This page was created by Anonymous.
Public Hearings - Outbreak (March-April 1935), 12, Subject Files, Box 408, Folder 8 (Roll 194), Records of Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, 1934-1945 (New York City Municipal Archives).
1 2023-03-10T20:11:34+00:00 Anonymous 1 3 plain 2023-10-26T16:46:36+00:00 AnonymousThis page is referenced by:
-
1
2022-11-09T23:43:21+00:00
The public hearing on March 30
52
plain
2024-01-29T23:36:36+00:00
There is no reliable record of what was said in the public hearing. A transcript of the hearings was recorded but it did not consistently identify who asked questions of witnesses or the reactions of the audience (nor the recess taken for lunch on March 30). Arthur Garfield Hays, who chaired the hearing, considered them a “poor report." By the same token, newspaper stories on the hearing varied widely in their emphases and detail. Reporters also appeared to have frequently misattributed comments made during the hearing. None of the newspaper stories reported testimony about events after disorder broke out on 125th Street or events beyond 125th Street described by witnesses.
Unsurprisingly, Harlem’s two Black newspapers provided the most extensive accounts of the hearing. The New York Age published the most detailed story, summarizing the testimony of all but two witnesses — Russell Hobbs and Inspector Di Martini (it did offer details of the shooting of Lloyd Hobbs elsewhere in the story). The New York Amsterdam News took a different approach, providing a summary of what it judged to be the key information: that Patrolman Donahue chose to release Rivera out of sight of those in the store; that the leaflets distributed by the Young Liberators and Communist Party did not appear until two hours after the disorder began; and that Rivera was the boy grabbed in the store. Only three other newspapers highlighted several of those issues: the New York Age, without giving Donahue’s testimony the same significance; and the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune, without attention to the identification of Rivera. Other newspapers emphasized only one of those topics.
In the largest group of newspapers, it was Patrolman Donahue’s decision to release Rivera out the rear exit and so out of sight of those in the store which was the focus. While the Home News, New York World-Telegram, Times Union, and New York Amsterdam News, Chicago Defender, and Associated Negro Press reported Donahue had admitted that was a mistake, the transcript did not record such a statement. Instead, it was Edward Kuntz, one of the ILD lawyers in the audience, who offered that assessment while questioning the officer. After Donahue testified that crowds on 125th Street caused him to take Rivera into the store, Kuntz commented, “If you had let the boy go at that time there would not have been any excitement.” Rather than Donahue or Kuntz, it was unnamed “witnesses” to whom the New York Times and Afro-American attributed evidence that had there been “no mystery” about what happened to Rivera, there would have been no rioting. Both those stories, and the New York Amsterdam News, were the only accounts that also reported Inspector Di Martini had testified “he would have released the boy where all could see.” Again, that statement is not in the transcript. Instead, it records that Di Martini said, “The policeman who was there did not take those people into his confidence. I am of the opinion that the people did see this boy led from the store.” As Hays questioned Donahue, both ILD lawyers, Tauber and Kuntz, and James Ford, the head of the CP in Harlem, all interjected with questions of their own, likely leading some of those listening to confuse who was speaking and what was being said. As the MCCH's stenographer would have sat at the front of the courtroom, it was likely the reporters who were mistaken. It is striking given how those eight newspapers interpreted Donahue’s testimony that the New York Herald Tribune and New York Age reported Donahue’s testimony without mentioning its implications — and that the Daily News, Daily Mirror, and Daily Worker did not include it at all.
Testimony about the leaflets distributed by the Young Liberators and Communist Party were the focus of stories in the New York Herald Tribune, Daily News, and New York Age. That evidence provided the headline in the New York Herald Tribune: “Reds' Handbills Are Cleared As 'Chief Cause' of Harlem Riot - Came Out Two Hours After Peak of Fighting, Mayor's Board Learns at Outset.” The story did not identify the source of that testimony (Louise Thompson); it simply reported that “the committee learned” that information. The story also somewhat misleadingly described the source of the leaflets as the concern of “most of the hearing.” (The testimony of the leaders of the YL and CP constituted eleven of the fifty-one pages of testimony; in addition, several other witnesses — Battle, Cole, and Thompson — were briefly asked about the pamphlets. When Di Martini mentioned them, Hays responded by saying they were not distributed until after disorder, referencing Thompson's earlier testimony.) The Daily News, in a story under the byline of their crime reporter Grace Robinson, omitted the testimony about the time the leaflets appeared that became central to the MCCH’s narrative of events, instead continuing to cast them as “having brought the riot into being” and focusing on who was responsible for them. That story, which appeared in early editions, was headlined “Blank Drawn at Probe of Harlem Riot,” focusing on Taylor’s statement that “somebody upstairs” at the YL’s office had composed and distributed the leaflet while he was seeking information on what had happened to Rivera. The reporter characterized Taylor as having “neatly shrugged off” “blame for the riot.” (In later editions the headline was changed to “Harlem Riot Takes Its Fourth Victim” and the story was revised to not only lead with Hobbs’ death but to highlight an exchange between Hays and Di Martini about whether the police should put out leaflets of their own in the future, the Inspector’s testimony about the hearse that arrived at the rear of Kress’ store and other elements of Taylor’s testimony with only a passing mention of the pamphlets.) The New York Age also reported only that the testimony confirmed that the groups were the source of the pamphlets; it made no mention of the evidence that they were distributed too late to have triggered the disorder. Instead, the New York Age pointed to Louise Thompson’s testimony that the first window was broken in the Kress store before any speech was made as having “refuted” “reports that the Communists had taken the first steps in starting the actual violence.”
