This page was created by Anonymous.

This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935

"Harlem Rioters Face Anarchy Indictments," New York Herald Tribune, March 26, 1935, 17.

In the New York Herald Tribune

This page is referenced by:

Sam Jameson, Murray Samuels, and Claudio Viabolo arrested Shortly after 6:45 PM, Patrolman Timothy Shannon and other officers arrested two nineteen-year-old white men, Sam Jameson and Murray Samuels, and Claudio Viabolo, a thirty-nine-year-old Black man, who were picketing in front of Kress’ store at 256 West 125th Street. The three men had arrived a few minutes earlier, likely from 262 Lenox Avenue, the offices of the organization to which they belonged, the Young Liberators. The placards they carried read “Kress Brutally Beats and Seriously Injures Negro Child and Negro Women. Negro and White Don’t Buy Here” and “Kress Brutally Beats Negro Child.” An officer “told or asked [the men] to stop marching in front of Kress'," Patrolman Moran told a public hearing of the MCCH and when they did not leave “after about five minutes," police arrested them for unlawful assembly. Jackson Smith, the store manager, watched the arrest from inside the store. “The police took the placards and pushed the people carrying them into the vestibule,” he told a later public hearing. Around thirty minutes earlier, Patrolman Shannon had arrested another man in front of the store, twenty-year-old white man, Daniel Miller, pulling him down from a stepladder when he tried to speak to a crowd. A few minutes later, around 6:30 PM, other officers, including Patrolman Irwin Young, arrested a second white man, Harry Gordon, when tried to speak to the crowd by climbing a lamppost on 125th Street east of Kress’ store.

The testimony of Moran and Smith in the public hearings provided the only details of the arrests of Jameson, Samuels, and Viabolo. The men themselves did not testify. Patrolman Shannon did testify, but was not asked about any of the arrests he made. Newspaper stories on the arrests grouped the men with Miller, and in some cases, Gordon, reflecting information from police that they had acted together to create the disorder. Two Hearst newspapers, the New York American and New York Evening Journal, published stories that described the arrest, but they included details that testimony in the public hearings indicate did not happen: Jameson and Samuels arrived with Miller and Gordon, not after them, in the newspaper narrative, picketed before Miller spoke, and with Harry Gordon came to Miller’s aid when he was arrested, battling Shannon and two other patrolmen before also being arrested. Viabolo was not on the picket line in those stories, but in the New York American was a member of the crowd who joined in efforts to prevent Miller’s arrest. Although the newspapers said their information came from police, the elements that did not happen seem to be a product of the anti-Communist stance and sensational style of the Hearst newspapers. The New York Times and, somewhat surprisingly, the Daily Worker, also published narratives in which the men picketed before Miller spoke, but without details of their arrest. The New York Times simply reported that the arrest of Jameson, Samuels, and Viabolo, and Miller, came “later,” after Miller spoke. The Daily Worker did not report specific arrests, but rather that “police broke up the picket line, arresting the leaders.”

Jameson, Samuels, and Viabolo all appeared in the lists of those arrested during the disorder published by the Atlanta World, Afro-American, and Norfolk Journal and Guide, the New York Evening Journal, the Daily News, the New York American, and the New York Herald Tribune, among those charged with inciting a riot. However, the white men, Jameson and Samuels, as well as Miller and Gordon, are not in the transcription of the 28th Precinct police blotter in the MCCH records. Viabolo did appear, with Margaret Mitchell, the Black woman arrested inside Kress' store. That discrepancy suggests that the white men were omitted from the transcription, perhaps overlooked because they were somehow less readily identified as participants in the disorder among others arrested for unrelated activities at that time. It may be that the charges against those men were not recorded as riot. The charge against Viabolo in the blotter is disorderly conduct, with the note that he was “Disorderly in Kress’ 5 & 10c store,” the same description recorded for Margaret Mitchell.

In a line-up on the morning of March 20 that included ninety-six of those arrested disorder, police put Jameson, Samuels and Viabolo in a group with Miller and Gordon, a New York Herald Tribune story noted. Police described the men as all "arrested at a demonstration in front of the Kress store." That grouping was not mentioned in the two other newspaper stories about the line-up, in the Daily Mirror and New York Sun. An unnamed Black man, presumably Viabolo, was quoted in the New York Sun “giving his version of the start of the trouble:” "We were picketing in front of the store. I heard that a child had been killed inside. I thought it ought to be called to the attention of the public, about the child being killed.” The man then told the officer questioning him that he “and his companions took turns on a soap box “informing the public.”” That last detail was not part of any other description of the picketing. The two other newspaper stories on the line-up did not include Viabolo’s comments, but focused, as the New York Sun did, on Harry Gordon’s exchange with police, in which he refused to answer questions until he saw his lawyer.

The Daily News, New York American, and New York Evening Journal published photographs taken a few seconds apart that are captioned as showing the four white men arrested outside Kress’ store in the West 123rd Street police station on their way to the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20. Surrounded on three sides by both uniformed police and detectives in plainclothes, three white men are visible, with another white man party visible behind them, all but the first, identified as Harry Gordon, looking at the ground. On the right of the image is a Black man, almost certainly Viabolo, as police had grouped him with these men in the line-up earlier that day, and would again in the courthouse. He is unmentioned in the captions, and, perhaps as a result, cropped out of versions of the photograph published by several regional newspapers. Reflecting its anti-communist focus, the New York Evening Journal placed the photograph on page one, across the whole width of the page, with a caption labeling the men “young college-bred Communists.” The next page featured photographs of two placards used in the picket, and the leaflets circulated by both the Young Liberators and the Communist Party. The Daily News photograph, taken at almost the same moment, appeared in the center of a two page spread of photographs of the disorder in the center of the newspaper. The caption did not identify the men as Communists but as inciting the riot, focusing on drawing a contrast between their uninjured appearances and the damage done during the disorder. (Gordon later testified he had been beaten and had injuries to his face; he may be the man whose face was not visible in that photograph, notwithstanding the caption.)

Police continued to group Jameson, Samuels, and Viabolo with Miller and Gordon when they appeared in Harlem Magistrates Court. In stories on the court appearances, the New York American, Home News, New York Herald Tribune, and New York Times all described the men as the "ringleaders" of the disorder, which was likely the term police used. However, while the Daily News, New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram, and Daily Mirror included all five men in that group, the New York American, Home News, and New York Times omitted Gordon. That difference appears to have resulted from Gordon being arraigned separately from the three Young Liberators and Miller. That separation would have resulted from the different arresting officer listed in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book for Gordon, Patrolman Irwin Young, not Patrolman Shannon, the arresting officer recorded for the four other men. The charge recorded for Gordon was also different, assaulting Young, not inciting riot. The Daily News claimed Gordon "was heard separately when he indicated that he would produce his own lawyers."

When the court clerk called the names of Jameson, Samuels, Viabolo, and Miller, two lawyers from the International Labor Defense Fund rose to represent them. The appearance of those attorneys was reported by the New York American, Daily Mirror, Home News, Daily News, New York Herald Tribune, New York Times, New York World-Telegram, and Daily Worker, but for some reason they were not recorded in the column for the name and address of a defendant's lawyer in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book. The ILD's affiliation with the Communist Party would have been well known to readers of those newspapers, but the Daily Mirror explicitly made the connection in its story, stating that the men's "Communistic affiliations were declared" by the identity of their attorneys. The Daily Mirror and Daily Worker named the lawyers as Miss Yetta M. Aronsky and I[sidore] Englander, while the Daily News named only Aronsky, and the New York American, New York Herald Tribune, and New York Times reported only "a woman lawyer" who would not give her name to their reporters. (Englander later testified about being present in the court in a public hearing of the MCCH.)

Assistant District Attorney Richard E. Carey, the Black attorney Magistrate Renaud had requested prosecute those arrested in the disorder, according to the Daily News, asked that the men be held for a hearing on Friday on the maximum bail of $2,500. The men's lawyers protested that sum. Others arrested during the disorder charged with felonies had their bail set at $1,000, including Harry Gordon. Magistrate Renaud dismissed those protests, and complaints by Aronsky, reported by the Daily News and Daily Worker, that the men "had not been fed by police following their arrest."

