Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "12090725",
    "label": "Cabinet Paper - The Civil Rights Program - Letter and Statement by the Attorney General",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090725"
}

{
    "id": "12090725",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090725",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Cabinet Paper - The Civil Rights Program - Letter and Statement by the Attorney General",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090725",
    "collections": [
        "Records of E. Frederic Morrow, Administrative Officer, Special Projects Group (Eisenhower Administration)",
        "Personal Files of E. Frederic Morrow"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0005_Page_01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0005_Page_01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0005_Page_01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 20,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090725",
    "naId": 12090725,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "day": 10,
            "logicalDate": "1956-04-10",
            "month": 4,
            "year": 1956
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 20,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0005.pdf",
    "mediaId": "60bfeb6d186a10bd",
    "ocrText": "CABINET PAPER-PRIVILEGED\nCP - 56-48/3\nProperty of the White House-For Authorized Persons Only\nApril 10, 1956\nThe White House\nWashington\nTHE CABINET\nThe Civil Rights Program -\nLetter and Statement by the Attorney General\nThe attached approved paper, and its appendix, are circulated\nfor the information of the Cabinet.\nThe approved paper is the letter which was sent on April 9, 1956\nby the Attorney General to the Vice President and to the Speaker of\nthe House, and released to the press on the same day.\nThis letter was approved by the President subsequent to the\nCabinet meeting of March 23, 1956 (of RA - 56-48, Item 2).\nAs an appendix to the letter, there is also circulated a copy\nof the Attorney General's statement on the civil rights program,\ngiven on Tuesday April 10, 1956 before the House Judiciary Committee.\nLibrary\nThe\nMaxwell M. Rabb\nResenhower\nSecretary to the Cabinet\nCABINET PAPER\nFor Action\nThe Vice President\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. Vice President:\nAt a time when many Americans are separated by deep emotions\nas to the rights of some of our citizens as guaranteed by the Constitu-\ntion, there is a constant need for restraint, calm judgment and under-\nstanding. Obedience to law as interpreted by the courts is the way\ndifferences are and must be resolved. It is essential to prevent\nextremists from causing irreparable harm.\nIn keeping with this spirit, President Eisenhower, in his\nState of the Union Message, said:\n\"It is disturbing that in some localities allega-\ntions persist that Negro citizens are being deprived\nof their right to vote and are likewise being sub-\njected to unwarranted economic pressures. I recommend\nthat the substance of these charges be thoroughly\nexamined by a Bipartisan Commission created by the\nCongress. It is hoped that such a Commission will\nbe established promptly so that it may arrive at\nfindings which can receive early consideration. ***\n\"We must strive to have every person judged and\nmeasured by what he is, rather than by his color,\nrace or religion. There will soon be recommended\nto the Congress a program further to advance the\nefforts of the Government, within the area of Federal\nresponsibility, to accomplish these objectives.\"\nI\nThe right to vote is one of our most precious rights. It is\nthe cornerstone of our form of government and affords protection for\nour other rights. It must be safeguarded.\nLibrary\nThe\nWhere there are charges that by one means or another the vote\nChenhower\n.0\nis being denied, we must find out all of the facts -- the extent, the\nmethods, the results. The same is true of substantial charges that\n- 2 -\nunwarranted economic or other pressures are being applied to deny funda-\nmental rights safeguarded by the Constitution and laws of the United\nStates.\nThe need for a full scale public study as requested by the\nPresident is manifest. The executive branch of the federal govern-\nment has no general investigative power of the scope required to\nundertake such a study. The study should be objective and free from\npartisanship. It should be broad and at the same time thorough.\nCivil rights are of primary concern to all our people. To\nthis end the Commission's membership must be truly bipartisan and\ngeographically representative.\nA bill detailing the Commission proposal is submitted\nwith this statement.\nThe proposed legislation provides that the Commission shall\nhave six members, appointed by the President with the advice and con-\nsent of the Senate. No more than three may be of the same political\nparty. The Commission will be temporary, expiring two years from the\neffective date of the statute, unless extended by Congress. It will\nhave authority to subpoena witnesses, take testimony under oath, and\nrequest necessary data from any executive department or agency. It\nmay be required to make interim reports pending completion of a\ncomprehensive final report containing findings and recommendations.