74TH CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 339 AUTHORIZE TURNING OVER TO THE INDIAN SERVICE VEHICLES, VESSELS, AND SUPPLIES SEIZED AND FORFEITED FOR VIOLATION OF LIQUOR LAWS MARCH 13 (calendar day, MARCH 18e, 1935.-Ordered to be printed Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1885] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1885) to authorize turning over to the Indian Service, vehicles, vessels, and supplies seized and forfeited for violation of liquor laws, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass without amendment. This bill was introduced at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, as set forth in his letter of February 9, 1935, a copy of which is appended hereto and made part of this report as follows: THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is enclosed herewith draft of a bill to authorize turning over to the Indian Service vehicles, vessels, and supplies seized and forfeited for violation of liquor laws. The general subject matter of this legislation has been pending in Congress heretofore. Section 246 of title 25 of the United States Code provides for the seizure and übel of vehicles and other property used in connection with the violation of the laws for the suppression of the liquor traffic among the Indians. Section 247 specifically provides for the seizure, libel, and forfeiture of automobiles under the provisions of said section 246. It is now the practice for the United States courts to order the libeled automobiles or other vehicles sold in cases where they are declared forfeited. The procedure relative to the disposition of cars seized is briefly as follows: The defendant is first convicted and then the car proceeded against by a separate action of libel. In many cases several months elapse between the time of arrest and conviction of the defendant. During this time, the car is held in a Government contract garage at regular storage rates. After the conviction of the defendant, proceedings are started against the car which entails advertising, additional storage, and other expenses. These latter proceedings alone sometimes take 6 months, after which period the battery and tires on the car are considerably depreciated if not altogether useless. Finally, the car is sold by the office of the United States marshal, frequently bringing much less than its actual value on account of its appearance and far less than its value at the time the libel proceedings were started. It would be more economical for the Government to transfer these cars for use of the Indian Service than to sell them at public auction for prices far below their real value. The Government would also be saved the expense of storage and advertising. Cars seized which are intended to be transferred later could be stored in some Indian Service garage, thereby saving the Government storage charges. The enclosed draft of a bill provides that cars seized for violation of the Indian liquor laws may upon order of the court be transferred to the Indian Service for official use. Section 2 of the enclosed bill relates to the transfer of supplies which may be seized in connection with violation of the Indian liquor laws. Quite frequently cases arise which result in the destruction or the complete deterioration of such articles as sugar and grain, which should be transferred to the nearest Indian agency and taken up in their property for legitimate use. Sections 41 and 42 of title 27, United States Code, and sections 522 and 523 of title 19, United States Code, provide that vessels or vehicles seized and forfeited in the enforcement of the customs laws may be utilized, under the conditions therein set forth, in the enforcement of said laws. The Federal Narcotic Department, operating under the Treasury, also takes advantage of these laws, using section 615 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It is desired that similar legislation be secured to provide for the utilization of vessels, vehicles, or supplies seized in the enforcement of the laws for the suppression of the liquor traffic among the Indians. It is recommended that the proposed legislation receive favorable consideration. MARCH 13 (calendar day, MARCH 18), 1935.-Ordered to be printed Mr. VAN NUYS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 24] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 24) to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws by discouraging, preventing, and punishing the crime of lynching, having considered the same, report the bill favorably to the Senate with the following amendment and as so amended recommend its passage: On page 4, section 5, line 22, after the word "assemblage", insert the following: "by reason of the fact that the officers of the State charged with the duty of apprehending, prosecuting and punishing offenders under the laws of the State shall have failed, neglected or refused to perform the duties prescribed in section 3 of this Act". The bill with the amendment reported by the committee will read as follows (insert the part printed in italic): [S. 24, 74th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws by discouraging, preventing, and punishing the crime of lynching Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the phrase "mob or riotous assemblage", when used in this Act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert, without authority of law, for the purpose of killing or injuring any person in the custody of any peace officer or suspected of, charged with, or convicted of the commission of any crime, with the purpose or conse quence of preventing the apprehension and/or trial and/or punishment by law of such person or otherwise of depriving such person of due process of law or the equal protection of the laws. SEC. 2. If any State or governmental subdivision thereof fails, neglects, or refuses to provide and maintain protection to the life or person of any individual within its jurisdiction against a mob or riotous assemblage, whether by way of preventing or punishing the acts thereof, such State shall by reason of such failare, neglect, or refusal be deemed to have denied to such person due process of law and the equal protection of the laws of the State, and to the end that the protection guaranteed to persons within the jurisdictions of the several States, or to citizens of the United States, by the Constitution of the United States, may be secured, the provisions of this Act are enacted. SEC. 3. (a) Any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof who is charged with the duty or who possesses the power or authority as such officer or employee to protect the life or person of any individual injured or put to death by any mob or riotous assemblage or any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof having any such individual in his custody, who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all diligent efforts to protect such individual from being so injured or being put to death or any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof charged with the duty of apprehending, keeping in custody, or prosecuting any person participating in such mob or riotous assemblage who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all diligent efforts to perform his duty in apprehending, keeping in custody, or prosecuting to final judgment under the