is a limitation only upon the powers of the General Government and is not directed against the action of individuals. The thirteenth amendment denouncing slavery and involuntary servitude that is, a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another-does not in other matters protect the individual rights of persons of the Negro race. And the prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment have reference to State action exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals.

The decision in the Harris case (106 U. S. 629), cited approvingly in 271 U. S. 639, grew out of a lynching in the State of Tennessee, has never been qualified or questioned, and is absolutely decisive of the unconstitutionality of the pending bills. From the decision of the Supreme Court in the Harris case is quoted the following exceedingly significant passage:

In the indictment in this case, for instance, which would be a good indictment under the law if the law itself were valid, there is no intimation that the State of Tennessee has passed any law or done any act forbidden by the fourteenth amendment. On the contrary, the gravamen of the charge against the accused is that they conspired to deprive certain citizens of the United States and of the State of Tennessee of the equal protection accorded them by the law of Tennessee. As, therefore, the section of the law under consideration is directed exclusively against the action of private persons, without reference to the laws of the State or their administration by her officers, we are clear in the opinion that it is not warranted by any clause in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

So the Supreme Court has spoken directly and positively on a lynching case and held that the Federal Government had no authority to enact a law of this character. After quoting many authorities, the court, in the Harris case concludes:

These authorities show conclusively that the legislation under consideration finds no warrant for its enactment in the fourteenth amendment.

We might well stop our discussion of the law with that quotation, for it is unanswerable. But there are other cases on the subject of lynching also perfectly in point. The Riggins case (134 Fed. 409), wherein an Alabama judge wrote an opinion setting forth with preeminent clarity and ability exactly the same views which the proponents of this bill are voicing today, only to reverse his position and opinion after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Hodges case (203 U. S. 1) had been handed down shortly after the publication of his first opinion in the Riggins case. In the companion case of Powell (212 U. S. 564), this same Alabama jurist, Judge Jones, upon the strength of the Hodges decision, ordered the indictment against Powell quashed and the defendant discharged. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. from this decision of Judge Jones, but the Supreme Court upheld Judge Jones, saying that the Hodges case was decisive and that the Federal Government had no power, authority, or jurisdiction in such cases, even though they involved lynching.

CONCLUSION

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right," we respectfully submit that the passage of such a law would be a lynching of the Constitution; promote other lynchings and disrespect for all law; impair national

unity and the power that has been so effectively used to prevent lynching; punish the innocent; free the guilty; weaken law enforcement; and encourage lynchers.

The violation of the right of trial by jury, that has been our heritage since Magna Carta, is but another horrible feature of this bill.

Nor can it be denied that such a law would be a rape of the constitutional guaranty of the police powers of the States, especially the right of each State to enforce its own criminal laws.

80TH CONGRESS 2d Session

}

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

{

REPORT No. 1598

AUTHORIZING THE HOUSTON COUNCIL, NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES, TO CONSTRUCT A REFLECTING POOL AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL HOSPITAL, HOUSTON, TEX.

MARCH 23, 1948.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. KILDAY, from the Committee on Armed Services submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 4508)

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4508) to authorize the Houston Council, Navy League of the United States, to construct a reflecting pool at the United States Naval Hospital, Houston, Tex., having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the legislation is to authorize the construction of a reflecting pool on the grounds of the naval hospital at Houston with funds provided by patriotic businessmen of the city of Houston.

The Navy Department feels that the construction of this reflecting pool would add greatly to the appearance of the grounds of this hospital as is indicated in the following letter from the Acting Secretary of the Navy to the Speaker of the House of Representatives dated October 13, 1947:

Hon. JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR.,

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
Washington, October 13, 1947.

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a proposed bill to authorize the Houston Council, Navy League of the United States, to construct a reflecting pool at the United States Naval Hospital, Houston, Tex. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the construction of a reflection pool on the grounds of the naval hospital, Houston, Tex., with funds provided by patriotic businessmen of the city of Houston, and the acceptance of the reflection pool by the Secretary of the Navy as an unconditional gift to the United States from the Houston Council, Navy League of the United States.

The proposed legislation would permit the construction of an attractive and highly desirable landscape feature on the grounds of the said hospital. This

offer of construction by the Houston Council is considered a splendid gesture of good will toward the naval service on the part of the civilian donors of the city of Houston.

The Navy Department recommends enactment of the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation, if enacted into law, would result in no cost to the Government.

The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

W. JOHN KENNEY, Acting Secretary of the Navy.

80TH CONGRESS 2d Session

}

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

{

REPORT No. 1599

PREVENTING RETROACTIVE CHECKAGE OF RETIRED PAY IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN ENLISTED MEN AND WARRANT OFFICERS

MARCH 23, 1948.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the Sta of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BLACKNEY, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 5344]

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5344) to prevent retroactive checkage of retired pay in the cases of certain enlisted men and warrant officers appointed or advanced to commissioned rank or grade under the act of July 24, 1941 (55 Stat. 603), as amended, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Immediately following section 2, add two new sections as follows: SEC. 3. Enlisted men and warrant officers heretofore or hereafter advanced to commissioned rank or grade on the retired list under the said Act of July 24, 1941, as amended, shall, if application therefor is made to the Secretary of the Navy within three months from the date of approval of this Act or within three months after the date of advancement to commissioned rank or grade on the retired list, whichever is the later, and subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Navy, be restored to their former retired enlisted or warrant officer status, as the case may be, and shall thereafter be deemed to be enlisted or warrant officer personnel, as appropriate, for all purposes.

SEC. 4. The provisions of this Act, except as may be necessary to adapt the same thereto, shall apply to personnel of the Coast Guard in relationship to the Coast Guard in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to personnel of the Navy in relationship to the Navy: Provided, That the authority given to the Secretary of the Navy is hereby extended to the Secretary of the Treasury to be exercised with respect to the Coast guard.

The proposed legislation is a bill to prevent retroactive checkage of retirement pay in the cases of certain enlisted men and warrant officers appointed or advanced to commissioned rank or grade under the act of July 24, 1941.