\nThe Commission will have authority to hold public hearings.\nKnowledge and understanding of every element of the problem will give\ngreater clarity and perspective to one of the most difficult problems\nfacing our country. Such a study, fairly conducted, will tend to\nunite responsible people in common effort to solve these problems.\nInvestigation and hearings will bring into sharper focus the areas\nof responsibility of the federal government and of the states under\nour constitutional system. Through greater public understanding,\ntherefore, the Commission may chart a course of progress to guide us\nin the years ahead.\nLibrary\nII\n140\nAt present the Civil Rights Section of the Department of\nEleenhower\nDwight\nJustice is one of a number of sections located within the Criminal\nDivision. The protection of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitu-\ntion is a governmental function and responsibility of first importance.\nIt merits the full direction of a highly qualified lawyer, with the\nstatus of Assistant Attorney General, appointed by the President with\nthe advice and consent of the Senate.\n- 3 -\nIn this area, as pointed out more fully below, more\nemphasis should be on civil law remedies. The civil rights enforce-\nment activities of the Department of Justice should not, therefore,\nbe confined to the Criminal Division.\nThe decisions and decrees of the United States Supreme\nCourt relating to integration in the field of education and in\nother areas, and the civil rights cases coming before the lower\nfederal courts in increasing numbers, are indicative of generally\nbroadening legal activity in the civil rights field.\nThese considerations call for the authorization of an\nadditional Assistant Attorney General to direct the Government's\nlegal activities in the field of civil rights. A draft of legis-\nlation to effect this result is submitted herewith.\nIII\nThe present laws affecting the right of franchise were\nconceived in another era. Today every interference with this right\nshould not necessarily be treated as a crime. Yet the only method\nof enforcing existing laws protecting this right is through\ncriminal proceedings.\nCivil remedies have not been available to the Attorney\nGeneral in this field. We think that they should be. Criminal\ncases in a field charged with emotion are extraordinarily difficult\nfor all concerned. Our ultimate goal is the safeguarding of the\nfree exercise of the voting right, subject to the legitimate power\nof the state to prescribe necessary and fair voting qualifications.\nTo this end, civil proceedings to forestall denials of the right\nmay often be far more effective in the long run than harsh criminal\nproceedings to punish after the event.\nThe existing civil voting statute (section 1971 of Title\n42, United States Code) declares that all citizens who are other-\nwise qualified to vote at any election (state or federal) shall be\nentitled to exercise their vote without distinction of race or\ncolor. The statute is limited, however, to deprivations of voting\nLibrary\n141\nrights by state officers or other persons purporting to act under\nauthority of law. In the interest of proper law enforcement to\nguarantee to all of our citizens the rights to which they are\nElsenhower\nentitled under the Constitution, I urge consideration by the Congress\nand the proposed Bipartisan Commission of three changes.\nFirst, addition of a section which will prevent anyone\nfrom threatening, intimidating, or coercing an individual in the\nexercise of his right to vote, whether claiming to act under\nauthority of law or not, in any election, general, special or\n- 4 -\nprimary, concerning candidates for federal office.\nSecond, authorization to the Attorney General to bring\ninjunction or other civil proceedings on behalf of the United\nStates or the aggrieved person in any case covered by the statute,\nas so changed.\nThird, elimination of the requirement that all state\nadministrative and judicial remedies must be exhausted before\naccess can be had to the federal court.\nIV\nUnder another civil rights statute (section 1985 of\nTitle 42 of the United States Code) conspiracies to interfere\nwith certain rights can be redressed only by a civil suit by the\nindividual injured thereby. I urge consideration by the Congress\nand the proposed Bipartisan Commission of a proposal authorizing\nthe Attorney General to initiate civil action where necessary to\nprotect the rights secured by that statute.\nI believe that consideration of these proposals not\nonly will give us the means intelligently to meet our responsi-\nbility for the safeguarding of Constitutional rights in this\ncountry, but will reaffirm our determination to secure equal\njustice under law for all people.\nSincerely,\nAttorney General\nLibrary\nJul\nKisenhower\nSTATEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON LEGISLATIVE\nPROPOSALS FOR THE CREATION OF A CIVIL RIGHTS\nCOMMISSION, THE CREATION OF A CIVIL RIGHTS\nDIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FOR\nTHE AMENDMENT OF THE VOTING AND CIVIL RIGHTS\nSTATUTES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS UNCLUDING THE\nADDITION TO BOTH OF PROVISIONS FOR THEIR\nENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL REMEDIES IN THE DEPARTMENT\nOF JUSTICE.