When Jameson, Samuels, and Viabolo returned to the Harlem Magistrates Court with Miller, Magistrate Ford dismissed the charges against the group because their cases had already been decided by Dodge's grand jury. The Magistrates Court docket book recorded the deposition of the men's cases as "Dism[issed], def[endant] indicted." Stories in the Home News, Daily Mirror, and New York Amsterdam News also reported that they had been indicted by the grand jury. However, while the grand jury did send the men for trial, it was for a misdemeanor, not a felony, so an information, not an indictment, and to the Court of Special Sessions, not the Court of General Sessions. Other newspaper stories included elements of that distinction. The New York American reported that after being discharged, the men were "turned over to detectives with bench warrants based on the grand jury informations voted last week charging inciting to riot." The New York Herald Tribune also reported "two informations charging five persons with inciting riot" without naming them; so too did the Daily News, which alone specified that an information charged a misdemeanor and that the men were sent for trial in the Court of Special Sessions. The grand jury also sent all the other individuals charged with inciting a riot that appeared before it to the Court of Special Sessions to face trial for misdemeanors. If the men were being prosecuted for the form of the crime defined as a misdemeanor, unlawful assembly, their crime was being treated as involving disturbing the peace, not efforts to prevent the enforcement of the law or incite force or violence.

As other prosecutions resulting from the riot made their way through the courts there were no reports mentioning Jamison, Samuels, and Viabolo, or Miller. Finally, on June 20, the four men appeared in the Court of Special Sessions. The New York Amsterdam News reported an additional defendant, a "young sympathizer," Dave Mencher, not mentioned in any other sources, or in the Daily Worker story, the only other report of this trial located. Only one prosecution witness testified before the court's three judges, Sergeant Bauer of the West 123rd Street station (likely the sergeant who testified at the public hearings that he was involved in the arrest, although his name was recorded as Bowe in the transcript). It is not clear why Patrolman Timothy Shannon, the arresting officer, did not appear as a witness. International Labor Defense lawyers again represented the men, but not the same attorneys as the day after the disorder. Instead, Joseph Tauber and Edward Kuntz, who played prominent roles in the MCCH public hearings, represented the men. After cross-examining Bauer to establish that a crowd had collected in front of Kress' prior to the men arriving, they moved to have the charges dismissed. The judges agreed, and freed Jameson, Samuels, and Viabolo, as well as Miller.

Claudio Viabolo lived in Harlem, at 202 West 132nd Street; the two white men did not. Sam Jameson lived at 967 East 178th Street in Washington Heights, north of the Black neighborhood, although when a reporter from the New York Evening Journal went to the address, the tenants denied knowing him. Murray Samuels lived at 8621 Twentieth Avenue, Brooklyn. However, he was not a student at City College, as the New York Evening Journal reported on March 21. A week later the New York Evening Journal acknowledged that the Murray Samuels a reporter had identified as attending evening classes was not the man arrested during the disorder, in a story headlined, "Far From Red, and Riot! Says C. C. N. Y. Man."

Claudio Viabolo’s name was spelled in a variety of ways in these sources. Viabolo is used here as it was recorded in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book, and in stories about his appearances in the Harlem Magistrates Court published in the Afro-American, Daily News, New York Post, New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York Sun, New York Times, New York American, and New York Age. The name was spelled Diabolo in the list of those arrested in the disorder published in the Atlanta World, Afro-American, and Norfolk Journal and Guide, and stories in New York World-Telegram and New York Evening Journal. In the edition the New York Age rushed to print on March 23, the name was Bilo. In the Daily Worker on March 21, the name was Viano. Sam Jameson's name was also misspelled, but was not corrected over time as Viabolo's name was. Jameson is used here as it was recorded in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book, and in stories published in New York Evening Journal, New York Times, New York Post, New York Herald Tribune, and stories about court appearances published in the Home News and New York Sun. The name was spelled Jamieson in the Daily News, Atlanta World, Norfolk Journal and Guide, and New York American.
Daniel Miller arrested Daniel Miller stepped up on a ladder in front of Kress' store about 6:15 PM and began to speak to a crowd he estimated at 100-200 people. The twenty-four-year-old white man who identified himself as a member of the Nurses and Hospital League had said only "Fellow workers" when someone in the crowd threw an object at the windows of the store, breaking one. Patrolman Timothy Shannon of the 28th Precinct, one of about five officers stationed in front of Kress' store, immediately pulled Miller from the ladder and arrested him. Sergeant Bowe testified in a public hearing of the MCCH that he was a "witness" to that arrest. James Parton, the Black man who had carried the ladder, and an American flag banner, to the front of the store and spoke briefly before Miller, was not arrested. Nor was Parton arrested when he climbed a lamppost on the opposite side of 125th Street and spoke to the crowd. However, Harry Gordon, a white man who followed Parton in climbing up the lamppost to speak, was, like Miller, immediately arrested.

Miller's testimony in a public hearing of the MCCH provided the most detailed description of his arrest. Patrolman Shannon also testified in an earlier public hearing, but he was not questioned about the arrest. Louise Thompson testified that she saw Miller begin to speak and the window broken. She did not see his arrest. Patrolman Moran did. Officers stationed with him in front of the store moved to arrest Miller and disperse the crowd listening to him as soon as the window was broken, he told a hearing of the MCCH. Two Hearst newspapers, the New York American and New York Evening Journal, published stories that described the arrest, but they included details that other sources indicate did not happen: Shannon arresting Miller after he refused an order to move on, with no mention of the widely reported broken window; and two white Young Liberators and Harry Gordon coming to Miller’s aid when he was arrested, and battling Shannon and two other patrolmen before also being arrested. Although the newspapers said their information came from police, these elements that did not happen seem to be a product of the anti-Communist stance and sensational style of the Hearst newspapers.

The lists of those arrested during the disorder published by the Atlanta World, Afro-American, and Norfolk Journal and Guide, the New York Evening Journal, the Daily News, the New York American, and the New York Herald Tribune all included Miller among those charged with inciting a riot. However, Miller, and the three other white men arrested in front of Kress' store, are not in the transcript of the 28th Precinct police blotter in the MCCH records. Margaret Mitchell, the Black woman arrested inside Kress' store before Miller's arrest, and Claudio Viabolo, the Black Young Liberator arrested with two white companions soon after Miller, do appear in the transcription. That discrepancy suggests that the white men were omitted from the transcription, perhaps overlooked because they were somehow less readily identified as participants in the disorder among others arrested for unrelated activities at that time.

Miller was among around eighty-nine men and women arrested put in a line-up and questioned by detectives in front of reporters at Police Headquarters downtown on the morning of March 20, before being loaded into patrol wagons and taken back uptown to the Harlem and Washington Heights Magistrates Courts. Police put him on the platform in a group with Gordon and the three Young Liberators, Samuels, Jamison and Viabolo, a New York Herald Tribune story noted; it reported that police described them as all "arrested at a demonstration in front of the Kress store." That grouping was not mentioned in the two other newspaper stories about the line-up, with the Daily Mirror and New York Sun, as well as the New York Herald Tribune focusing on Harry Gordon refusing to answer questions until he saw his lawyer.

The Daily News and New York Evening Journal published photographs taken a few seconds apart that are captioned as showing the four white men arrested outside Kress’ store in the West 123rd Street police station on their way to the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20. Surrounded on three sides by both uniformed police and detectives in plainclothes, three white men are visible, with another white man party visible behind them, all but the first, identified in the caption as Harry Gordon, looking at the ground. Miller was the man on the right of the group, according to the captions. To his right is a Black man, almost certainly Viabolo, as police had grouped him with these men in the line-up earlier that day, and would again in the courthouse. He was not identified in the captions, and, perhaps as a result, cropped out of versions of the photograph published by several regional newspapers. Reflecting its anti-Communist focus, the New York Evening Journal placed the photograph on page one, across the whole width of the page, with a caption labeling the men “young college-bred Communists.” The next page featured photographs of two placards used in the picket, and the leaflets circulated by both the Young Liberators and the Communist Party. The Daily News photograph, taken at almost the same moment, appeared in the center of a two-page spread of photographs of the disorder in the center of the newspaper. The caption did not identify the men as Communists but as inciting the riot, focusing on drawing a contrast between their uninjured appearances and the damage done during the disorder. (Gordon later testified he had been beaten and had injuries to his face; he may be the man whose face was not visible in that photograph notwithstanding the caption.)

