Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. Mr. YOUNG. In which they categorically stated Mr. Huie had not paid attention to any facts, that he was not an assistant coach in the University of Alabama while he tattletaled on their little activities there, and made a special apology; would that surprise you? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir; it would. As a matter of fact, I don't read the Post. Mr. YOUNG. Are you acquainted with the fact that Mr. Huie has a reputation as being a nonfactual writer, a sensational writer, a writer who delves in pornographic type of materials such as this Mamie Stover book shows? Are you acquainted with that? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. Mr. YOUNG. Are you acquainted with the fact that the Reader's Digest has not ever followed up with an article of Mr. Huie's since the reprint of the Till case? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. Mr. YOUNG. Do you think that the Reader's Digest would reprint another article by Mr. Huie, from what you have heard me discussing here? Mr. PATTERSON. I am sure they would not, if they intend to live up to that which they hold out to the public, that they are. Mr. YOUNG. Do you think it would be interesting if this committee had Mr. Huie here to testify before it, under oath, as to where he secured the facts for the Till case in Mississippi, which he presents as an eyewitness, does he not? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. YOUNG. It is all in the ego, it is in the first tense, isn't it, "I was there," and "I saw it" and "I heard it" and "I did everything." Don't you think it would be a grand thing if he came and showed us where the "I" was? Mr. PATTERSON. I do. I think that we would go further than that. I think that if he would go down there and show those people those facts that he purported to see in that case, they would appreciate it very much, because he brought out facts that nobody seemed to know but him. Mr. YOUNG. It was "I" all the way through? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. YOUNG. "I was there." And he led you to believe in reciting that, that there was something odd, and there was a third person there besides the two men, and that it was covered up, didn't he? He writes with a great deal of realism. Mr. PATTERSON. He just portrayed it as a whitewash by the courts. and everybody else. Mr. YOUNG. All right. That is all. Mr. PATTERSON. I would like to say this in that connection, Mr. Young, as to this unfortunate case. The embittered things that have been directed toward the State of Mississippi because of the Till case-which, as I said before, is certainly unfortunate, but could happen in any State in the Union Mr. YOUNG. Let me ask you another question on the Till case. The Til case failed, did it not, on the identification of the defendants? Mr. PATTERSON. That is right, sir. Mr. YOUNG. And there, like any case, we have to have an identification, do we not? Mr. PATTERSON. The Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi, as well the the supreme court of every other State of the Union, has held that for conviction on circumstantial evidence, that that circumstantial evidence has got to be positive to the point of and to the exclusion of every other reasonable doubt, and that is the rule, and that is not only the rule in Mississippi, but the rule under the entire American jurisprudence. It is an ironclad ruling that people cannot be convicted of a crime on circumstantial evidence unless it is so strong that it excludes, as the courts say, every other reasonable hypothesis. Mr. YOUNG. Well, would it surprise you to know that Look magazine sells 10 issues in the North to 1 in the South? Mr. PATTERSON. No. Mr. YOUNG. Would it surprise you to know that the Reader's Digest sells 8 issues in the North to 1 in the South? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. Mr. YOUNG. Would it surprise you to think that the editor of this magazine would play up to the northern approach more than to the South, knowing the respective percentages of issues? Mr. PATTERSON. They would not at one time, I understand, that they were more concerned with news than playing one group against another. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I make one statement? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. PATTERSON. About this adverse publicity that came my way with reference to the Till case and the remarks that so many men in prominent life have seen fit to make about it in places like the State of Illinois and other places, and that is this: that I think that it is just as fair or that it would be just as fair for Senator Eastland or myself or anyone else who has been honored with high office at the hands of the people of Mississippi, to come along and say that all of the good people of the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois condone the ruthless murders that take place there at the hands of mobs every year, mobs who go out and deprive people of their civil rights, just as much so as people are deprived of their civil rights anywhere else when they are put on mob rule, it would be just as reasonable for Senator Eastland or I to say that it is indicative of the great State of Illinois and the people's thinking, as it is for them to say that the Till case is typical of the people of Mississippi. I read an article only a short time ago where a good citizen, I believe, of Cicero, Ill., was beaten by baseball bats solely because he opposed the mob rule in his city. When a grand jury of Mississippi indicted the perpetrators of the Till crime or the alleged perpetrators, and when a district attorney and a special assistant attorney general went into the courts and prosecuted him for having committed the crime, that is far more than has been done to those mobsters that beat up that good citizen in Cicero, Ill. The CHAIRMAN. You mean gangsters when you say "mobsters"? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir; mobsters, gangsters, whichever one you want to call them. So I say this thing can cut two ways. People have civil rights all over the country, as well as Mississippi. But I think the record of the courts of Mississippi will show that perhaps we go a little further in protecting people in their civil rights than they do in some of those localities where so much criticism is directed at us. Even right up here in New York only a few weeks ago, some gangsters go out there and throw acid in the eyes of that fine newspaper reporter, Mr. Riesel. No one has been indicted or even arrested for that. But certainly it would be unfair for me to sit here and say that is typical of the people of New York, because I know it is not. But if I did say it was typical of the people of New York, I would be just as truthful as those who say these great unfortunate occurrences down our way are typical of all the people of Mississippi. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Whitten? STATEMENT OF HON. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I am highly privileged to say a few words about this case in connection with our distinguished friend from Mississippi, the attorney general. I did talk to the sheriff of Tallahatchie County, in which this case occurred. I have known him all my life and his life. I formerly served as district attorney in the 17th judicial district in Mississippi prior to coming to Congress. The sheriff of that county is a man of high honor and splendid integrity. His statement to me was that the body which they found in the Tallahatchie River was quite definitely 4 or 5 years older, of a more mature man than the Till boy was supposed to have been. We all are familiar with the fact that under the law, as has been so ably pointed out by the attorney general, any jury swears to return an acquittal unless convinced beyond every reasonable doubt. In other words, if there is a reasonable doubt raised in the record as to the identity of the deceased, it is sufficient not only to call for but to demand an acquittal at the hands of the jury. Not only that, but on a circumstantial evidence case, the law in Mississippi, as it is in most all other States, provides that if a conviction is to be had on circumstantial evidence, it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the defendant. Now, this is primary and basic law with which all of you folks are familiar. But the point that I wish to make here is that quite definitely there was certainly enough reason there for an honorable man, as I know the sheriff to have been, as to identification. But the point I make is that these magazines that you mention ignore the fact that many other cases where the State is able to meet this proof burden as is required under the law, the situation happens to be completely different. The case of William Clark Mitchell was that of a white man who was indicted for killing two Negroes in the adjoining county to Tallahatchie County, in which the Til case occurred. Mitchell was put to trial in Yalobusha County, where they had white men on the jury. They brought in not only a verdict of guilty, but a verdict of guilty and recommended execution. That case went to the Supreme Court, and was affirmed. Later, on a writ of error coram nobis, I believe it was, they raised another issue and it went back to the Supreme Court the second time. In the adjoining county, where the State was able to meet the burden of proof in the case of William Clark Mitchell, a white man indicted for killing two Negroes, they had a conviction, and that was a punishment brought back by the jury and affirmed by the Supreme Court twice. I do not mean you should do one thing in one case and, because you do it, do it in the other. The 12 men on any jury take an oath that unless they are convinced beyond every reasonable doubt and, in this type of case, that the guilt of the defendant is the only reasonable answer, and no other answer is plausible except his guilt, they are sworn to bring in a verdict of acquittal. I did not sit in the trial of this case. I was not there at the time. Prior to the trial, I did talk at considerable length, having been a former district attorney in the area, to the sheriff and to the county attorney in the county, people whom I have known all my life, and there is not a more honorable, honest officer in the United States than Clarence Stryder and Hamilton Caldwell. The district attorney happens to be a very close friend of mine. I did not have occasion to talk to him about it. But certainly from the evidence which they gave me and which I fully believed, there was certainly a reasonable doubt or a sufficient lack of evidence to raise some reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. What inflames the public is, they are discussing all these issues in the Congress and elsewhere, and the letters I get presuppose his guilt when the jury did not convict. But the jury tries it on the evidence as is presented, and under oath which they have to take. I do not know that that adds anything, any light to it, but it does raise the point that these cases such as the W. C. Mitchell, with which I am thoroughly familiar, and which, incidentally, I happened to handle as district attorney, you never read a line about that because it won't sell, you cannot sell that in the rest of the country. Who wants to read a magazine where somebody carried out the law as they should? I will tell you that the local people discharged their responsibilities as seriously and as sincerely as they could. Whether the jury should have convicted was strictly a matter for that jury. The CHAIRMAN. I know Sheriff Stryder well, he is a very able and a very conscientious enforcement officer. He is one of the best sheriffs in Mississippi. I think that he did all he could. I know that Mr. Caldwell, the county attorney, and the district attorney, did all that they could. We have just as many honorable people in Mississippi as in any other State in the Union, and I will put our record for law enforcement against that of any State. Mr. PATTERSON. Bob Smith, Jr., from up at Ripley, was also employed as special prosecutor by the attorney general's office. He is one of the ablest young lawyers in North Mississippi; and in behalf of the sheriff, I would like to add further-and I am sure, Congressman, you will bear me out in this that it was Sheriff Stryder who first brought this case to the attention of the public; his investigation is what brought it out. Mr. WHITTEN. And when he investigated it Mr. PATTERSON. And he voted to investigate it, or it probably would have been forgotten. It was the sheriff that brought this to life, not the NAACP. The CHAIRMAN. Judge Wicker? Mr. WICKER. John Wicker. The CHAIRMAN. Judge, we are glad to have you. Proceed, sir. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. WICKER, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, Mr. WICKER. Thank you, sir. Senator LANGER (presiding). You may proceed, Judge. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is John J. Wicker, Jr. I am an attorney at law, and for more years than I like to remember, I have been a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, of the Federal courts in Virginia, and of the Supreme Court of the United States. I reside, as I have for most of my life, in Richmond, Va. While I am appearing here before you today at the suggestion and request of the distinguished junior Senator from Virginia, the Honorable A. Willis Robertson, my appearance is solely in my capacity as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America, and not in any representative capacity whatsoever. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not appearing here, directly or indirectly, in behalf of any of my clients or any of the various organizations with which I am affiliated. In other words, the views that I express here today are purely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual whatsoever. or group. As a citizen I appear to express my opposition to certain so-called civil rights bills now pending before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary as follows: S. 3605, a bill authorizing the creation of a Civil Rights Commission. S. 3604, a bill authorizing an additional Assistant Attorney General who would, according to the Attorney General, direct the activities of a new Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. S. 3718, a bill prohibiting interference with the right of vote, and authorizing the Attorney General to bring civil proceedings, in addition to the criminal proceedings already authorized, to enjoin threatened violations; and abolishing the time-honored requirement that State remedies be first exhausted before resorting to Federal courts. S. 3717, a bill authorizing the Attorney General to institute civil actions for redress or preventive relief in case of any acts or threatened acts to obstruct the administration of justice or to deprive persons of their general civil rights. It is my understanding that in considering proposed legislation, two questions are always highly important: First, is the proposed legislation necessary? Second, does the legislative body before which such legislation is pending have the right, as well as the power, to enact the proposed legislation? I am down about the middle of page 2, Mr. Chairman. |