Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1921-08-20
RACE LEADERS COZ
FERENCE In CHICAGO.

Tho National Association for tue
Advancement Of Colored Pcople, 20
Fifth avenue, New York, today made
public extracts from the hcarIngs by
the Committee OH tho Judiciary OF
the House of Representatives, at
which Judge Guy d. Golf, assistan.
to tho Attorney General If the Unit
ed States testified that iii his belle!
the Dyer Anti-Lynctins bill was cen
atitutional and would hc held so by
the Supreme Court OF the United
States, IL enacted Into law.
One OF the chief oh icc Ions which
has been urged against federal anti
lynching bill is the question of its
constitutionality. and theo testimony
Of "hc Assistant to the United States
Attorney General disposes of this OBJ
lection.
Judge Golf based his Interpretation
upon tho Nth Amendment to the Con
stitutiOn which prohibits Il state
from denying to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection oil
the laws.
"The State can deny this right
through an executive officer said Judge
Goff, 'as READILY as 1t can through I
Legislative or Il judicial act. If a state
acting through its highest judicial ofh
Ger denies this right there Is II direct
appeal, If the record has propcrI,
raised The point, to the Supreme Court
of the United States. If the legisla-
tive department denies the right we
know, of course, how the right is pre-
served and enforced.
The mere fact that the Congress-
or the United States has never aflrma
lively, so far as l have been able to
flnd, invavcd inr field. ard by app,
pirate legislation under this constitu
tlonal provision sought TO rcstra'r the
executive officers Of the Stacs from dc
nying this right is no reason WHY Con
grcSs should no. now take such appro
pirate action as will tend to protect
their and similar rights?
Judge Golf again summarized his
opinion by saying that at has been la
1inltrly established that there is n
Federal police power: that Congress
can invoke this power within the linn
II ANA according to the provisions
constitutional limitations: and tina.
Congress having so invOkd the DOW
CT can enforce it to the fullest OK.
tent"
MIR. Reavis, one of the members Of
the committee then asked Judge Cor
IF | understood you correctly. thu
mere passage Of Il law by ConsrcSs
seeking to guarantee to an individual,
ne rights granted under the four.
tecnth amendment would not fore.
c'osc the issue Of fact as to whether
or not he had hccn denied those rights
by Il State"
70 which Judge Golf replied, in
part: mo: but I would say this.
'fhat If Congress saw fit to pass a law
which camc within the meaning, as
the courts have defined that meaning.
of the fourteenth amendment, that
then tho courts could not conduct an
inquiry rs to whether Congress was
Justified In deciding what Is generally
termed legislative act. Congress, as
:" know, can take Affirmative action
or not upon many questions within
its jurisdiction.
One Of the members of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr.. Hersey, then put tho
following question to Judge Goff:
"Sunposc that up in my statc-which
has Il law against mobs and riotous
asscmblagqs and criminal laws, as
most States have. against murder, IN
lawful killings. etc.-a mob should as
semble or there should be a riotous
assemblage resulting in the lynchins
OF person, without the knowledge Of
the sheriff Of the county or any State
officer, and that no official of thu
state. who has the duty OF enforcing
the law, should be present or have
any knowledge Of It. would that make
the State guilty under the statute?
Judge COTS reply was. in effect,
that tho State could no more plead
ignorance than could an individual
as an cXtenuation for biolating tho
law. He said: II think that would
make the State guilty under this sta,
ute, If it were enacted, because tho
State could be charged with the omis
sion to have sufficient power at ia
command, at every instant OF time.
to enforce the law, or to protect tho
rights OF the individual. The State is
not to be heard to plead ignorance of
the facts or inability to maintain
law or order"
JuuSe Ioi conclusion WaSglVon by
him as follows: Must the Congress
OF this country st supincly by when
it knows thai Il State. either atnrma.
lively or negatively IS denying that
right? If the State omits to give 0.
withholds protection through motives
indifference or inability, is tho
guaranty performed and the duty Of
the Federal Government discharged'
lin word IS the fourteenth
amendment meaningless because OF
State negatively? l hope not, and l
think not.