Police continued to group Miller with the other four men when they were appeared in Harlem Magistrates Court. In stories on the court appearances, the New York American, Home News, New York Herald Tribune, and New York Times all described the men as the "ringleaders" of the disorder, which was likely the term police used. However, while the Daily News, New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram and Daily Mirror included all five men in that group, the New York American, Home News, and New York Times omitted Gordon. That difference appears to have resulted from Gordon being charged separately from Miller and the other three men. That separation would have resulted from the different arresting officer listed in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book for Gordon, Patrolman Irwin Young, not Patrolman Shannon, the arresting officer recorded for the four other men. The charge recorded for Gordon was also different, assaulting Young, not inciting riot. The Daily News claimed Gordon "was heard separately when he indicated that he would produce his own lawyers."

In the Harlem Magistrates Court Miller was charged with inciting a riot, as were Jameson, Samuels and Viabolo. When their names were called, two lawyers from the International Labor Defense Fund rose to represent them. The appearance of those attorneys was reported by the New York American, Daily Mirror, Home News, Daily News, New York Herald Tribune, New York Times, New York World-Telegram and Daily Worker but for some reason they were not recorded in the column for the name and address of a defendant's lawyer in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book (a section completed for Harry Gordon). The ILD's affiliation with the Communist Party would have been well-known to readers of those newspapers, but the Daily Mirror explicitly made the connection in its story, stating that the men's "Communistic affiliations were declared" by the identity of their attorneys. The Daily Mirror and Daily Worker named the lawyers as "Miss Yetta M. Aronsky and I[sidore] Englander," while Daily News named only Aronsky, and the New York American, New York Herald Tribune and New York Times reported only "a woman lawyer" who would not give her name to their reporters. (Englander later testified about being present in the court in a public hearing of the MCCH).

Assistant District Attorney Richard E. Carey, the Black attorney Magistrate Renaud had requested prosecute those arrested in the disorder, according to the Daily News, requested the men be held for a hearing on Friday on the maximum bail of $2500. The men's ILD lawyers protested that sum. Other arrested during the disorder charged with felonies had their bail set at $1000, including Harry Gordon. Magistrate Renaud dismissed those protests, and complaints by Aronsky, reported by the Daily News and Daily Worker that the men "had not been fed by police following their arrest."

When Miller returned to the Harlem Magistrates Court with the three Young Liberators, Magistrate Ford dismissed the charges against the group because the grand jury had indicted them in response to evidence presented by District Attorney Dodge as part of his investigation of the disorder. The Magistrates Court docket book records the deposition of the men's cases as "Dism[issed], def[endant] indicted." Stories in the Daily Mirror and New York Amsterdam News also reported they had been indicted by the grand jury. However, while the grand jury did send the men for trial, it was for a misdemeanor, not a felony, so an information that sent them to the Court of Special Sessions, not an indictment that would have sent them to the Court of General Sessions. Other stories included elements of that distinction. The New York American reported that after being discharged the men were "turned over to detectives with bench warrants based on the Grand Jury informations voted last week charging inciting to riot." The New York Herald Tribune also reported "two informations charging five persons with inciting riot" without naming them; so too did the Daily News, which alone specified that an information charged a misdemeanor and that the men were sent for trial in the Court of Special Sessions. The grand jury also sent all the other individuals charged with inciting a riot that appeared before it to the Court of Special Sessions to face trial for misdemeanors. Testifying in a public hearing of the MCCH, Miller said he was charged with unlawful assembly. That crime involving disturbing the peace, not efforts to prevent the enforcement of the law or incite force or violence.

As other prosecutions resulting from the riot made their way through the courts there were no reports mentioning Miller, or Jameson, Samuels and Viabolo. Finally, on June 20, the four men appeared in the Court of Special Sessions — the New York Amsterdam News reported an additional defendant, a "young sympathizer," Dave Mencher, not mentioned in any other sources or in the Daily Worker story, the only other report of this trial located. Only one prosecution witness testified before the court's three judges, Sergeant Bauer of the West 123rd Street station (likely the sergeant who testified at the public hearings that he was involved in the arrest, although his name was recorded as Bowe in the transcript). It is not clear why Patrolman Timothy Shannon, the arresting officer, did not appear as a witness. International Labor Defence lawyers again represented the men, but not the same attorneys as on the day after the disorder. Instead, Joseph Tauber and Edward Kuntz, who played prominent roles in the MCCH public hearings, represented the men. After cross-examining Bauer to establish that a crowd had collected in front of Kress' store prior to the men arriving, the attorneys moved to have the charges of inciting a riot dismissed. The judges agreed, and freed Miller and the three other men.

Miller's home address is recorded in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book as 1280 South Boulevard in the Bronx. That address is also published by the Daily Mirror, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, New York American, New York Times, and New York Age. However, the New York Evening Journal reported that address did not exist. A different address was published in the New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York American, and New York Amsterdam News: 35 Morningside Avenue, between West 117th and 118th Streets, two blocks west of 8th Avenue. That address fits the information he gave in the MCCH public hearing. All those newspaper stories are reports of Miller's appearance in court, suggesting that the Morningside Avenue address was mentioned at that time even if it was not recorded in the docket book. Miller's organization, the Nurses and Hospital League, had an office downtown at 799 Broadway, identified in the New York Post, New York American, and Daily Worker as raided by police investigating the disorder that was outside Harlem.
Reactions to appointments to the MCCH The Home News, which had an anti-Communist editorial position, prefigured one strand of criticisms of La Guardia’s appointments when it described the Commission members as “all of distinct liberal leanings” in reporting their names. The New York Sun and New York American, also anti-Communist newspapers, expanded those criticisms. Both reported complaints by unnamed “anti-Red organizations.” The New York American story described them as “openly dissatisfied with the make-up of the Mayor’s committee,” while the New York Sun reported more specifically that they considered “that the Mayor's investigating committee is composed largely of men whose names have been associated with radical movements in this country.” The targets of the complaints were Randolph, Hays, Ernst, Villard, and Cullen. In Randolph’s case, these critics pointed to him being named in the Lusk Committee report, an investigation of radicalism conducted by the state legislature fifteen years earlier. Hays’ recent work defending John Strachey, “avowed English Communist,” which is why he was in Chicago at the time of the disorder, was singled out. Despite their more well-known affiliations, Ernst and Villard were criticized for their membership in the United Action Campaign Committee of the League for Independent Political Action, an obscure group trying to create a political organization that united workers, farmers, and intellectuals that was largely defunct by 1935, with the New York American quoting two selections from a pamphlet that committee published two years earlier. Notwithstanding the uncompelling nature of the specific charges made against those four men, they were well-known for their involvement in a range of liberal causes and organizations. Not so Cullen. In his case, the charge reported in the New York American was that the poet’s writings were “quoted regularly and enthusiastically by communist publications.”

While those criticisms were reported only in avowedly anti-Communist newspapers, and did not appear in later stories, criticisms of the Black members of the commission appointed by La Guardia were more widely and extensively reported. While stories in Black newspapers described the criticisms in the most detail, they also appeared in the white press, particularly in stories about the mayor’s attendance at a meeting of Black clergymen on March 25. As Black newspapers were published weekly, those stories did not appear until March 30, after those in the white press, and after the mayor had added an additional Black member to the commission, Rev. John Robinson.

The first reported criticism of the Black members came from Charles Hanson of the Harlem Committee on Public Policy, which organized a meeting at the YMCA on March 22. The New York Age described that organization as “made up of business and professional men and women and welfare workers,” and “James H. Hubert, executive secretary of the New York Urban League, several prominent local clergymen and others” as giving addresses. Walter White of the NAACP was in the audience. The New York Times reported that Hanson said Randolph “was the only Negro on the committee who had practical knowledge of conditions in Harlem.” No other white newspapers mentioned that meeting or Hanson’s criticism. They were reported in New York Amsterdam News, which added that “special censure” was directed at the appointment of Cullen and Delany, dismissed as a “poet” and a “Fusion Republican,” and hence affiliated with La Guardia, or as the paper's columnist J. A. Rogers put it, “[held] a position under the mayor." Neither criticism was mentioned in the New York Age and Norfolk Journal and Guide reports of that meeting. Bennie Butler of the NAACP also wrote to specifically complain about Cullen and Delany, as having little in common with the rank and file, were not equipped to analyze conditions in and did not come into daily conduct with the masses. The Daily Worker echoed that criticism of the appointment of Delany in an editorial on March 23 that described him as “only too eager to foster the Hearst-La Guardia plot against the Communist Party.”

