelled out. What objection could there be to spelling out the following:

Section 242A:

ཙཝཱ ཏི ཏི

(1) The right to be immune from exactions of fines, or deprivations of property, without due proces of law.

(2) The right to be immune from punishment for crime or alleged criminal offenses except after a fair trial and upon conviction and sentence pursuant to due process of law.

(3) The right to be immune from physical violence applied to exact testimony or to compel confession of crime or alleged offenses.

(4) The right to be free of illegal restraint of the person.

(5) The right to protection of person and property without discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(6) The right to vote as protected by Federal law.

Part 2 of title 2 which deals with political participation is a vital and much needed section. It is common knowledg that in many areas of the South interference with the right of Negroes to vote is frequent and widespread. Just 2 years ago in Georgia, where a recent brutal lynching took place, a Negro veteran was shot down in cold blood because he dared to vote. Such impertinence could not be tolerated by the shabby apostles of white supremacy in that county. The late Senator Bilbo of Mississippi took to the radio the night before election and called on the white people of that State to stop Negroes from voting any way they could. A senatorial investigation of that incident was made. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that lynchings, beatings, the Ku Klux Klan, and all of the other bold and subtle tactics they are using are not going to stop our people from voting in the South. We are not afraid. We will not be intimidated. The enactment of this section will hasten the coming of democracy to the South.

Part 3 deals with segregation in interstate transportation. Here is an area that is wholly and solely Federal. Interstate travel is regulated by Congress and the Interstate Commerce Commission. There is no reason why facilities should not be available to all people who pay their fares without discrimination or segregation. The segregation that currently exists on trains and busses is degrading and humiliating to my people. It should be outlawed. We have just one suggestion regarding this section. The word "terminals" should be incorporated to remove any doubt that they are covered.

We hope, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this subcommittee, that you will act to report this bill favorably to the full committee and that the full committee will act likewise and report the bill favorably to the House of Representatives, where action can be taken in a reasonable length of time on the floor of the House.

Mr. LANE. What was done by the local authorities in the shooting of that colored veteran in Georgia?

Mr. HENDERSON. As I recall and I might say the respresentative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Mr. Perry, is here and can speak with great authority on that particular case an investigation was made, not only by the Federal Bureau of Investigation but by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I am almost reasonably certain that no corrective action was taken, and none of the people who were involved were ever prosecuted.