laws of such State all persons so participating, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (b) Any officer or employee of any State or governmental subdivision thereof, acting as such officer or employee under authority of State law, having in his custody or control a prisoner, who shall conspire, combine, or confederate with any person who is a member of a mob or riotous assemblage to injure or put such prisoner to death without authority of law, or who shall conspire, combine, or confederate with any person to suffer such prisoner to be taken or obtained from his custody or control to be injured or put to death by a mob or riotous assemblage shall be guilty of a felony, and those who so conspire, combine, or confederate with such officer or employee shall likewise be guilty of a felony. On conviction the parties participating therein shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than twenty-five years. SEC. 4. The District Court of the United States judicial district wherein the person is injured or put to death by a mob or riotous assemblage shall have jurisdiction to try and to punish, in accordance with the laws of the State where the injury is inflicted or the homicide is committed, any and all persons who participate therein: Provided, That it is first made to appear to such court (1) that the officers of the State charged with the duty of apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing such offenders under the laws of the State shall have failed, neglected, or refused to apprehend, prosecute, or punish such offenders; or (2) that the jurors obtainable for service in the State court having jurisdiction of the offense are so strongly opposed to such punishment that there is probability that those guilty of the offense will not be punished in such State court. A failure for more than thirty days after the commission of such an offense to apprehend or to indict the persons guilty thereof, or a failure diligently to prosecute such persons, shall be sufficient to constitute prima facie evidence of the failure, neglect, or refusal described in the above proviso. SEC. 5. Any county in which a person is seriously injured or put to death by a mob or riotous assemblage by reason of the fact that the officers of the State charged with the duty of apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing offienders under the laws of the State shall have failed, neglected, or refused to perform the duties prescribed in Section 3 of this Act shall be liable to the injured person or the legal representatives of such persons, or the estate of such deceased person for a sum of not less than $2,000 nor more than $10,000 as liquidated damages, which sum may be recovered in a civil action against such county in the United States District Court of the judicial district wherein such person is put to the injury or death. Such action shall be brought and prosecuted by the United States district attorney of the district in the United States District Court for such district. If such amount awarded be not paid upon recovery of a judgment therefor, such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce payment thereof by levy of execution upon any property of the county, or may otherwise compel payment thereof by mandamus or other appropriate process; and any officer of such county or other person who disobeys or fails to comply with any lawful order of the court in the premises shall be liable to punishment as for contempt and to any other penalty provided by law therefor. The amount recovered shall be exempt from all claims by creditors of such injured or deceased person, or the legal representatives of such injured person or of the estate of such deceased person. The amount recovered upon such judgment shall be paid to the injured person, or where death resulted, distributed in accordance with the laws governing the distribution of an intestate decedent's assets then in effect in the State wherein such death occurred. SEC. 6. In the event that any person so injured or put to death shall have been transported by such mob or riotous assemblage from one county to another county or counties during the time intervening between his seizure and injury or putting to death, the county in which he is seized and the county in which he is injured or put to death shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the forfeiture herein provided, and action shall be brought and prosecuted by the United States district attorney of any district wherein any such county is located. Any district judge of the United States District Court of the judicial district wherein any suit or prosecution is instituted under the provisions of this Act may by order direct that such suit or prosecution be tried in any place in such district as he may designate in such order. SEC. 7. If any provision, sentence, or clause of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. The committee, during the Seventy-third Congress and during the Seventy-fourth Congress, has given much consideration to this bill. Hearings were held by a subcommittee at which evidence was presented demonstrating to the committee's satisfaction the continuing and increasing need for Federal legislation of this character. When a measure similar to the pending reported bill was before Congress in 1934 and its enactment into law appeared to be more than a possibility, two lynchings occurred in January 1934, a month prior to the public hearings conducted by this committee. During the months from January 30 to June 8, 1934, when public opinion in favor of legislation to curb the practice of lynching was particularly articulate, no lynchings occurred. During the first week in June 1934, word was generally circulated that hope for the enactment of the proposed measure had been abandoned. On June 8 there was a lynching in Mississippi, followed in rapid succession by 2 lynchings in Alabama, 1 in Texas, 1 in Tennessee, 1 in Louisiana, a third in Mississippi, a third in Alabama, 1 in Georgia, and 1 in Florida. By March 13, 1935, 3 lynchings occurred. In the committee's opinion it is more than a coincidence that the practice of lynching is practically stopped when Federal legislation designed to curb this practice is pending in Congress. A continuation of the practice of lynching, coupled with a complete failure of the government of those States involved to apprehend and punish the participators of these crimes, supports the need for Federal legislation. In the Sixty-seventh Congress a bill (H. R. 13) having similar purposes to the pending measure was passed by the House of Representatives, but was not allowed to reach a vote in the Senate. At that time the constitutionality of this legislation was discussed in much detail. The committee has had the benefit of briefs submitted at that time in support of the so-called "Dyer bill" by attorneys of national reputation. Favorable reports of the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate arrived at the conclusion that the legislation was clearly constitutional. Numerous court decisions were cited in support of this conclusion. For the information of the Senate, a brief supporting the constitutionality of the measure as introduced in the Seventy-third Congress, submitted to the committee by Mr. Charles H. Tuttle, an eminent attorney of New York City, is reprinted in part. |