\nBEFORE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE\nTUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1956 AT 10:00 A.M.\nIn his State of the Union Message, President Eisenhower\nsaid that his administration would recommend to the Congress a\nprogram to advance the efforts of the Government, within the\narea of Federal responsibility, to the end that every person\nmay be judged and measured by what he is, rather than by his\ncolor, race or religion. Recently I transmitted to the\nSpeaker of this House and to the President of the Senate our\nproposals on this subject. I am grateful for the opportunity\nto appear before this Committee to discuss these proposals and\nto comment, as well, upon other proposals relating to this\nsame subject which are already pending before this Committee.\nMy letters to the Speaker of the House and to the\nPresident of the Senate recommend Congressional legislation on\nfour matters: First, creation of the Bipartisan Commission on\nLibrary\nThe\nCivil Rights recommended by the President in his State of the\n.0\nUnion Message; second, creation of an additional office of\nAssistant Attorney General to head a new Civil Rights Division\nin the Department of Justice; third, amendment of existing\nstatutes to give further protection to the right to vote and\nto add civil remedies in the Department of Justice for their\nenforcement; and fourth, amendment of other civil rights laws\nto include the addition of civil remedies in the Department of\nJustice for their enforcement.\nI. Civil Rights Commission.\nIn recommending the creation of a bipartisan civil\nrights commission, President Eisenhower said in his State of the\nUnion Message:\n\"It is disturbing that in some localities alle-\ngations persist that Negro citizens are being\ndeprived of their right to vote and are likewise\nbeing subjected to unwarranted economic pressures.\nI recommend that the substance of these charges be\nthoroughly examined by a bipartisan commission\ncreated by the Congress.\"\nA bill detailing the Commission proposal was sub-\nmitted with my letters to the Speaker of the House and the\nPresident of the Senate. It provides that the Commission shall\nhave six members, appointed by the President with the advice and\nconsent of the Senate. No more than three shall be from the same\npolitical party. The Commission shall be temporary, expiring\nLibrary\n140\ntwo years from the effective date of the statute, unless ex-\nEisenhower\nLIBIRO\nof\ntended by Congress. It will have authority to subpoena\nwitnesses, take testimony under oath and request necessary\n- 2 -\ndata from any executive department or agency. It may be re-\nquired to make interim reports pending completion of a compre-\nhensive final report containing findings and recommendations.\nThe Commission will have authority to hold public\nhearings. It will investigate the allegations that certain\ncitizens of the United States are being deprived of their\nright to vote or are being subjected to unwarranted economic\npressures by reason of their color, race, religion or national\norigin. It will study and collect information concerning\neconomic, social and legal developments constituting a denial\nof equal protection of the laws. It will appraise the laws and\npolicies of the Federal Government with respect to equal pro-\ntection of the laws under the federal constitution.\nThe need for more knowledge and greater understanding\nof these most complex and difficult problems is manifest. A\nfull scale public study of them conducted over a two year period\nby a competant bipartisan commission, such as is recommended by\nthe President, will tend to unite responsible people of good will\nin common effort to solve these problems. Such a study will bring\nclearer definition of the constitutional boundaries between\nFederal and State governments and will insure that remedial\nproposals are within the appropriate areas of Federal and State\nresponsibility. Through greater public understanding of these\nLibrary\n141\nmatters the Commission may chart a course of progress to guide\nKasenhower\n0.\nthe nation in the years ahead.\n- 3 -\nFor a study such as that proposed by the President, the\nauthority to hold public hearings, to subpoena witnesses, to\ntake testimony under oath and to request necessary data from\nexecutive departments and agencies is obviously essential. No\nagency in the Executive Branch of Government has the legal\nauthority to exercise such powers in a study of matters relating\nto civil rights.\nII. Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice.\nIn 1939 the present Civil Rights Section was created\nin the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Its\nfunction and purpose has been to direct, supervise and conduct\ncriminal prosecutions of violations of the federal constitution\nand laws guaranteeing civil rights to individuals. As long as\nits activities were confined to the enforcement of criminal laws\nit was logical that it should be a section of the Criminal\nDivision.