The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-02-27
The New Kind of Lynching

ganda in the house and the senate.
The democrats, who could control no
Negro votes and could therefore be
more frank about their intentions, fili-
clustered for hours at time to pre-
vent the bill from coming to vote,
using for their arguments all the lies
that have for years poisoned the
minds of southerners. Representative
Garrett of Tennessee had this to say:
"You gentlemen do not know what
1t is to live in section where wire
dare not travel alone in the fields.
| You do not know what it is to raise
a daughter who after the age OF ten
years lives under the shadow of a
DamocIean sword. When you put
these ideas into the heads of those
few black beasts of their race,
you are increasing the commission
| of crime"
And Representative Prout of North
Carolina: "How do you think the black
beast will view this law" And Gar
rett appealed to the anti-Chinese pre-
judice of ignorant California repres-
entatives, told them that they were
confronted with perplexing race
question" and begged them to stand
with the opponents of the Dyer bill in
resisting interference of the federal
government in state affairs" What
ever you people in the west decide to
do in working out your problems"
said Garrett, 1--WE of the south will I'M
derstand."
Soon came the news that the anti
lynching bill had divided the repub-
hcans in congress. Some of them
thought the bill Unconstitutional"
Others considered it unnecessary"
Still others thought that it would be
"unwise" to hold up other legislation
for this one bill"
But the Negro leader, James We'll
don Johnson, himself a muddled fol-
lower of the republican party, let the
truth of the matter out when he pub
licly declared a year and half ago
that there exists "gentlemen's agree
ment" between the republican and de-
mocratic party leaders, by which it is7
always managed that just enuf votes
are cast against the bill in the senate
to defeat it, or filibuster is allowed
to kill it,-while the republicans re-
tain the reputation of being "for" it.
But as far as there is any contro-
versy between northern republicans
and southern democrats over this bill,
it is a controversy between the par
ticularism of the backward, rural
south and the industrial north, to
whose interest it is, generally, to ex-
tend federal jurisdiction over all
phases of life in the back-country %
the south. But to pass this "anti-
lynching" bill is not necessary to the
purpose. and it was easy to reach the
"gentlemen's agreement" to let it die.
Finally however, the bill passed the
house, with II republicans voting
against it. In fewedays, to the sur
prise of many, the senate committee
reported favorably on the bill. Little
doubt was expressed that, if the bill
were allowed to come up, it would
pass.
Now the republicans were in an
embarrassing position. Fortunately for
them, the democrats in the senate be-
gan determined filibuster. to prevent
the bill from coming up The next day,
word came from the republican caucus
that their dread of an extra session"
would probably force them to drop
the anti-lynching measure" And the>
day after that, the New York Times
carried the headlines: "Filibuster kills
anti-lynching bill. Republican senators
in caucus agree to abandon the Dyer
measure. Majority promises democrats
bill shall not be called up again in
present congress-" Senator Lodge
said: "The conference decided very
reluctantly that 1t was our duty to
set aside the Dyer bill and go on
with the business of the session."
And there tho Dvar hill hoe lo;,,