¹ H.R. 6157, 6201, 6220, 6470, 6559, 7248, 7395; S. 1978, 2031.

² At the date of writing (May, 1934), with the exception of S. 1978, which has been reported by the Committee on Judiciary, the bills are still in the hands of the respective committees.

³ 23 Cong. Rec., 4549.

⁴ Art. 52: “The citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall receive in the states and territories of the other the most constant protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or shall be granted to the natives.”

⁵ Sen. Doc. 17, 55th Cong., 1st Sess. “Indemnities Paid by the United States to Aliens”. Foreign Relations, 1891, pp. 658–728Google Scholar.

⁶ 23 Cong. Rec., 4549.

⁷ For the debates, see 23 Cong. Rec., 1583, 2682, 4093–4095, 4548–4562, 4599–4608, 4653–4667. See also Taft, W. H.The United States and Peace (1914)Google Scholar, Chap. 3; Chamberlain, J. P., “The Position of the Federal Government of the United States in Regard to Crimes Committed Against the Subjects of a Foreign Nation Within the States, Proceedings of American Society of International Law for 1908 and 1910Google Scholar; Watson, Charles H., “The Need of Federal Legislation in Respect to Mob Violence in Cases of Lynching of Aliens”, 25 Yale Law Journal, 561–581 (1916)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the later discussions of general anti-lynching laws. For the broader question of the power of the United States in regard to treaties, see Willoughby on the Constitution (1929) Chaps. 33–36, and pp. 326–334Google Scholar.

⁸ Citing Prevost v. Greenaux, 19 Howard 1.

⁹ Citing Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678; see also the subsequent case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416.

¹⁰ 25 Cong. Rec., 210; 33 Cong. Rec., 377, 638, 1762; 35 Cong. Rec., 638; 37 Cong. Rec., 277; 40 Cong. Rec., 112; 42 Cong. Rec., 308, 6791. See also Sen. Rep. 392, 56th Cong., 1st Sess.

¹¹ 43 Cong. Rec., 166-175. House Rep. 1056, 60th Cong., 2nd Sess.

¹² 43 Cong. Rec., 254.

¹³ 44 Cong. Rec., 58; 52 Cong. Rec., 1998; 54 Cong. Rec., 2726; 55 Cong. Rec., 823; 58 Cong. Rec., 123; 59 Cong. Rec., 1759, 6616.

¹⁴ 62 Cong. Rec., 1744. See infra.

¹⁵ 24 Cong. Rec., 14. Apparently the first suggestions for a federal law to protect negroes specifically against lynching were presented to Congress in 1892 in the form of petitions from the colored people of Riley county, Kansas, and from the Religious Society of Friends of New York and Vermont. See 23 Cong. Rec., 5272, 5821.

¹⁶ 26 Cong. Rec., 8182, 8206; 27 Cong. Rec., 15, 477, 946, 1051; 33 Cong. Rec., 1021; 35 Cong. Rec., 51, 212, 248, 248, 5286, 5902-5905, 5956, 6214.

¹⁷ 56 Cong. Rec., 4821, 5362, appendix 337; 58 Cong. Rec., 17, 458; 59 Cong. Rec., 1759, 7188, 7505, 7708, 8029; 61 Cong. Rec., 87, 218, 629; 62 Cong. Rec., 490. House Report 1027, 66th Cong., 2nd Sess.

¹⁸ 61 Cong. Rec., 7063. House Rep. 452, 67th Cong., 1st Sess.

¹⁹ 62 Cong. Rec., 1744.

²⁰ For the debates on this measure, see 62 Cong. Rec., 458–468, 541–558, 602–605, 786–807, 895–903, 1008–1033, 1134–1140, 1275–1313, 1338–1381, 1426–1430, 1522–1531, 1548–1551, 1698–1745, 1773–1795, 1797, 6480, 6627, 7158, 8803, 10210, 10224, 10735–10746, 11727, 12743, 13082–13087, 13129, 13269, 13355, 13363–13368, 13370–13372, 13373–13375. For a discussion of the constitutionality of this and similar measures, see House Rep. 452, 67th Cong., 2nd Sess.; Sen. Rep. 837, 67th Cong., 2nd Sess.; Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R., 66th Cong., 2nd Sess., Serial No. 14, Jan. 29, 1920; Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R., 67th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 10, Pt. 2, July 20, 1921; Hearing before a Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, Sen., 69th Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1926; Willoughby on the Constitution (1929), pp. 1931–1937Google Scholar; White, Walter, Rope and Faggot (1929), 207–226Google Scholar; Pillsbury, Albert E., “A Brief Inquiry into a Federal Remedy for Lynching”, 15 Harvard Law Review, 707–713 (1902)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dyer, L. C. and Dyer, George C. “The Constitutionality of a Federal Anti-Lynching Bill”, 13 St. Louis Law Review, 186–199 (1928)Google Scholar.

²¹ The opponents of the bill charged that it was a hypocritical Republican attempt to truckle to the negro vote, that it was partisan and sectional. It was stated that the law would be unenforceable, that it would arouse hostility to federal agents, and that similar state laws had proved ineffective. Further, it was unnecessary, since there were already state laws covering the same offenses and imposing the same duties on officers. It was strongly urged that the lynching problem is local, that Southerners know better than outsiders how to deal with negroes, that the proposed legislation would stir up race feeling, and that other sections of the country should first check their own crime. Further, in weakening the sense of local responsibility, the passage of the law would weaken the power of law-abiding people to check mob violence, and so would aggravate the crime of lynching. The major part of the Southern oratory was based on the supposition that the primary cause of lynchings was chivalrous protection of white women from assaults by negroes; that being so, the way to prevent lynching was to eliminate the crime of rape, and for this law to pass would add to the peril of white women in the South by encouraging negroes through what was in effect a plot to pension the heirs of negro rapists.

²² Emphasizing the barbarity of lynchings, their frequent injustice, and the degradation of those who take part, the proponents of the bill asked for its passage on humanitarian grounds and as a protection against mob rule and anarchy. While not condoning in any way the crime of rape, they adduced conclusive figures to show that it is not the cause of more than a small percentage of lynchings, and that many negroes are killed for trivial reasons.

²³ There were attempts to show that a mob represents the state when it assumes to function for it in administering “lynch law.” There was one claim that the United States has the power of a sovereign government to protect its citizens unless restrained in the Constitution by some express prohibition or some express reservation of power to the states. And Moorfield Storey suggested that the Fifth Amendment should be construed to apply against individual and state action, instead of being simply a limitation on Congress. Obviously, these latter proposals were contrary to all existing constitutional law.

²⁴ 62 Cong. Rec., 1795.

²⁵ 63 Cong. Rec., 288, 297, 332–338, 397–407, 450.

²⁶ 65 Cong. Rec., 1180, 10538, 11304. House Rep. 71, 68th Cong., 1st Sess.

²⁷ 65 Cong. Rec., 25, 26; 67 Cong. Rec., 447; 69 Cong. Rec., 92; 71 Cong. Rec., 762; 77 Cong. Rec., 607.

²⁸ 67 Cong. Rec., 475.