\nRecently, however, the Justice Department has been\nobliged to engage in activity in the civil rights field which is\nnon-criminal in character. An example is the recent participation\nof the Department, as amicus curiae, in a civil suit to prevent\nby injunction unlawful interference with the efforts of the\nschool board at Hoxie, Arkansas, to eliminate racial discrim-\nination in the school in conformity with the Supreme Court's\nJul\ndecision. The non-criminal activity of the Department in the\nTHE\n6.\ncivil rights field is constantly increasing in importance as\n- 4 -\nwell as in amount. If my recommendations, discussed subsequently,\nfor legislation to provide civil remedies in the Department of\nJustice for the enforcement of voting and other civil rights are\nfollowed, the Department's duties and activities in the civil\ncourts will increase even more rapidly than in the past.\nIt is essential that all the Department's civil rights\nactivity, both criminal and non-criminal, be consolidated in a\nsingle organization, but it is not appropriate that an organi-\nzation with important civil as well as criminal functions should\nbe administered as a part of the Criminal Division.\nConsequently, I most earnestly recommend that the\nappointment of a new assistant attorney general be authorized\nby the Congress in order to permit the proper consolidation and\norganization of the Department's civil and criminal activities in\nthe area of civil rights into a division of the Department and\nunder the direction of a highly qualified lawyer with the status\nof an assistant attorney general. A draft of legislation to\neffect this result was transmitted with my letters to the Speaker\nof the House and the President of the Senate.\nIII. Amendments to Give Greater Protection to the\nRight to Vote and to Provide Civil Remedies in\nthe Department of Justice for their Enforcement.\nThe right to vote is one of our most precious rights.\nIt is the cornerstone of our form of government and affords\nBUT\nprotection for our other rights. It must be zealously safe-\nElsenhower\nDIME\n0.\nguarded.\n- 5 -\nArticle I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution\nplace in the Congress the power and the duty to protect by\nappropriate laws-elections for office under the-Government-of\nthe United States. With respect to elections for state and\nlocal office, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution pro-\nvides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote\nshall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any\nstate on account of race, color, or previous condition of\nservitude. And the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state\nfrom making or enforcing laws which abridge the privileges and\nimmunities of citizens of the United States and from denying to\nany person the equal protection of the laws. The courts have\nheld that these prohibitions operate against election laws\nwhich discriminate on account of race, color, religion.or\nnational origin.\nTo implement these provisions of the Constitution\nCongress passed many years ago a voting statute, 42 U.S.C.\n1971 (R.S. 2004), which provides that all citizens shall be\nentitled and allowed to vote at all elections, state or federal,\nwithout distinction based upon race or color. It was the duty\nof Congress under the Constitution and its amendments to pass\nlegislation giving full protection to the right to vote and\nundoubtedly it was the intent of Congress to provide such\nLibrary\n141\nprotection by passing 42 U.S.C. 1971.\nElenhower\n- 6 -\nHowever, in the years since its enactment, a number\nof serious defects in the statute have become plainly apparent,\nmost of them having been pointed out in judicial decisions.\nThe most obvious defect in the law is that it does not protect\nthe voters in federal elections from unlawful interference with\ntheir voting rights by private persons. It applies only to\nthose who act \"under color of law\", which means to public\nofficials. The activities of private persons and organizations\ndesigned to disfranchise voters in federal or state elections\non account of race or color are not covered by the present\nwording of 42 U.S.C. 1971 and the statute fails, therefore, to\nafford voters the full protection from discrimination contem-\nplated and guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments.\nSection 1971 of Title 42, United States Code, is\nclearly defective in another important respect. It fails to\nlodge in the Attorney General any authority to invoke civil\nremedies for enforcement of voting rights and is particularly\nlacking in any provision authorizing the Attorney General to\napply to the courts for preventive relief against violation of\nvoting rights. We think this is a major defect. The ultimate\ngoal of the Constitution and of Congress is the safeguarding\nLibrary\nout\nof the free exercise of the voting right, acknowledging the\nlegitimate power of the states to prescribe necessary and fair\n@ Knenhower\nvoting qualifications. Civil proceedings by the Attorney\n- 7 -\nGeneral to forestall illegal interference and denial of the\nright to vote would be far more effective in achieving this\ngoal than the private suits for damages presently authorized\nby the statute or the criminal proceedings authorized under\nother laws which can never be instituted until after the harm\nis done.\nConsequently, I think that Congress should now\nrecognize that in order to properly execute the Constitution and\nits amendments, and in order to perfect the intended application\nof the statute, Section 1971 of Title 42, United States Code,\nshould be amended by:\nFirst, the addition of a section which will prevent\nanyone, whether acting under color of law or not, from threaten-\ning, intimidating or coercing an individual in his right to\nvote in any election, general, special or primary, concerning\ncandidates for federal office.\nSecond, authorization to the Attorney General to\nbring civil proceedings on behalf of the United States or any\naggrieved person for preventive or other civil relief in any\ncase covered by the statute.\nThird, express provision that all state adminis-\ntrative and judicial remedies need not be first exhausted\nbefore resort to the federal courts.\nLibrary\nThe\n0.\n- 8\nIV. Amendment of Other Civil Rights Laws to Include\nthe Addition of Civil Remedies in the Department\nof Justice for their Enforcement.\nIn attempting to achieve the constitutional goal of\nrespect for and observance of the civil rights of individuals,\nit has been, in my opinion, a mistake for the Congress to have\nrelied so heavily upon the criminal law and to have made so\nlittle use of the more flexible and often more practical and\neffective processes of the civil courts. Although the Attorney\nGeneral, under present statutes, can prosecute after violations\nof the civil rights laws have occurred, he cannot seek pre-\nventive relief in the courts when violations are threatened\nor, in spite of an occasional arrest or prosecution, are per-\nsistently repeated.\nCriminal prosecution can never begin until after the\nharm is done and it can never be invoked to forestall a viola-\ntion of civil rights no matter how obvious the threat of vio-\nlation may be. Moreover, criminal prosecution for civil rights\nviolations, when they involve state or local officials as they\noften do, stir up an immense amount of ill feeling in the com-\nmunity and inevitably tend to cause very bad relations between\nstate and local officials on the one hand and the federal\nofficials responsible for the investigation and prosecution\non the other. A great deal of this could be avoided if the\n141\nCongress would authorize the Attorney General to seek preven-\nElsenhower\n1481mg\ntive and other appropriate relief from the civil courts in\ncivil rights cases.\n- 9 -\nLet me illustrate:\nIn 1952, several Negro citizens of a certain county\nin Mississippi submitted affidavits to us alleging that because\nof their race the Registrar of Voters refused to register them.\nAlthough the Mississippi statutes at that time required only\nthat an applicant be able to read and write the Constitution,\nthese affidavits alleged that the Registrar demanded that the\nNegro citizens answer such questions as \"What is due process\nof law?\" \"How many bubbles in a bar of soap?\", etc. Those\nsubmitting affidavits included college graduates, teachers and\nbusinessmen yet none of them, according to the Registrar, could\nmeet the voting requirements. If the Attorney General had the\npower to invoke the injunctive process, the Registrar could\nhave been ordered to stop these discriminatory practices and\nqualify these citizens according to Mississippi law.\nAnother illustration:\nThe United States Supreme Court recently reversed\nthe conviction of a Negro sentenced to death by a state court\nbecause of a showing that Negroes had been systematically ex-\ncluded from the panels of the grand and petit juries that had\nindicted and tried him. In so doing the Supreme Court stated\nthat according to the undisputed evidence in the record before\nit systematic discrimination against Negroes in the selection\nof jury panels had persisted for many years past in the county\nLibrary\n141\nwhere the case had been tried. In its opinion the Court\nResenhower\n1481mg\nmentioned parenthetically but pointedly that such discrimination\n- 10 -\nwas a denial of equal protection of the laws and it would\nfollow that it was a violation of the federal civil rights\nlaws.\nAccordingly, the Department of Justice had no\nalternative except to institute an investigation to determine\nwhether in the selection of jury panels in the county in\nquestion the civil rights laws of the United States were being\nviolated, as suggested by the record before the Supreme Court.\nThe mere institution of this inquiry aroused a storm of in-\ndignation in the county and state in question. This is under-\nstandable since, if such violations were continuing, the only\ncourse open to the Government was criminal prosecution of those\nresponsible. That might well have meant the indictment in the\nfederal court of the local court attaches and others respon-\nsible under the circumstances.\nFortunately the Department was never faced with so\ndifficult and disagreeable a duty. The investigation showed\nthat, whatever the practice may have been during the earlier\nyears with which the Supreme Court's record was concerned, in\nrecent years there had been no discrimination against Negroes\nin the selection of juries in that county.