Viewing page 16 of 35


mittee of colored people acting under our advice it was decided to await the outcome of the Louisville and Baltimore cases.
     The segregation problem was raised in Harlem by the attempt to organize a corporation in New York to remove colored people from certain sections in Harlem in order to restore land values there. Plans to cooperate with the National League on Urban Conditions among Negroes to meet this condition were abandoned temporarily because of the retrenchment necessitated by the war.
     In concluding the legal report it is gratifying to note two victories, one of them that of our President, Mr. Storey, who at the meeting of the American Bar Association succeeded in rescinding the resolution passed two years before, which declared that it was never contemplated that colored people should be admitted. In its place a resolution was passed that application for membership must hereafter state race and sex and such other facts as the executive committee required.
     In the case of Private Anderson, of Honolulu (see THE CRISIS, April, 1914), sentenced by a court martial to five years imprisonment for burglariously entering an officer's home, Mr. Villard personally intervied the Judge Advocate General in the army and also obtained an opinion on the case from Mr. Storey, John Chipman Gray, and ex-Judge William G. Choate. The case was passed upon by the Judge Advocate General, the Assistant Secretary of War and the Secretary of War, and as a result Anderson was released. This does not undo the wrong but saved him four and one-half years of imprisonment.
     Since losing the valued services of Mr. Chapin Brinsmade our legal work has been carried on by Mr. Arthur B. Spingarn and Mr. Charles H. Studin, who have generously donated their services.
     We are at present advising with Mr. Storey and Mr. Boston in regard to suits which the Association intends to bring to test the Jim-Crow law in Oklahoma. These suits are being brought as the result of the experience of Mr. W. Scott Brown who accompanied your Chairman on his recent speaking tour of Oklahoma. Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States refused to declare the law unconstitutional, the Chairman paid a flying visit to Oklahoma, the result of which has been to stiffen the backbone of colored opposition to the Jim-Crow law of the state.

     Undoubtedly the most important work of the year has been the Association's vigilance and activity in opposing hostile legislation in Washington. For over a year it has employed a man in each branch of Congress. These men are experts, newspaper men who are trained especially for legislative work. They keep in closest touch with New York Headquarters and with the District of Columbia Branch, which acts as a Congressional Committee and takes the lead in the local campaign against hostile bills. As soon as word is received of a discriminating measure the Association immediately wires its branches urging them to influence their representatives in Congress to vote against it. Officers, directors and friends of the Association cooperate personally and when necessary representatives are sent to Washington to appear at Committee hearings. No better example of the way the Association is able to work through its branches can be given than the following letter from Judge Brown of the Appellate Court of Illinois, who is President of the Chicago branch.

Chicago, January 15, 1915
     In compliance with your request over the telephone, I take pleasure in sending you a report of the action taken in behalf of our Branch of the National Association in relation to the legislation concerning Negro aliens and also the legislation which passed the House


of Representatives concerning intermarriage in the District of Columbia. Immediately upon the passage of the Immigration Act with its prohibition of the admission of Negro aliens, I telegraphed for the Branch to the Hon. James Mann, the Hon. Martin Madden, the Hon. Adolph Sabath, in the House of Representatives, protesting against the said amendment and asking them to exert their utmost efforts to defeat it. In these telegrams yourself, Mr. Allinson, Jane Addams, George Packard, Robert McMurdy and Sophonisba Breckenridge personally joined. I also telegraphed for the Branch to the President, requesting him to veto the Immigration Bill if it came to him with the prohibition of Negro aliens. The action of the gentlemen named in the House perhaps shows that the telegrams were not needed, but they could have done no harm, and upon the result, from whatever cause, we may congratulate ourselves. The telegram to the President was courteously acknowledged by his Secretary, who said that it would be brought to his attention.
     Immediately upon being informed by the press of the passage of the Anti-intermarriage bill, I telegraphed a long night letter to each of our Senators. Senator Lewis was at Hot Springs, Arkansas, Ill. Senator Sherman was in Washington, and telegrams were addressed to them at these respective points. We referred them to letters written to them in relation to the matter when the bill was before Congress at its last session. We renewed our protest against the legislation, pointing out its injustice, its inexpediency and its futility, and especially indicating both its offensiveness as a studied insult to the Negro race and the great wrong that it did in taking away from some women the protection which the law afforded to others against men who would take advantage of them. We asked each Senator to exert his influence against the passage of this Act by the Senate. I also addressed a telegram in the name of the Branch by myself as its President, to a dear friend of mine, who is a Democratic member of the House from another State, who has a close acquaintance with many Democratic Senators. I have received from him an acknowledgment of my letter, an expression of sympathy with its object and a promise immediately to use his influence in the line indicated. I am,
Very truly yours,
(Signed) E.O. BROWN

     Following these methods, the Association was able during the year to act upon a flood of discriminating legislation, including anti-intermarriage bills. Jim Crow bills, a bill making Negroes ineligible for service in the army and navy, and residential segregation bills for the District of Columbia. In addition proposed legislation on the subject of rural credits, the University of the United States, vocational education, the extension of the Interstate Commerce Commission's jurisdiction to carriers by water, was examined for jokers. Among the bills stifled was the Clark Jim Crow car bill. Such pressure was put on the House to prevent its passage that rather than have it come to a vote it was voted to lay aside District Day, which is the only day on which measures relating to the District of Columbia can be considered. The Clark Bill now goes over until the next Congress where it will probably be defeated most decisively.
     Whenever possible these bills have been stifled in committee. When necessary to fight in the open the Association has done so. When the Aswell-Edwards bill proposing to segregate civil service employees throughout the country came before the Civil Service Reform Committee, Mr. Grimke, President of the District of Columbia Branch, appeared before the Committee, and as a result of his arguments the bill was never reported. Our fight on the Smith-Lever Bill was not successful. As soon as this was reported to us by our legislative agent it was discovered that though the colored farmers of the South might or might not receive any of the millions which the bill appropriated for agricultural extension work, no specific provision was made for them. To insure colored farmers a fair share of the moneys appropriated the Association persuaded Senator Jones to introduce an amendment providing for this. A scholarly memorandum supporting this amendment was then prepared by Dr. Du Bois and Mr. Brinsmade and sent to every member of Congress. Both Dr.

Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact