Minneapolis spokesman., 1957-05-17

w t''''tH fAAf i'i+tAAfiG AANN r
deprlycs election officials. who
a constitutional right 10
spurious, Roy Wilkins. NAAt
here this week.
In letter 10 units OF the As
soctauon throughout the country.
Mr wilkins warned that foes OF
civil rights by bringing up this
issue, are seeking 10 sabotage the
bill which Is now bottled up in
the House Rules Committee and
the Senate Judicial Committee
The bin designed 10 protect the
right % vote, has bipartisan sup
port II would enable the U. s.
Attorney General to infinite civil
action against local officials and
others who interfere with the
night 20 vote Persons found gull.
~ would be held IN contempt il
they disobeyed the order of a
federal district court Judge 10 dis.
continue such Interference.
Amendments Eloutcd
TT is now coutendca that the
provision for civil notion and in
juHctlye procedure by the Attor-
uey General would deprive elcc.
ton officials who disfrauchisr
Negro citizens of their "consutu-
tonaI night 20 a trial by jury"
The NAACP leader asserted.
The state and regional govern.
ments which have shamelessly
flouted the lith and 18TH Amend
ments TO the H. S. Constitution
las well as sections ot the Biu OF
Rights, which have encouraged
and defended the registrars in the
flouunE and which have come 10
power at home and IN Washing
ton by reason on this fouting.
have now the unmitigatcd gan 10
advance the transpareutly spur
ious claim that The proposed bin
would violate a constitutional
right"
The truth is that the bin would
deprive no one OF any constitution
al right" Mr wilkins told local
leaders Of the Association The
constitutional right 20 jury trial
In criminal action remains Any.
one charged under the criminal
code win have. gs IN the past, the
right 10 a jury trial
No Constitutional Guarantee
But there is not and has never
been any constitutional guarantee
Of a jury trial In the type Of
civil action provided By the blI
One cannot be deprived Of some.
thing that does not exist These
court orders are isaisd only after
a hearing before a Judge IN which
witnesses are heard and the ac-
cuaed has counsel and the right 20
cross examine II the Injunction
should be issued and disobcyed tre
defendant be- found IN contempt
and the punishment is assessed by
the judge who lswied me order
The defendant would have the
night % appeal
Meanwhile support for the
EhACP position came from Nit
rheH Franklin. professor o. lsw AZ
Tulane University IN New or
leans IN a letter 20 the New
York Times published on May .
Mr. Franklin cited Assistant At.
f0rney General Warren Dlueys
condemnation of attempts 20 null
hfy the bill By providing Tor trial
BY jury
'RePres~iye Conditions
The Justification q the ingunr-
tive procedure in sgits IN equity
the law professor pointed ogt.
may te readily explained end !
understood In ths uRht q th-
generally reprcsmva conditions I
prevailing fn uost q ths south I
today. the consequences q which I
arc taat requirements and prrzgr I
poslt{nns for The administration 4
% ne jury system 90 not exist I
Ths jury system cannot flourish .
if TIE iary - nat free from fear I
ard II o cannot make obisrtlv,
determinations
Further. Mr FrarEl7 a..
serted rhs lnfro1ucuun as ~.
Jury into equity activity xhs-
O. Is not carsutJijauAIy rsq1r.I /.
under ths social cirruu~ta-css 4
which obtain tn most os N.
sogth Al present would ~ NJ
Olasy says - -sisyrr 8ev.e. 10
H4.bfy civil rights Legislation
Not Nsx PyopysaI
EsrEeT. On April ~ Rocco.
Drmmoad wash3rxtaa cores Z
pa-tsnt u trs Ssg York H.rrla
TRIBUNE Eaid ,hat -tht Dura-t.
me-t % Jlatics has zsea SUR pr1
~ars-ra fe4uire rstaf 1- a-ti- i
trust cases Wrrs 1870 srd has
similar rrvrsrv to enforce fte
At1-r E~eEry Act ,se Fsfr IA
49,. af--.fa-fa A.. -. u. -sFt..-