sure organizations to destroy the rights of the several States and deliver them into the hands of centralized bureaucracy.

It cannot be said too often or too strongly that there is no need for additional legislation in this field. Enactment of these bills can only result in strife, bitterness, and confusion in the relationship between the States and the Federal Government.

I earnestly urge you gentlemen, as members of this committee to reject this legislation and, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity which this committee has afforded me to express my views on this pending legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. A very able statement, Judge.

Do you have any questions?

Mr. YOUNG. Just a few, Senator.

Judge, I call your attention to the definition of the lynching bill. I presume you are well acquainted with this new wide definition that is included in lynching in S. 900.

Mr. DAVIS. I have read it; yes, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. I would like to paraphrase that definition and bring out how far reaching it is. It says if two persons-it can be two-attempt to inflict damage upon another's property, property, I emphasize, because of language, it is a lynching.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. Is language a word of art in law? Do you know what that means in a definition of a penal offense? Is it a skilled word, does it mean swearwords, does it mean an accent, does it mean a foreign tongue. We don't know, do we, Judge?

no.

Mr. DAVIS. It has no peculiar meaning in law that I am aware of,

Mr. YOUNG. It also says that if those acts are done against another because of his national origin, do we know exactly what that means? Mr. DAVIS. I think it is very vague and indefinite.

Mr. YOUNG. And also then it speaks about relying on which I presume we could know what that means, but it gives us an idea of the extent of this crime. I gave a ludicrous example some meetings ago and asked a witness whether if it were that two Methodists kick a Baptist's fence, is it or is it not a lynching under this bill?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, it could certainly be alleged to be one and that would put the burden on the defendant in any such suit of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not guilty as charged. Mr. YOUNG. In other words the Methodists must prove that they have not committed a lynching?

Mr. DAVIS. By a preponderance of the evidence, yes, sir; must affirmatively prove it.

Mr. YOUNG. If he kicked a picket off of another man's fence of another religion.

Mr. DAVIS. Here is another ludicrous illustration: Let's say if two Baptists and one Methodist should get into an argument about the relative merits of their religion, which is not an infrequent thing, in our discussions of that kind and one of them-and say the Baptist should make some remark which irritated one of the Methodists and he should grab the Baptist's hat off his head and throw it on the ground and stomp it.

Mr. YOUNG. It is a lynching, isn't it?

Mr. DAVIS. Under this bill it would be and he could secure a judgment of not less than $2,000.

it.

Mr. YOUNG. That's right.

The CHAIRMAN. Against the town or the county.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. And he also can sue the town and county can he not? Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. And he can levy on the courthouse can he not to collect

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; he can under this.

Mr. YOUNG. And sell the courthouse if it is practical to sell it.

The CHAIRMAN. Sell the jail.

Mr. YOUNG. Or take the school funds away and close the schools first.

Mr. DAVIS. I expect so.

Mr. YOUNG. If the taxpayers are unable to raise money.

Mr. DAVIS. There is just no end to the absurd lengths to which this thing could be stretched out.

Mr. YOUNG. I believe it can be even one step further than your illustration. I say the bill also punishes attempts.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. If he attempts to grab the other man's hat and is a little bit unsteady on his feet and misses the hat and throws air down he is guilty of a lynching.

Mr. DAVIS. Under the terms of this bill it is true.

Mr. YOUNG. Isn't it the idea in lawyers' minds and jurists' minds and the public's mind that lynching is an assault by force and violence, as taking away a person from the officer or State or municipal instrumentality, and takes him away; isn't that the historical illustration?

Mr. DAVIS. Of course mob violence and the true meaning of mob violence is when law enforcement breaks down and when people by reason of numbers or possibly other attending circumstances become stronger than the law and are unable to take a person and inflict violence upon him, either injury or death or by reason of their strength and the weakness of the law are able to take a person from the custody of a law enforcement official such as a sheriff or the jailer and take him out and lynch him.

Now of course that is what the mob violence is and that is what lynching is. But this thing here, would carry it to such absurd lengths, it is really just something that defies description to say how absurd it is.

The CHAIRMAN. It would give us a police state.

Mr. DAVIS. That's right, that is what I undertake to say in my statement.

Mr. YOUNG. Judge, what is your reaction to the recitation in the policy provisions of this bill that when we ratified the United Nations Charter in the Senate we gave not only the Federal Government the right to punish for all crimes but foreign countries to punish in your home county for infractions of law?

Mr. DAVIS. I was greatly concerned when I read that provision in this legislation. Anyone who has read this so-called declaration of human rights which this UNESCO got up and distributed, would certainly be appalled to think of the possibilities of what might happen if this legislation should ever be enacted into law.

Mr. YOUNG. Have you read Missouri versus Holland, Judge, a case under which the Supreme Court has said that that is possible, power under a treaty?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I have read that.

Mr. YOUNG. It is dangerous doctrine, is it not, if it is carried to the extent that the framers of this bill want to carry it?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, indeed.

Mr. YOUNG. It does away with the sovereignty not only of the country but of the State and possibly of the National Government. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. It is really one world government, is it not?

Mr. DAVIS. It certainly is.

Mr. YOUNG. One world state doctrine.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; this is exactly what it is or would lead to. Mr. YOUNG. What do you think about the provisions in this bill which say that a lynch mob or lynchers are really agents of the State and since they are the Federal Government is going to be the crime enforcer, what do you think about the fact that the Federal Government is not the agent of a State, isn't the principle of the lynchers as agents.

The doctrine would carry all the way through would it not?

Mr. DAVIS. Well I have heard of many absurd and outrageous propositions in my lifetime, but I don't think that I have ever heard of one any more outrageous or absurd than an effort to make a member of a mob an agent of a State.

