The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-02-17
BY HARRY HAYWOOD

I'vil tlle Republican and Democratic
ertles. Doubtless, the introduction Of
lese bills at this time, is the result
inc rising movement Of the masses
isalnst lynching. But are these bills
ctually directed toward stamping
II lynching? Let us examine the
s'stlgan- Wagner bill, typical OF the
tBt.
This bill, introduced by Senator
fostgan Of Colorado, and Wagner of
eW York, is sponsored by the Ma
onsl Association for the Advance
lent OF Colored Peonle (NAACP),
10 hes become the focal point
round which the refonnists and So
Psl-Iesclst elements, including white
oeral friends" of the Negro, North
nd South, are modified. According
10 its SPONSORS, the passage by Con-
Ifess OF such q bill, will put a stop
10 lvnching. They imply that the
tolution Of lynching does not hinge
Upon the organized revolutionary
light Of the masses, but on the mere
Passage of a bill. DiSregarding for
The moment this treaeherous assunp-
ion on the part of the reforrnists, a
concrete examination of the bill it.
felf. will bring out clearly It's reac-
fionarv character as a weapon, not
hgainst the lynchers, but against
hose who seriously wish to fight
lynching.
The bill provides a definition of the
erm mob" which throws light UPON
he uses for which it is intended. 1t
describes mob as IAN assembisee
1f three or more persons acting in
concert, without authority of law, for
he purpose of depriving any person
1t his life, OF doing him physical in
Hurry"
This definition is similar to that
Used in the famous VIRGINIA Anti
/ ynching Bill, which, although there
have been numerous lynehings in Vir-
ginia since its passage, has only been
Used once, and that not in lynch
case, IT was used. on the basis OF
lust such 3 definition of a "nob,"
against strikers who defended them
selves against an attack by gangstsrs
led nv police officers. Under this de-
iinition, any assemblage Of workers
p demonstration of share troopers
against local landlord. q mass
picketing of workers in a strike, and
even demonstration against lynch
ing-could be defined as q mob"
and the participants prosecuted
under an nd-lvnching' law.
In effect, the bill would leaglize the
murder of Negroes by landlords and
their police, rs happened at Camp
Hill and ReeltoWn, Alabama. Crop
pers ana poor farmers organizing to
resist seizure by the landlords of
their land, tools and livestock, would
Je defined as a mob acting in
Ionssrt, without authority Of law"
md their resistance as "for the pur-
'ose Of doing physical injury"
b those seeking to wrest rom them
heir means Of livelihood.
THE Coetigan- Wagner bill provides
! that the federal court shall shave
l1-'-r''"+ior''- over the prosecution OF
lynchers, whether they be officers of
the stpte or merely sangsters. It pro-
yides that q sheriff or other oficer
who fails to protect prisoner in his
sustoody from lynehing, shall be
liable to fine of 5000 and i'm
trisonnent for not more than five
Iears. or, Tor proved participation, OF
Imprisonment Of from five years to
life.
This on the surface appears to be
a considerable concession to the anti
lynch movement. But let us analyze
it carefully; let us go below the sur
face. 1t is clear that this section of
the bill seeks to foster the lie that
there is q difference between the at
titude Of the Federal and local courts
on the Negro question.
The CAPITALISTS and the reformist
leadership of the N.A.A.C.P., while
admitting the possible partialitv of
local courts, would have lis believe
that this is not the case with the in
stitution Of the Federal government.
Oh, no! The Federal courts are i'm
partial, and not influenced BY vui-
gar class and national strife. This. in
the face Of overwhelming proof, that
in every important issue involving
copf7'"t between Cypress d and op-
pressor. the federal courts, including
that court OF ''last Illusions" the y.
S. Supreme Court, have invariably
ruled in the interest of the oEpreS-
sors. Even In the Scottsboro Case, the
US. Supreme Court at first attempt
cd TO avoid having to make ruling.
When finally forced bv mass pressure
to hear the appeal filed by the IN
bsrnstional Labor Defense and TO
rant new trial. the Us. Supreme
Court carefully avoided all funda-
mental issues raised by the defense.
such as the systematic exclusion Of
Negroes from juries III jackson and
other counties Of A1abana,-issues
which strike at the very heart Of the
system OF lynehing and national op-
preston, and involve the constitu-
tiona1 rights OF the Negro people.
{ stead. the Supreme Court based It's
decision on the least fundamental Of
the reversible issues-dsnial OF ade-
sIate defense to the accused.
n Is it not clear that even In this
decision. the august
sntlemen Of the Us. Supreme Court
lad an eye TO the interests Of the
southern ruling class lynchers7
But an even more brazen defense
OF the ruling class lvnchers Is given
in the attempt by the federal court
Of baltimore to disbar Bernard AIDES,
LID. attorney. in punishment for
his militant defense of Euel Lee and
his vigorous struggles for the consti-
tutional and democratic rights Of the
Negro people. Here we have case
where the federal court Is used by