Even as he announced the committee, La Guardia had Charles Roberts reach out to Dr William Lloyd Imes about meeting with Harlem’s clergy, apparently anticipating criticism that none had been appointed. He proved to be correct. “The absence of the name of even one minister on the whole body” was the first criticism mentioned in the New York Age, which it reported “was considered by many as a slight to the colored clergy and an oversight on the part of the authorities.” The mayor’s subsequent meeting with the Interdominational Preachers Meeting of Greater New York and Vicinity, had been planned to take place in secret, according to the New York Sun, but someone provided the press with the location. Only the New York Times reported that Charles Roberts was appointed the MCCH chairman only hours earlier, and Hubert Delany accompanied him. About fifty clergymen attended the meeting according to the New York Herald Tribune or seventy-five according to the Home News and New York Times. Several of them criticized La Guardia for not appointing a clergyman to the committee, stories in the New York World-Telegram and Daily News and the New York Amsterdam News, New York Age, Afro-American, and Norfolk Journal and Guide, reported. The New York Herald Tribune reported that La Guardia had tried to preempt those criticisms when he spoke, explaining that he had not appointed a minister because “If I had appointed one I would have had to appoint many others.” The story then quoted three complaints about that decision:
"There ought to be a minister on that committee!" shouted a parson in the front row, as soon as the Mayor ended. "There is not a minister in this community who is not in touch with more persons than any member of your committee. Since we are recognized as leaders we should have representation."

"The people here believe the ministers have been slighted by the Mayor," another pastor commented gloomily. "A minister is necessary for psychological reasons."

An emotional touch was contributed by the last protest, when another minister demanded:

"Why should we get up here and beg for a place - we, who have been suffering for many long years?"

The opening of the story framed those reactions in terms that suggested that the reporter had not taken them entirely seriously, that the clergymen “told him he had outraged their feelings and prestige by failing to appoint one of their profession to the committee named to investigate the riot.” The Home News reported only one minister questioning La Guardia about “why he had not appointed one of their members to the investigating committee, pointing out that they were in close touch with the residents of the district and that one clergyman should be on it for psychological reasons.” That clergyman was “Rev. D. Ward Nichols, pastor of the Emanuel A.M.E. Church,” according to the Afro-American story, which described him as saying that “not one of [the members of the committee] has the psychological influence which comes within the power of any one of the ministers present.” Rather than reporting any criticisms from the group, the New York Times story reported only the mayor’s speech, referring to comments he made about criticisms in general terms, “that he had been criticized for his selection of the committee, some saying it was too small, others demanding a larger body. He also admitted that he might have been at fault in not appointing one clergyman to the committee.” The New York American reported the meeting without any mention of the criticism of the mayor.

The mayor did not respond to his critics according to all but one white newspaper. The New York Herald Tribune and Daily News emphasized that La Guardia had no reaction to the complaints. The Home News reported that La Guardia asked the clergy to form a committee to advise the investigation, which was part of his speech, and that the group instead elected Robinson to represent them. The New York Times also mentioned Robinson’s selection after La Guardia left. Only the New York World-Telegram story reported that the group’s selection was a response to a statement by the mayor, who, “Obviously nettled toward the end,” “announced he would consider the names of Negro clergymen submitted to him for membership.”

La Guardia’s commitment to add a Black clergyman was also reported in Harlem’s two Black newspapers. In the New York Amsterdam News story, “the mayor promised to consider the appointment of one minister to his body,” while the New York Age added that he “promised to appoint one of their body to the committee if a name would be sent to him immediately” and “offered the body the opportunity to name one of their number who they felt most capable. If this name were sent to him immediately, he said, he would appoint the man to the committee. A second additional appointment, chosen from a denomination not included in the Alliance, would also be named, he added.” Rev. Robinson was appointed to the committee several days later, on March 29, attending their meeting that day. At La Guardia’s request, he was added to the subcommittee investigating “the disturbances of March 19.” Only the New York Amsterdam News reported Robinson’s appointment. There is no evidence of how the Harlem community reacted to the choice of Robinson. A second clergyman was not appointed until April 4, when La Guardia wrote to notify Roberts he had selected Father McCann of St. Charles Borromeo on West 141st Street. It is not clear if McCann attended the committee meeting on April 5 as no attendance was recorded in minutes, but he was present at the subcommittee hearing on April 6. An outspoken anti-Communist who had blamed Communists for the disorder and called for a movement to drive them out of Harlem, McCann’s appointment was likely intended to address those critics. Again, only the New York Amsterdam News reported this appointment, under the headline, “Mayor Places Radicals' Foe On Riot Body.” Predictably, the Communist Party criticized McCann’s appointment, writing to both the MCCH and La Guardia about the priest’s call to drive white Communists out of Harlem (but not until April 25, to say “we understand that Reverend McCann has been appointed a member of your commission,” which seems to confirm that the appointment was not widely announced). They claimed his appointment represented an effort “at stirring up further animosity between white and Negro people in Harlem and still further trying to place the blame for the March 19 events on the Communist Party.”

La Guardia made no moves to address the other criticisms of the Black members reported extensively in a story in the New York Amsterdam News, and in less detail in the New York Age and Norfolk Journal and Guide, on March 30. The Consolidated Tenants League, like the HCPP, judged only A. Philip Randolph fit for the task of investigating the disorder and “sufficiently free from political and other affiliations and views to render them capable of obtaining the proper economic-social view of the problem,” a story in the New York Amsterdam News reported. New York Amsterdam News columnist, J. A. Rogers, wrote that “in naming the routine inquiry he, or his advisers, chose among them two or three routine names and left out some who would be more effective on it. The three most outspoken critics against conditions in Harlem are James W. Ford, Frank Crosswaith and the Rev. A. C. Powell, Jr., yet none of them is on the commission.”

For others, the issue was that those on the commission did not represent all of the Harlem community. The New York chapter of the National Association of College Women proposed adding social worker Mrs C. C Saunders, Amsterdam News editor Obie McCullum and Rev Johnson, who had led the boycott movement. The Consolidated Tenants League suggested “Frank Crosswaith, labor organizer; Dr. Cyril Dolly, physician; the Rev. A. Clayton Powell, Jr., of Abyssinian Baptist Church, and Mrs. Minnie Green of the Tenants' League.” Individuals interviewed for a “Man on the Street” story in the New York Amsterdam News were asked, "Do you feel that the committee appointed by Mayor LaGuardia is sufficiently representative of the people to report on their needs?" Only two of the thirteen men and women were satisfied with the mayor’s appointments. In the opinion of the others the members were too removed from the realities of life in Harlem. New York Amsterdam News columnist J. A. Rogers had also heard the complaint “that they, themselves, are not in the breadline.” While three of the men interviewed offered no suggestions for who should have been appointed, six men and women suggested an unemployed person or someone “up against it,” and one suggested “William H. Davis (general manager of the Amsterdam News) and the Rev. James W. Brown (pastor of the Mother A. M. E. Zion Church).”

James Hubert of the Urban League suggested the need for a social worker in letter to La Guardia: “if anybody is supposed to know anything about these problems, surely it is the social worker. I understand that there is a person on the committee who is supposed to represent social workers, but I have not been able to discover who it might be since there is no one named up to now who is thought of as a social worker.” It seems unlikely that he did not know that the social worker was Eunice Carter, who had a degree in social work from Smith College. However, he would also have known that it was ten years since Carter had worked in the field, during which time she had shifted into the practice of law. Hubert clearly wanted someone more centrally defined by social work expertise on the commission. The Norfolk Journal and Guide included the absence of "an outstanding colored social worker" among the complaints it reported.