Mr. YOUNG. We have a doctrine in this country of guilt by association

The CHAIRMAN. Has Congress got such powers, Judge?

Mr. DAVIS. I don't think so.

The CHAIRMAN. To declare a member of a lynch mob is an agent of a sovereign State?

Mr. DAVIS. Senator, 20 years ago I would have thought we did not face any danger if an act of this kind had been enacted by Congress. At that time we had a Supreme Court who were able to interpret the Constitution and who had the courage and the stamina to interpret it. The CHAIRMAN. And the honesty?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I was debating with myself as to whether to say the integrity. [Laughter.]

But they did have it and at that time I would have said it wouldn't matter if Congress did pass a bill of this kind because the Supreme Court would strike it down as soon as it got there.

But with the continued pattern of usurpation of legislative functions and of executive functions also by the present Supreme Court, I would not say that anything that Congress would enact now would be stricken down by that body.

Mr. YOUNG. A State though is sovereign in the field in which it operates, is it not?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Now then, has Congress got the right to declare that citizens of that State are agents of the State? If that is true, there is no such thing as State sovereignty.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I say no, certainly. I say they have no right, and that any such provision would be unconstitutional if the Constitution should be properly applied to it.

The CHAIRMAN. You could not have any such thing as State sovereignty if Congress has that power to do that?

Mr. DAVIS. Why, certainly not.

Mr. YOUNG. I will ask one more question, if I may, sir: Under our due process clause, law enforcement of a Federal statute, anything has to be precise or definite in order to be constitutional, so that a person will know wherein he is in violation of the law.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. If I consulted you as my attorney on my actions of the past week, and asked you whether I was in violation of any section, during the week, of this antilynching bill, would you be able to advise me?

Mr. DAVIS. I doubt very much that I would.

Mr. YOUNG. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Judge.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Williams?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BELL WILLIAMS, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, like the distinguished gentleman who just preceded me, I would like to express my personal appreciation to the committee for its indulgence in permitting me to say a few words in opposition to the various bills now pending before the committee.

Noting the attendance of the committee in the Senate at these hearings, it would appear that tremendous interest has been evinced in the passage of this legislation, very much like it was in the House Rules Committee about 3 or 4 days ago, when the committee found itself without a quorum and was forced to adjourn.

Let me say that I cannot qualify as an expert lawyer, nor as an expert legislator, nor have I had an opportunity to read and analyze the various bills before the Senate in minute detail.

However, there is one point on which I can qualify as an expert, and that is on the matter of analyzing relationships between the white and colored races.

My district, the district that I represent in Mississippi, has 210,000 colored people. Four members of the House of Representativesand, I might add, only four-appeared before the Rules Committee in support of civil rights legislation. Those four members were Mr. Keating of New York, Mr. Boyle of Illinois, Mr. Celler of New York, and Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania.

There are eight members of the Rules Committee who have by their actions in the past expressed support for this legislation. Those eight members are: Mr. Allen of Illinois, Mr. Madden of Indiana, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Delaney of Massachusetts, I believe, or New York, Mr. Bolling of Missouri, Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts, Mr. Latham of New York, and Mr. Ellsworth of Oregon.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I have more Negroes in my district than the combined total of the Negro population in the districts of every one of those members that I have just called off, who are sup

porting this legislation, plus the combined Negro population of the States of Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota.

Therefore, I feel that representing a Negro population which is larger than the combined Negro populations of those 12 congressional districts plus those 3 States, that I am qualified to some extent to speak as an expert on this subject.

Also, I would like here to quote a news item that appeared under an Associated Press byline dated June 18, 1956, from Biloxi, Miss., in which it quotes a speech made by the distinguished immediate past president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Hon. Boyd Campbell, and with the leave of the committee I would like to read this Associated Press release:

Mr. Boyd Campbell, board chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce, today blamed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for what he called a halt in progress toward racial understanding. Campbell said

and I am still quoting

"Great progress was being made on both sides before the Supreme Court's school segregation decision 2 years ago. But it came to an abrupt halt when the NAACP took over leadership for the colored people." He told the Mississippi Theater Owners Association the lost ground is not likely to be regained. It is up to the local people of both races who are leaders in their communities, he said, to discuss their problems without name calling. Legislation, he said, will not bring closer understanding between the races any more than abusive language. Habits must be changed gradually, he said.

The situation is very serious, Campbell said, but there is more understanding from people of other States than Southerners realize. He said other people also are beginning to understand that the problem is best worked out at the local level.

Mr. Campbell urged that communication lines always be kept open to give both races an opportunity to discuss their problem in an intelligent and understanding manner.

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, being a fellow citizen of the State of Mississippi, which has the highest percentage of Negro population, higher than any other State in the Union, racial-friendly racial relationships have been virtually destroyed, not by acts of violence within the State of Mississippi between the 2 races, but by outsiders who have come into Mississippi for the express purpose of stirring up trouble, hatred and discord between the members of the 2 races.

I can say categorically that the matter of racial relationships was never a problem in the State of Mississippi until the United States Supreme Court decided to abort the Constitution and to take over the prerogatives of the States.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the time that I have been privileged to represent my people in the House of Representatives, which is now going on to 10 years, I have always attempted to approach the consideration of any legislation with several things in mind:

First, before we should consider any legislation, it is my belief that we should recognize that a problem exists which needs correction. Second, that that problem can be cured only by legislation. And third, that the legislation presented will cure the problem and will do so within the constitutional limitations imposed upon the Federal establishment.

This legislation which is before your committee, in my opinion, meets none of the requirements that I have just mentioned.