Seven additional newspapers mentioned the pamphlets without making them a focus. The New York Times included a subheading “Source of Pamphlet Sought” that drew attention to Tauber’s testimony that he did not know who printed the pamphlet. The story went on to note that “testimony” “indicated” that the pamphlets did not reach the street until after the disorder started, in the process noting that there had been two pamphlets, from the YL and CP, the only story to note that detail. Taylor’s testimony that the YL produced the leaflets was also reported by the New York American, without the detail that he did not know by who, and the Afro-American, which included his statement that it been “somebody upstairs.” Neither newspaper mentioned the time the pamphlets were distributed. It was Ford’s testimony about the second pamphlet, produced by the CP, that was reported in the Home News and in the Chicago Defender and Associated Negro Press stories. Those stories mentioned the time the pamphlets were distributed; they did not make clear that Ford was referring to the second and later of the two pamphlets nor report Taylor’s testimony. Unsurprisingly, the Daily Worker also noted testimony that the leaflets were distributed too late to have caused the disorder, attributing that evidence to "witnesses, including some of the police."
The stories in the New York World-Telegram, Times Union, and New York Post that made no mention of the pamphlets reported only testimony from the morning session of the hearings, suggesting that those reporters had left when the hearings recessed for lunch. The Daily Mirror reporter may have thought the hearing ended at the recess, as the paper’s story mistakenly claimed that “the inquiry into the origin of 5,000 incendiary pamphlets advocating Revenge for the murder of Martyr Rivera, which, distributed to milling pedestrians in 125th St., aroused them to their riot frenzy,” had been delayed to the next hearing, which it reported would be on Monday instead of the next Saturday.
Anti-Communist Hearst newspapers the New York Evening Journal, New York American and Daily Mirror that might have been expected to highlight testimony about the pamphlets circulated by radical groups chose to instead focus on clashes between lawyers affiliated with the Communist Party and witnesses and members of the MCCH. They likely did so because the testimony on the leaflets relieved the CP of blame for starting the disorder, as those publications had charged. The New York Post, which rejected efforts to blame CP for the disorder, also focused on those clashes. Other papers mentioned instances of conflict without focusing attention on them; for eg, the Daily News noted that the hearings “developed at times into a field day for Communist exponents and cop-baiting attorneys for the International Labor Defense.” There was no mention of such incidents in the New York World-Telegram and Times Union.
The most widely reported exchange involved ADA Kaminsky, the third witness to testify, and ILD lawyers. It was the focus of the New York Evening Journal and New York Post stories and their headlines, and mentioned with details in the New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York Age, and New York Amsterdam News, and the Daily Worker, and in passing in the Chicago Defender. The New York Evening Journal led with the “verbal clash,” but described only Tauber demanding to question the ADA and him responding "I prefer not to be a party to a field day by irresponsible persons." The story also mentioned Tauber’s claim that police had raided the offices of several organizations affiliated with the CP after the disorder, targeting those groups because of their political views — hence the story’s headline: “RIOT TERROR CHARGED TO POLICE.” Kaminsky’s response to Tauber’s effort to question him and the charges made by Tauber were also reported by the New York Post, which extended the exchange to include protests by the ILD lawyers and an exchange between Hays and Kaminsky: “'I don't think you ought to call these men irresponsible because their views are different from yours,' Mr. Hays told Mr. Kaminsky, who shrugged and said: 'That's your viewpoint.'” The Daily Worker reported Kaminsky's statement and the same retort from Hays without a further response from Kaminsky. The Home News story included the same exchange, while the New York Amsterdam News included elements of it, Hays “chiding” Kaminsky without a response from the ADA. The elements in those exchanges appeared differently in the transcript. Before Tauber sought to question the ADA, Hays asked Kaminsky about whether those indicted before the DA’s grand jury had been charged “for their political views?” Kaminsky responded, “I am quite sure that the grand jury would not indict people for their political views.” When Tauber asked to question Kaminsky, Hays simply said, “I think not,” before Kaminsky declared “I refuse to be a party to a field day by irresponsible persons. So far this has been simply an occasion for police baiting.” When Tauber and Minor raised the raids, Hays asked Kaminsky if he knew anything about them, which he said he did not. He then sat by while Hays asked the ILD lawyers about their allegations, eventually asking to be excused as he was not a witness . The story in the New York Herald Tribune reported it was an audience member who called out “that’s your viewpoint,” not in response to Hays, but after Kaminsky claimed the ILD was using the hearing for "police-baiting.” In that narrative, Hays refused to allow Tauber to question Kaminsky before the ADA made his remark about irresponsible people. Similarly, no exchange between Hays and Kaminsky featured in the New York Age's account. Like the New York Herald Tribune and Daily Worker, it included the audience reaction, applause for the lawyers’ protests and hissing when the ADA left the stand. Kaminsky’s response to Tauber was mentioned in the New York Times, which added that he accused Tauber of “police baiting,” and that Hays refused to allow the questioning on the grounds that the lawyers would be representing men prosecuted by the DA. (The New York World-Telegram and Times Union mentioned Kaminsky’s evidence without reference to the clash.)