While this criticism was “considerable” in the assessment of the New York Age, and less “mild” than that offered by the ministers “in every section of Harlem,” according to James Hubert, it was not the universal reaction of the Black community. Allyn Grenville, a correspondent for the Norfolk Journal and Guide, certainly thought the criticism was largely the work of “a score of leaders trying to use the rioting as a peg upon which to lift themselves to prominence.” In his opinion, “as commissions go, it is a representative one with more than the usual number of men of integrity. Another story in the same issue of the newspaper reversed the terms in which the New York Amsterdam News and New York Age had assessed the situation, stating “On the whole, the city has received the commission as being representative of both the city and of Harlem, and above the average, perhaps, in having a full membership of trained and capable people.” Channing Tobias offered a slightly more restrained endorsement in the New York World-Telegram: “While the committee might have been more representative in spots, still it is a committee of reputable citizens that can be depended upon to run down the facts and make a dispassionate presentation of them to the mayor.” More narrowly, New York Amsterdam News columnist J. A. Rogers defended Hubert Delany against the charge that as a member of the city government he was not willing to stand up to whites. He recounted hearing Delany “speak on the race question to a group in downtown New York, which was composed largely of white people, and it would be difficult to find any more outspoken than he was.”

Among the white newspapers, La Guardia’s appointments received editorial endorsements from the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and New York Herald Tribune. All noted the Black members, whose presence the New York World-Telegram said showed “good sense,” while the New York Post referred to the Black majority as something that was “proper.” The New York Herald Tribune merely noted that the commission was made up of “distinguished men, both white and Negro.” The New York Post also described the commission members as “distinguished.” Referring to the white men La Guardia appointed, the New York World-Telegram described them as “highly intelligent humanitarians.” A story in the New York Post offered an alternative description of the white members as “men who have the confidence of Negro leaders.”

As they debated who should be represented in the investigation of the disorder, neither the Mayor nor both white and Black newspapers made any mention of the group in Harlem’s population from which the boy grabbed in Kress’ store came. Lino Rivera was Puerto Rican, part of a community centered on 116th Street. In the plan of work for the MCCH Randolph proposed Puerto Ricans appeared only in a list of groups to have testify in public hearings late in the investigation. Suggestions from Walter White of the NAACP considered at the same time likewise included only one mention, the need for a “study of the origin of and interrelation of the various groups making up the Negro community of Harlem – West Indians, Puerto Ricans, Virgin Islanders etc, etc.” However, Puerto Rican leaders did not see themselves in that way, Insisting that their community had not participated in the events that followed Rivera’s release from the store, the city’s Spanish-language newspaper La Prensa attributed the disorder to the “colored elements” of the neighborhoods around 125th Street; “entirely separate from this is the Spanish-speaking group of the neighborhood, with distinct problems, absolutely different interests, and ethnic characteristics that disassociate Hispanics from their colored American neighbors.” The newspaper portrayed this Puerto Rican Harlem as a target of violence rather than a participant, publishing lists of damaged Hispanic-owned businesses that are not identified in any other source.

Despite those stories, there were some nationalist groups in the Puerto Rican community that did seek representation on the MCCH. Jesús Flores, head of Unidad Obrera (Workers’ Unity) wrote to La Guardia on March 25, and Antonio Rivera, secretary of the Liga Puertorriqueña e Hispana and Isabel O’Neill, secretary of the Junta Liberal Puertorriqueña de Nueva York in June, complaining that Puerto Ricans had been ignored. Rivera labeled that omission “unfair” and O’Neill an act of political and civic indifference and unmindfulness.” In addition, Ralph Bosch, a lawyer and former Republican state assembly candidate, wrote to La Guardia on March 21 advocating adding a Puerto Rican member to the MCCH: “Although the Portorican [sic] part of the population may have such needs as may call for slightly different remedies, yet when analized [sic] it all is the same social problem of racial relations.” While there are no replies to the Puerto Rican groups in the records of the mayor, Bosch did receive a response from his secretary saying that “it is not deemed advisable to enlarge the membership or scope of program of the present committee.”
MCCH Meeting (March 29, 1935) The second meeting of the MCCH on March 29 attracted significantly less attention in the press than the first meeting. A story in the New York American on March 27 mentioned that it would take place. Only the New York Evening Journal published a story clearly based on the statement the MCCH released after the meeting, briefly announcing a hearing would take place on March 30 and the membership of the subcommittee holding it, including the recently appointed Rev. Robinson. A copy of the meeting minutes is in the MCCH records, together with multiple copies of the agenda. A report Carter prepared was on the agenda for this meeting.

The only member not to attend was A. Philip Randolph; he had been called to appear before the National Mediation Railroad Board in Washington, DC on the day of the meeting. The other ten original members were joined for the first time by Rev. John Robinson, whom Mayor La Guardia had formally appointed that same day, fulfilling the commitment he made at his meeting with the Interdominational Preachers Meeting of Greater New York and Vicinity on March 25.

Hays gave a report of the “Committee to Investigate the Happenings of March 19th.” He had evidently taken over from Toney, the chairman appointed at the first meeting. There is no mention of that change in any sources. Hays' report focused on preparations for a hearing the next day, March 30; there is also no evidence of when after the first meeting the decision to schedule that event had been made or by whom. While the upcoming hearing was reported the day after the meeting in the New York World-Telegram without attribution, the New York Herald Tribune attributed that information to Villard; however, that seems unlikely as the statement he wrote included a vague commitment rather than that information. It was Hays whom the Home News quoted a day later, on March 27, identifying him as “a member of a subcommittee which will meet at the Heights Court at 10 a. m. on Saturday 'to welcome anybody who has anything to tell us about what happened.'” The same statement later appeared in the Afro-American, in a separate story from the one that mentioned the first meeting of the MCCH, suggesting it had been made at a different time. On March 27, the Daily Worker reported that Hays’ statement announcing the hearing had “followed by a few hours a statement issued by Oscar Villard,” and included an attack on District Attorney William Dodge for suggesting he would use the criminal anarchy statute to prosecute Communists arrested during the disorder. The New York American also reported Hays' comments on March 27, and said he made them “yesterday,” March 26, the day after the committee met and Villard released his statement. The decision to hold a hearing on March 30 thus appeared to have been made between the MCCH’s first meeting and the first meeting of the subcommittee.

Reports by Delany and Ernst on the subcommittees they chaired also mentioned planned public hearings, on housing on April 6 and on discrimination on April 13. (The MCCH had use of two courtrooms, making it possible to hold hearings on different topics at the same time.) Villard’s statement announced both those hearings as well as the hearing on the events of March 19th taking place the next day.

The future program of work adopted by the MCCH at this meeting gave a far smaller place to the investigation of the events of the disorder going forward than indicated in the statement to the press after their first meeting. The extensive program outlined by Randolph, with contributions by Ernst, did not mention those events. However, it did appear to assume they were being investigated as an item under “Methods for making work of Commission effective” that called for “Release [of] sections of Report from time to time” listed as the first such section, “Immediate cause of riot Tuesday, March 19.” Randolph emphasized that recommendation in a letter to Carter informing her he would not be able to attend the meeting, writing “In order that the public, colored and white, may not develop a mordant and cynical pessimism toward the Commission, I think it proper to dramatize the work by the release of sectional reports by various committees from time to time. The first section released might well be on the immediate case of the riot Tuesday night, March 19.” The suggested program of work Walter White of the NAACP sent the mayor and MCCH on March 26th, likely discussed at the same time, gave a similar limited place to investigation of the events of the disorder. The “Immediate Causes of Rioting March 19th and 20th” was the second to last topic in his outline, which he envisioned as warranting attention at the outset of the investigation: “It is suggested that the committee might well devote, at the beginning of the” investigation, as much time as it deems wise to checking the facts on immediate causes of the riot to establish responsibility and to settle controversial points where, in the opinion of the committee, there is sufficient legitimate doubt on these points to merit investigation.” White, like Randolph, argued that it was “desirable for the committee to issue a preliminary report as soon as possible on its findings in this regard.”

After the MCCH adopted an outline of the work drawn up by Randolph, “certain changes in Committee assignments were accepted.” Six new subcommittees were appointed focused on topics in the outline: education, health and sanitation, labor problems, law and legislation and relief agencies. The subcommittee on the events of the disorder was renamed “Crime.” (Randolph’s outline had proposed a subcommittee to investigate “Police – riot night – numbers and policy rackets.”) The members of that committee announced on March 29 appear to have been Hays, Toney, Schiefflin, Carter, and Robinson; those are the names reported in a New York Evening Journal story published on March 29, apparently based on the statement the MCCH released to the press. Robinson’s addition came at the instruction of La Guardia. A note in the files of the mayor indicated that a member of his staff had telephoned Hays on March 29 to tell him the “Mayor hopes it will be possible to have Dr. Robinson serve on Mr Hays subcommittee and requests that Robinson be advised of the next meeting of the committee.” At some point before it submitted its report, Villard was added to the subcommittee. He signed that report as a member, together with Hays, Toney, Carter, and Robinson. He could have replaced Schiefflin, whose signature was missing. However, Hays' covering letter submitting that report to the mayor noted that Schiefflin’s signature was missing as “he at present is in Europe.” Three undated lists of the subcommittee memberships filed in the records of the MCCH confusingly list only some of the members identified in those sources; they are likely drafts. What appears to be a copy of the press statement released after the meeting on March 29 included only Hays, Schiefflin, and Toney as subcommittee members, omitting Carter and Robinson, as well as Villard. Two documents in the same file, one entitled “Suggested Committees and Assignments” and the other “Chairman and Members of Each Sub-Committee,” listed Hays, Schiefflin, Toney, and Villard as members of the crime subcommittee, omitting both Carter and Robinson.

