The Dallas express. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1893-1970, 1921-08-20
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
HOLDS LYNCHING BILL
CONSTITUTIONAL.
Assistant to Attorney Gener-
al Gives Opinion on COnstitu-
tiOnality Of Bill Against Lyn-
ching.

The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, 20
Fifth Avenue, New York, today made
by the Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives. at
which Judge Guy D. Goff. assistant
to the Attorney General of the United
States testified that in his belief the
Dyer Anti-Lynching bill was con-
fttu0nSl tt and crt would be tSs held so By
States, IL enacted into law.
One of the chief objections which
has been urged against a federal an
ti-lynching bill is the question of its
of the Assistant to the United States
Attorney General disposes of this OBJ
Judge Goff based his Interpretation
unon the 14th Amendment to the Con-
stitution which prohibits a State from
denying to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of
The State can deny this right
Judge Goff, "as readily as it can
through a legislative or judicial
act, # a state, acting through its
right there is a direct appeal. If the
record has properly raised the point,
to the Supreme. Court of the United
States. If the legislative department
denies the right we know. of course,
how the right is preserved and en-
forced
of the United States has never affir-
matively so far as 1 have been able
to find, invaded the field, and by
appropriate legislation under this con-
stitutional provision sought to re.
States from Denying this riRN is nc
, take take such appropriate action as WIN
tend to protect their and similar
Judge Goff against summarized his
opinion by saying that ''it has been
definitely established that there is a
can invoke this power within the
limit and according to the provisions
of constitutional limitations; and that
Congress having so invoked the power
/ can enforce it to the fullest extent
Mr.. Reavis. one of the members OF
the committee then asked Judge Goff:
'If I understood you correctly, the
mere passage of a law by Congress
seeking to guarantee to an individual
the rights granted under the four
teenth amendment would not fore
close the issue of fact as to whether
TO which Judge Goff replied, in
part: mo: but / would say this;
That If Congress saw fit to pass a
law which came within the meaning
as the courts have defined that mean
ing, of the fourteenth amendment
that then the courts could not con-
duct an inquiry as to whether Con-
gress was justified in deciding what
is generally termed a legislative act
Congress as we know, can take affir-
native action or not upon. many ques-
tions within its jurisdiction."
nf the nnharg of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr.. Hersey. then put the
Suppose that up in my state-which
has a law against mobs and rlotous
semblages, and criminal laws, as most
States have, against murder, unlaw-
full killings, etc, a mob should as
semble. or there should be riotous
assemblages and criminal laws, as
of a person. without the knowledge
of the sheriff of the country or any
State officer and that no official of
the State, who has the duty of en-
forcing the law, should be present OF
have any knowledge of it, would
that make the State guilty under the
Judge Goffs reply was in effect
that the State could no more plead
ignorance than could an individual as
an extenuation for violating the law
He said: II think that would make
the State guilty under this statute, II
it We're enacted, because the State
could be charged with the omission
to have sufficient power at its COM
CONTINUED on Page 2.)