"Dallas Time Herald" Editor denounces proposed anti-lynching law as a "vicious measure"

Dallas Time Herald, April 18, 1937

A Vicious Measure

By Tom C. Gooch.

Washington, D.C., April 17— Although defeated in the first major conflict over the federal antilynching bill, Congressman Hatton W. Sumners of Dallas emerged as a hero to his Southern colleagues and increased the respect held for him by those members from the North who were voting against him solely for political reasons.

If a secret vote could have been cast the so-called anti-lynching bill would have been defeated overwhelmingly. It is a piece of vicious legislation without constitutional standing in these shifty constitutional days.

The bill puts into the hands of the federal government the responsibility of taking charge of local constabulary if and when they prove themselves inefficient. Its enforcement is will-nigh impossible. No one with any self-respect, and we are talking about Southerners, would defend mob violence, especially when that violence is accompanied by extreme cruelty as

was the case at Duck Hill, Miss., when Negro murderers and robbers were tortured with blow torches.

There may be extenuating circumstances when a defenseless farm woman is ravaged by a fiend, either white or black, and he pays the prompt penalty of death without savagery on the part of the mob.

In such a situation we would be doubtful of our own self-restraint if any of our own loved ones were the victim. We are doubtful, too, of the federal government’s ability either by enacted law or attempted force to prevent a mob tragedy in certain sections of the South. ● ● ● Practical If Unethical.

It may not be the ethical way of looking at such a situation but it is certainly the practical way. The anti-lynching bill is a clear violation of states rights. If it were possible to enforce, it would be the opening wedge for a flood of such measures to be passed by congress invading the homes of every citizens in the South.

It must be remembered that we of the South and Southwest are in the minority now. Only the

constitution, or what is left of it, prevents us from being subservient to Northern majorities. Such a situation was considered when the basic law of the nation was drafted by our forefathers each state was to have dominance over its local affairs while the federal government was to control the relations of the states with each other.

This action was taken because such commonwealths as the Carolinas, Georgia, Delaware and Rhode Island feared dominance by such populous states as Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut. The two-senator system, regardless of a state’s population, was created to hold in check brutal majorities.

All this and more was told to the members of the house of representatives by Congressman Sumners. He eloquently and convincingly pleaded for tolerance. He defended with great courage the doctrine of states rights. When he concluded his address even those who opposed him for purely political reasons stood and cheered him. Not a fourth of those who voted for the bill, we believe, were governed

by anything else but political expediency. Now the anti-lynching bill is on the way to the senate and passing there, will go to the Supreme Court. The South should be thankful that there is a Supreme Court. Without it there would be no constitution and we shudder to think what would happen to the South if there were no constitution.