It was also at this meeting, in a discussion of securing letterheads, that the MCCH chose a “formal name.” They had been referring to themselves as the “Bi-Racial Commission.” The new name may have been Villard’s suggestion; he moved the motion to adopt it.
MCCH Meeting (March 25, 1935) All eleven members of the MCCH met for the first time at 4:30 PM on March 25, at the Seventh District Municipal Court, 447 West 151st Street. Minutes of that meeting are in the records of Mayor Fiorello La Guardia. The meeting was also widely reported in the press, having been announced the previous week, after some members of the MCCH met with the mayor. Aware of the presence of reporters, the MCCH members made preparing a statement for them their first business after electing their officers, the task deferred the previous week. That statement contributed to focusing attention not on the events of the disorder but on broader conditions in Harlem.

Oscar Villard wrote and delivered the statement released after the meeting, having been appointed chair of a Publicity Committee that included Toney, Roberts and Carter. Although the minutes refer to a copy of the statement being attached as part of the record, one is not included in the file. Based on the newspaper stories, it appears to have had three sections. Only the Home News quoted all three sections, although it omitted a parenthetical statement in the first section that is quoted in the Daily Worker and New York Times.

The first section, the most widely reported, indicated that the focus of the Commission would be the broader conditions in Harlem rather than the events of the disorder:
"The committee is already agreed that the disturbance (of last Tuesday, which took a toll of three lives and extensive property damage) were merely symbols and symptoms: that the public health, safety and welfare in colored Harlem have long been jeopardized by economic and social conditions which the depression has intensified."
All the stories in white newspapers quoted or paraphrased this statement, and in the case of the New York Times, New York World-Telegram, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, and Daily Worker, made it the basis of the headline of their story. (The New York Times published an additional story at the end of the week, on the day after the first hearing, endorsing that approach and arguing that the MCCH needed to pursue “a thorough economic and social investigation” with the “assistance of technical advice.") The New York Herald Tribune, Daily News, and Home News folded the meeting into stories about the work of Dodge’s grand jury, which they made the subject of their headlines. The Hearst newspapers, the New York Evening Journal, New York American and Daily Mirror, took that approach further, writing only about the progress of Dodge’s investigation without similar attention to the MCCH (keeping the Communists in the foreground). Only the New York Amsterdam News among the Black newspapers quoted this section; the other papers did not refer to the statement at all.

The second section put events on par with broader causes as one of two parts of the investigation:
“It has, therefore, determined to divide its work into two parts, an investigation of the immediate situation and a thorough, far-reaching inquiry into the entire problem, including housing, wages, rents, employment discrimination and other questions.”
Only the Home News and Daily News included this section in their stories, quoted in the Home News and paraphrased in the Daily News. It was not mentioned in New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram, New York Times, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, and Daily Worker. Without this section, the stories pushed the events of the disorder to the background, giving the impression that the MCCH was not concerned with them — particularly the Daily News, which characterized the statement as a “preliminary report.”

The third section was an appeal for information, and a notice that hearings would be held, without any dates.
“To that end it asks public cooperation and will welcome any suggestions and information which should be sent directly to the secretary, Mrs Eunice Hunter Carter, in care of Seventh Municipal Court, 447 W. 151st St.

Public hearings will be started at an early date.”
This section was quoted in New York Times and Home News and paraphrased in three other newspapers: as “The public was invited to send any remedial suggestions” in the Daily News; as “beseeching the city to offer suggestions to clear up the Harlem sore spots” in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle; and as “it asks for public cooperation and will welcome any suggestions and information,” in the New York Amsterdam News. The New York Age mentioned only that the meeting took place, emphasizing that as the meeting was not open to the public the MCCH was “enveloping their activities in an obscuring cloud of secrecy that evoked considerable comment.”

Three subcommittees were established at the meeting. The minutes recorded Judge Toney as chair of one appointed “to investigate the police records and all facts pertinent to the happenings in Harlem on Tuesday, March 19th,” with Hays, Schiefflin, and Carter. A meeting of the subcommittee, and two others, on discrimination and employment and on housing, was scheduled for March 27. (By the time the MCCH met again on March 29, Hays rather than Toney was acting as chairman of the subcommittee. There is no evidence in the sources about that change.) These subcommittees did not appear to have been announced to journalists after the meeting. Only the New York Amsterdam News provided any information on them: that story identified their members as those appointed in the meeting and reported that one subcommittee would “investigate the "outburst" (the committee rejected the term "riot"). There is no mention in the minutes of a decision that that subcommittee would hold a public hearing on March 30; Villard’s press statement referred only to hearings “at an early date.” However, Hays told journalists the day after the meeting that such a hearing would be held. Given that Hays announced the March 30 hearing before his subcommittee was scheduled to meet, it is not clear who else was involved in making that decision.

The other work done in the meeting reported in the press was the selection of officeholders: Roberts as chairman, Villard as vice chairman and Carter as secretary. The previous week, a story in the New York Herald Tribune had suggested that Delany would be the chairman, as his name “led the list of appointments to the committee as made public by the Mayor.” Delany had rejected that possibility, telling the reporter that “he would rather have someone else, preferably a white, in that position.” When the MCCH met on March 25, the minutes mentioned “a general discussion as to whether [illegible] expedient to have a white or Negro Chairman.” Or at least that statement initially appeared in the minutes; someone later crossed it out. Before that discussion, Ernst had said “he thought that the Chairman should be a Negro,” and suggested Eunice Carter. She declined. After the discussion, Toney was nominated by an unnamed commission member, with Grimley seconding. Hays then nominated Villard, with Carter seconding, setting up a choice between a Black candidate and a white candidate. However, Villard withdrew due to “his uncertain health,” offering instead to be the vice chairman. Schiefflin then nominated Roberts, with Hays seconding. That nomination ensured that the MCCH would have a Black candidate, with Roberts winning the role on an 8-3 vote. (Villard would later write to Walter White of the NAACP lamenting his decision not to serve as chairman, “which was the wish of the majority,” complaining that “Roberts has been a very poor chairman and there has been no meeting for weeks and weeks and weeks, and there is to be no effort on the part of the Commission to carry out any of its recommendations.")

The further business discussed in the meeting that was not made public was how the committee would do its work. The minutes record a “consensus” that “one trained person was necessary to correlate the reports.” The commission members voted to pursue Ira B. Reid for that role, but left the final selection to Roberts, Delany, and Carter. (After lobbying by Walter White of the NAACP, E. Franklin Frazier rather than Reid would be employed by the MCCH.) At Carter’s urging, the MCCH also decided to move forward with its investigation without waiting to fill that position, and charged Randolph, Ernst, Delany, and Carter “to formulate general plans of work for the committee” by the next meeting.
Reactions to La Guardia's appointments The dissatisfaction of unnamed “anti-Red organizations” with the “distinct liberal leanings” and radical associations of the white men La Guardia appointed reported in the New York Sun as well as the anti-Communist New York American was soon overshadowed by editorial endorsements from the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and New York Herald Tribune. The New York Herald Tribune and New York Post both described the committee members as “distinguished.” Referring to the white men La Guardia appointed, the New York World-Telegram described them as “highly intelligent humanitarians.” A story in the New York Post offered an alternative description of the white members as “men who have the confidence of Negro leaders.”