\nSupposing, however, that on investigation, the facts\nhad proved otherwise. The necessarily resulting prosecution\nwould have stirred up such dissention and ill will in the com-\nmunity and in the state that it might well have done more harm\nLibra\nThe\nthan good. Such unfortunate collisions in the criminal courts\nElsenhower\n1481mg\nbetween federal and state officials can be avoided if the\nCongress would authorize the Attorney General to apply to\n- 11 -\nthe civil courts for preventive relief in civil rights cases.\nIn such a civil proceeding the facts can be determined, the\nrights of the parties adjudicated and future violations of\nthe law prevented by order of the court without having to\nsubject state officials to the indignity, hazards and personal\nexpense of a criminal prosecution in the courts of the United\nStates.\nCongress could authorize the Attorney General to seek\ncivil remedies in the civil courts for the enforcement of civil\nrights by a simple amendment to Section 1985 of Title 42,\nUnited States Code (R.S. 1980). That statute presently author-\nizes civil suits by private persons who are injured by acts\ndone in furtherence of a conspiracy to do any of the following\nthings: (1) to prevent officers from performing their duties;\n(2) to obstruct justice; (3) to deprive persons of their\nrights to the equal protection of the laws and equal privi-\nleges under the laws.\nA subsection could be added to that statute to give\nauthority to the Attorney General to institute a civil action\nfor redress or preventive relief whenever any persons have\nengaged or are about to engage in any acts or practices which\nwould give rise to a cause of action under the present pro-\nvisions of the law.\nSuch an amendment would provide a procedure for\nLibrary\nThe\nenforcement of civil rights which in my opinion would be far\nsimpler, more flexible, more reasonable and more effective\n- 12 -\nthan the criminal sanctions which are the only remedy now\navailable.\nV. Comment on Other Proposals Relating to Civil\nRights Now Pending Before this Committee.\nThere must certainly be grave doubt as to whether\nit is wise to propose at the present time any further exten-\nsion of the criminal law into the extraordinarily sensitive\nand delicate area of civil rights. Because of this doubt and\nbecause of my conviction previously expressed as to the im-\nportance of civil remedies in this field, the Department of\nJustice is not proposing at this time any amendments to sections\n241 and 242 of Title 18, United States Code, which are the two\nprincipal criminal statutes intended for the protection of\ncivil rights. Whether the present moment is appropriate for\nsuch legislation is, of course a question for the Congress\nto determine.\nNevertheless, it must be conceded that all question\nof timeliness aside and considered strictly from a law enforce-\nment point of view both statutes have defects. I have observed\nthat H.R. 627 would amend them both and, if they are to be\namended, I have a few comments and suggestions to offer.\nFirst: Section 241 of Title 18, United States Code,\nmakes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire \"to\ninjure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the\nour\nfree exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured\nElsenhower\n1481mg\nto him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or\nbecause of his having so exercised the same.\" The statute\n- 13 -\nfails to penalize such injury, oppression, threats or intimi-\ndation when committed by a single individual, which not in-\nfrequently occurs. This should be corrected.\nSecond: The word \"citizen\" now appearing in the statute\nshould be changed to \"person\" and the words \"right or privilege\nsecured to him by the Constitution\" should be changed to \"right,\nprivilege or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution.\"\nThe purpose of the suggested changes is to protect more com-\npletely the interests guaranteed to all persons by the 14th\nand 15th Amendments.\nThird: The penalty in ordinary cases should be left\nas it is, a misdemeanor, but more substantial penalties should\nbe provided for unlawful conduct prohibited by this statute\nwhich results in maiming or death.\nThe amendment of Section 242 of Title 18 would be so\nextraordinarily complicated that I do not recommend that it\nbe attempted at the present time. In the case of Screws vs.\nU.S. 325 U.S. 91 the statute was upheld by a closely divided\ncourt only because of the construction placed by the court\nupon the word \"willfully\" as it appears in the statute. Yet\nit is the construction placed upon that word by the Supreme\nCourt that causes the most serious practical difficulties in\nLibrary\nThe\nenforcement and other amendments would be of little avail with-\nout changing the word \"willfully.\" However, to make the change\nElenhower\nwould seriously jeopardize once more the constitutionality of\nthe entire statute. Consequently, it is recommended that\namendments should not be attempted at the present time.\n- 14 -"
}