By contrast, considerable criticism emerged in Harlem of the Black members of the committee. Even as Mayor La Guardia announced his appointments, he appeared to have had some concerns about the representativeness of those he had chosen. On the evening of March 20, he had Charles Roberts contact Dr. William Lloyd Imes of St James Presbyterian Church, seeking a meeting with “the more sober and thoughtful portion of our Harlem residents.” The clergyman responded enthusiastically, writing at 11:30 PM that night suggesting that the mayor attend the Interdenominational Ministers meeting scheduled for the afternoon of March 25 at Salem Methodist Episcopal Church. In the intervening days the criticisms of his appointments that the mayor feared did indeed emerge. La Guardia’s mistake, New York Amsterdam News columnist J. A. Rogers, wrote, was to choose only among “routine names” at a time when life in Harlem had become far from routine. What was needed instead were Black members who “had practical knowledge of conditions in Harlem,” as Charles Hanson of the Harlem Committee on Public Policy, an organization of business and professional men and women, put it at a meeting the group organized at the YMCA on March 22. Only A. Philip Randolph had that knowledge in Hanson’s opinion. Particularly unqualified, in the judgement of others who spoke at the meeting were Hubert Delaney, dismissed as a political ally of La Guardia, and Countee Cullen, labeled as just a “poet.”

Others echoed that assessment in the following days. The Consolidated Tenants League endorsed only Randolph as “sufficiently free from political and other affiliations and views to render them capable of obtaining the proper economic-social view of the problem.” More representative of the people of Harlem would be an unemployed person, in the opinion of men and women a New York Amsterdam News journalist interviewed on the street, labor leader Frank Crosswaith, a suggestion of the Consolidated Tenants Union and columnist J. A. Rogers, or a social worker, the proposal of the New York chapter of the National Association of College Women and James Hubert of the New York Urban League (who snidely dismissed Carter’s past experience when he wrote to La Guardia that “there is no one named up to now who is thought of as a social worker”). Several nationalist groups in the Puerto Rican community sought representation, even as Puerto Rican leaders disassociated their community from the disorder and attributed it to Black residents “with distinct problems, absolutely different interests, and ethnic characteristics that disassociate Hispanics from their colored American neighbors.”

The most widely criticized omissions from the committee, however, were representatives of Harlem’s Black clergy. La Guardia came face to face with that criticism on March 25 when he met with the Interdominational Preachers Meeting of Greater New York and Vicinity, a group of about fifty Black religious leaders, at the Salem Methodist Episcopal Church. The mayor must have felt that he could marshal support from the ministers as he changed his original plan to meet with them privately and had journalists from both white and Black newspapers alerted that he was making the trip to Harlem. When he spoke to the meeting, appealing for them to help the committee in its investigation, La Guardia tried to preempt criticism, explaining that he had not appointed a minister because “If I had appointed one I would have had to appoint many others.” When he stopped speaking, it immediately became obvious that he had failed to convince his audience. A minister in the front row shouted, “There ought to be a minister on that committee! There is not a minister in this community who is not in touch with more persons than any member of your committee.” Others complained that the mayor had failed to recognize their leadership and standing in Harlem and psychological influence in the community.

As the criticism mounted, La Guardia backed down, admitting that it had been a mistake not to appoint clergymen. He committed to appoint a member of the group if they sent him a suggestion, and to add a second religious leader from a denomination not included in their ranks. Soon after the mayor left the group elected as its representative its leader, Reverend John W. Robinson, the retired pastor of St. Mark's, the city's largest AME church and a campaigner for education reform. An indirect political connection likely made La Guardia receptive to that suggestion: Robinson’s second wife, pharmacist Dr. Julia Coleman, was active in the Republican Party in Harlem. The mayor appointed Robinson four days later, on March 29, in time for him to attend the committee’s second meeting.

It took until April 4, almost a week after Robinson's appointment, for the mayor to finalize his choice of a second clergyman: Father McCann of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church on West 141st Street. On March 23, the priest had made public a pastoral letter blaming Communists for the disorder and calling for a movement to keep them out of Harlem. The priest's anti-Communism offered La Guardia a way to address those who had criticized him for the entirely liberal character of the committee. It provoked a furious complaint from the Communist Party that the appointment was aimed at "further stirring up racial animosity between Negro and while people" and "trying to place the blame of the March 19 events in Harlem on the Communist Party." However, La Guardia had clearly also decided the second clergyman on the committee should be Catholic as immediately after he met with the Black ministers he had sought advice about who to appoint from Edmund B. Butler, a prominent Catholic lawyer who was secretary of the city’s Emergency Relief Bureau. Butler suggested McCann as “he has always been very much interested in Negroes and volunteered for the work.” As that endorsement implied, the priest was a white man, likely another criteria for the appointment given that the committee had two more Black members than white members after Robinson was added.

No press statements were released announcing those appointments, and they went unreported other than in the New York Amsterdam News. Having included the two clergymen, La Guardia made no further moves to address the other criticisms of the committee's Black members. The investigation of the disorder proceeded under the direction of the group of twelve men and one woman.
In Harlem court on March 25 (18) Newspaper stories reporting the hearings in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 25 focused on the appearance of the four Young Liberators. Although Harry Gordon also appeared in the court that day, the stories no longer grouped him with the other four men as they had on March 20. Police identified the Young Liberators as "ringleaders," a term attributed to them in the New York Sun, New York Times, to District Attorney Dodge in the New York Post, and used without attribution in the New York Herald Tribune, New York American, New York Evening Journal, Home News, and Daily News, and in the Afro-American. The New York World-Telegram alone did not name the four men or describe their alleged role in the disorder, while the New York Age described them as charged with starting the riot.

The New York Times, New York Sun, New York Post, and New York Evening Journal, and the Afro-American all only published stories anticipating the four men's appearance; they did not report the outcome. Those newspapers may have been anticipating a spectacle at the hearing, which often accompanied the appearance of Communists. Police certainly thought that a possibility, as the New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram, and Daily News reported a heavy police presence. The hearing apparently did not deliver either disorder or any new information about the disorder. Stories in the New York Herald Tribune, New York American, Daily News, Home News, and New York World-Telegram, and the New York Age, simply reported that detectives presented the Magistrate with bench warrants, after which he discharged the men as they had already been indicted and police turned them over to the detectives.

Journalists paid little attention to the other fourteen men who appeared. The adjournment of Harry Gordon's case while police continued their investigation of his alleged assault on Patrolman Young was reported in the Home News, New York American, and New York World-Telegram. The Home News identified two of the other men discharged as having already been indicted by Dodge's grand jury, Carl Jones and Milton Ackerman. Those men are likely the two unnamed Black men indicted for looting that the New York Herald Tribune reported were dealt with in that way. Neither story made any mention of the other four men who went through the same process, Nelson Brock, Reginald Mills, William Grant, and Douglas Cornelius. Only the New York Herald Tribune made mention of any other men, reporting three other unnamed individuals as having been convicted and had their sentences suspended and one who was released. Legal records indicate the later was Aubrey Patterson, the only person released on March 26. Only two people, Louise Brown and Warren Johnson, appear in the legal records as having been convicted and sentenced. Information on the remaining defendants comes only from legal records.

The lack of attention to those arrested in the disorder on this date reflected both the lack of spectacle in the hearings and in the details of the disorder revealed in prosecutions for relatively minor offenses, which contributed to the attention the press gave to statements District Attorney Dodge made on this date. However, Dodge would not deliver on his claims, leading journalists to turn instead to the public hearings of the MCCH.
In court on March 25 After the weekend, District Attorney Dodge continued to work to focus attention on Communists. He displayed to reporters pamphlets seized from raids on the offices of Communist Party organization. Claiming he had found “good clues” in them, Dodge raised the possibility of bringing charges of criminal anarchy connected with the disorder, an approach promoted by the Hearst newspapers. Dodge also claimed to be discussing new legislation with the grand jury to “define” free speech to exclude promoting the overthrow of the government.

For all of Dodge’s bravado, the day’s grand jury hearing resulted in only one additional indictment related to the disorder. And it was not one that substantiated Dodge’s claims, but rather was “for nothing spectacular,” as a story in the New York Post put it: theft of paper towels with a value 15 cents.

Neither did the return to the Harlem Magistrates Court of Daniel Miller and the three Young Liberators arrested in the disorder produce the spectacle that reporters had anticipated it would. Their appearance was another instance of Dodge’s grand jury investigation intersecting with the regular legal process. On this occasion more than half of those who appeared in court, six men in addition to the four Communists, had already been indicted by that grand jury. While extra police were detailed to the court, the hearings, like those at the end of the previous week, did not attract unusual crowds and were uneventful. Magistrate Renaud discharged the four men after detectives presented him with bench warrants. The officers then rearrested the men without conflict between their attorneys and the magistrate or any more discussion of their alleged activities. None of the newspapers made clear that the four Communists were being taken for trial in the Court of Special Sessions, on misdemeanor charges, not to the Court of General Sessions to face trial for felonies. While Dodge likely hoped that further questioning of the men would advance his investigation, additional evidence proved elusive. It would be almost two months before Miller, Samuels, Jamison, and Viabolo faced trial. During that time Dodge would not only fail to secure more indictments, his account of the role of Communists in the disorder would be contradicted in the MCCH hearings. The other six men discharged and rearrested drew little attention, with Nelson Brock, Reginald Mills, William Grant, and Douglas Cornelius not named in any newspaper stories and Carl Jones and Milton Ackerman identified in only one publication. Although these men faced more serious charges than those sentenced on March 23 — burglary in case of Brock, Mills, Grant, Jones, and Ackerman, assault on a white man in the case of Cornelius — there was apparently less interest in those details by this time.

Harry Gordon, the other white man arrested on 125th Street at the beginning of the disorder, also returned to court. Although he was represented by an ILD lawyer, Edward Kuntz, Gordon was no longer grouped with the four Communists as he had been on March 20. He had not been indicted as a result of Dodge’s investigation. Instead, like most of the remainder of those who appeared in court with him, four other men, he had his case continued as police continued to gather evidence. Several newspapers did report Gordon’s appearance, perhaps because of his prominence in earlier stories or because he had allegedly assaulted a police officer and what proved to be ill-founded assurances from police that they were planning to present his case to the grand jury. Another white man in this group, Louis Tonick, who faced a charge of robbery, went unmentioned. So too did the three Black men, Bernard Smith, Leroy Brown, and Paul Boyett, the former two charged with inciting crowds and breaking windows, the latter with assaulting a white man. The alleged actions of those still appearing in the magistrates court were among the most violent of those arrested during the disorder, which is likely why police spent more time investigating them. Louis Cobb, who once again had his case continued in the Washington Heights court, the only individual arrested during the disorder to appear there that day, stood out not for the charge against him, looting, but for his extensive criminal record. His appearance likewise went unreported.

Just three prosecutions were adjudicated in the Harlem court. Aubrey Patterson, the butt of reporters’ jokes in stories about the police line-up, was released. Arrested for burglary but charged only with disorderly conduct, Patterson was represented by a lawyer, which may explain why the magistrate did not convict him as he did others in similar circumstances. His release removed him entirely from the disorder and cast him as a bystander. Prosecutors reduced the charge against Louise Brown and Warren Johnson from malicious mischief to disorderly conduct. No longer alleged to have broken windows, they became part of the disorderly crowds that police encountered on streets. Whatever evidence police presented that led the magistrate to convict them rather than releasing them as he did Patterson, it was insufficient to warrant imprisonment: he instead gave them suspended sentences. None of those decisions was reported in the press, other than in a New York Herald Tribune story that mentioned the conviction of three unnamed individuals and the release of one other, without providing any details of the charges that they faced or the sentences they received.

One more man, Nathan Snead, was convicted in the Court of Special Sessions, having been sent from the Harlem Court charged with petit larceny. In sentencing him to the penitentiary for a term of up to a year, the judges imposed the most punishment yet handed down to those arrested during the disorder. However, none of Snead’s appearances in court were reported, so just what he did to warrant such a sentence is unknown. A second man, Henry Stewart, charged with malicious mischief for breaking windows, was discharged. Those trials went unreported.

The appearance in the Court of General Sessions of the first six men indicted by the grand jury was reported by two newspapers even though they were simply released on bail. None were indicted as a result of Dodge’s investigation. All were charged with burglary, which promised felony convictions and marked them as major offenders in the disorder, unlike those convicted in the Magistrates Court. However, within a few days the prosecutions would have a different outcome.

The selective reporting of the day’s hearings across the city’s papers was the beginning of the less extensive press coverage of the legal process that would become the norm, with only some of those who appeared named and their offenses described, and soon only some hearings reported. The slow and fitful progress of the legal process lacked the spectacle of the mass hearings in the immediate aftermath of the disorder. To the contrary, it fragmented the disorder into a multitude of prosecutions, few of which involved any acts that on their own amounted to more than minor crimes. Eighteen of those arrested in the disorder appeared in the Harlem court on this date; subsequently, no more than half a dozen of those arrested in the disorder would appear in a court on one day. And even as those charged with more serious crimes moved beyond the Magistrates courts, only a handful of the prosecutions of those charged with more serious crimes resulted in the spectacle of a trial.
Dodge grand jury hearing, March 25 (1) While the grand jury was not in session over the weekend, Dodge affirmed his commitment to the investigation to several reporters on Saturday, March 23. He emphasized his concern with a specific target, those who advocated the overthrow of government by force and violence, according to stories in the New York American, New York Times, Daily News, and Home News. Although the statement did not appear to directly reference Communists, most of those newspapers identified them as the target in their headlines: “Dodge Plans War on Reds in Harlem” in the Daily News; “Dodge Declares War on Red Leaders” in the Home News; and “Dodge Expects Arrest of Red Leaders” in the New York Times. The anti-Communist New York American predictably reported the DA’s comments in more detail and attempted to link them to further charges as it had previously in posing questions about the criminal anarchy statute. Its story quoted Dodge as invoking the Constitution and posed questions to him about involving federal authorities, which he declined to answer. That story, and those in the New York Times and Daily News, also reported that books and papers seized in the raid on the ILD offices were being examined for evidence.

When Dodge spoke to the press on Monday, he affirmed he was in fact following the path that the New York American reporter had raised two days earlier. He mentioned charges of criminal anarchy, which carried a sentence of up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000, in connection with the disorder. However, newspaper stories differed on just what he said, with the New York American, Home News, and New York Sun reporting such charges “might be returned,” the New York Herald Tribune that the DA had evidence that “would justify” such charges, the Daily News, Times Union, and New York Post that indictments would be sought, and the New York World-Telegram that indictments were being sought. The New York Times did not publish a story about Dodge or the grand jury. There is no evidence that Dodge actually presented such charges; certainly, the grand jury did not vote for any indictments for criminal anarchy.

In raising criminal anarchy, Dodge told reporters that his investigators had found “some good clues,” a phrase reported in the New York American, Daily News, New York Herald Tribune, New York Sun, Times Union, and Home News. The New York World-Telegram substituted “splendid new leads.” As examples, he displayed pamphlets seized in the earlier raids on the offices of Communist Party organizations, saying although he could no reveal their content, they were “hot stuff.” His claim that the documents were advocating the overthrow of the government was widely reported, in the New York Post, New York Sun, Home News, Times Union, New York Herald Tribune, and New York World-Telegram, as was the assertion that they had been "distributed to young school children.” Curiously given their anti-Communist focus, none of the Hearst newspapers, the New York Evening Journal, New York American, and the Daily Mirror, mentioned the pamphlets.

Instead, the New York American (in a separate, earlier story) and New York Evening Journal, joined only by the New York Post, reported Dodge again speaking about the grand jury considering new legislation so “irresponsible agitators would be prevented from goading thoughtless people toward the overthrow of the American form of government, by violence.” The New York Evening Journal summarized its purpose as “designed to curb Communistic activities in the interests of the public safety.” The New York Post described the legislation as “defining” free speech, with all three stories reporting that he insisted it would not be a restriction on free speech. The two Hearst newspapers were also alone in including in their stories that Dodge had met with federal officials and planned to turn his evidence over to them.

For all of Dodge’s bravado, the day’s grand jury hearing resulted in only one additional indictment related to the disorder. Unreported in the Home News, New York Sun, New York Times, New York Post, New York Herald Tribune, and New York Evening Journal, the indictment charged a man with taking goods worth 15 cents. Only the Times Union reported the value of the goods. The New York American described the alleged offense as “theft of toilet articles,” the New York World-Telegram as “stealing several rolls of paper towels from a shop window.” The Daily News simply identified the charge as burglary. Only the New York Post, continuing its criticism of Dodge’s anti-Communist focus, made a connection between the case and the DA’s rhetoric, describing the indictment as “for nothing spectacular.”