If the garbled reporting and transcription of this exchange might be explained by the difficulty of discerning what was being said when people shouted at and over each other, those circumstances do not explain the complete absence from the transcript of another clash reported by several newspapers. In that case, the Home News and the Chicago Defender and Associated Negro Press reported that when Battle, a Black police lieutenant, was recalled to testify for a second time in the afternoon, Charles Romney questioned him until stopped by Schieffelin declaring “there would be no more 'police baiting.'” The passage was identical in all three stories; the stories in the Black newspapers were published after the Home News story, so may have taken the text from that story. However, Bessye J. Bearden, credited as the author of the Chicago Defender story, worked as a New York correspondent for the paper, so could have been in the courtroom.
The police officer who was recalled to the stand in the afternoon in the transcript was Captain Rothengast, a white officer; after Hays asked him about the circumstances in which police shot Lloyd Hobbs, his testimony was interrupted so that Russell Hobbs, Lloyd’s younger brother could testify. When Rothengast returned to the stand, Romney was one of those who questioned him. Later, when someone questioning Rothengast complained that the officers who had killed people during the disorder had “gone free,” Hays interjected to say, “We are not here to investigate the police.” The New York Times and New York American identified the subject of that “rebuke” as Minor not Romney; the New York Times, which attributed the statement to Schieffelin not Hays, described what Minor said as police baiting, while the New York American described it as “as similar rebuke” to an earlier accusation of police baiting (which could refer to Kaminsky’s statement, as there was no intervention in Rivera’s testimony, which is when the story said it took place). The New York Herald Tribune reported that Hays said “he would have no police baiting at the hearing” during Donahue’s testimony; there was no intervention by him in the transcript of that testimony other than offering people the opportunity to ask questions. While Rothengast was a white officer, and Battle a Black officer, it does appear that these stories misreported the name of the officer testifying during this clash. The Daily Mirror reported another exchange during Rothengast’s testimony as “another highlight” of the hearing. The story described Schieffelin warning Tauber, one of the ILD lawyers, to treat witnesses with politeness. That statement did appear in the transcript, without a clear identification of who said it, and addressed to “Mr Allen,” a name that otherwise did not appear in the transcript.
Reactions from the audience likely contributed to focusing attention on those incidents. Newspaper stories portrayed those reactions in different, somewhat contradictory terms. The New York Amsterdam News and New York Age described a tense crowd that on occasion made their feelings known. Those outbursts came at the end of the day according to the New York Amsterdam News: “The undercurrent of the antagonism against the police, noticeable throughout the day in the audience, surged to its height during Rothengast's stay on the stand, culminating in numerous audible taunts and cat-calls just before the hearing ended for the day.” Such outbursts were more frequent in the New York Age’s account and tied to the actions of the ILD lawyers and their supporters on which the Hearst newspapers focused: “The hearing itself was characterized by an air of unrest and incipient disorder on the part of the crowd which was greatly augmented by the presence and active participation in the proceedings of numerous lawyers representing various 'left wing' organizations. A large part, if not the entire crowd of spectators also exhibited definite 'radical' leanings and frequently interrupted the hearing with their audible comments and criticism.” The Daily News and New York Evening Journal, portrayed the audience in similar but less threatening terms as “restless and sometimes irritable” and having “stirred uneasily” when the ILD lawyers questioned witnesses. By contrast, the New York World-Telegram and Home News highlighted outbursts of laughter as illustrating that the audience was “interested and even jovial” and “good-natured,” portrayals that conjured racist stereotypes.
Only Harlem’s Black newspapers focused attention on the identification of Rivera as the boy who had been arrested and released in the Kress store. That topic was mentioned in only three white newspapers, the New York Post, Home News, and Daily Worker. Both reported only Battle’s testimony that he had no evidence Rivera was not the boy; neither mentioned Cole’s testimony affirmatively identifying Rivera (which was reported only in the New York Age and New York Amsterdam News). In contrast, neither the New York Age nor New York Amsterdam News mentioned Battle’s testimony on the boy’s identity. Instead, the New York Age presented Cole’s testimony as “one of the most important revelations of the day’s testimony.” Rather than either man’s testimony, the New York Amsterdam News highlighted the testimony of Rivera himself and “the failure of any interested person to accept the committee's invitation to present evidence to the effect that another youth was the real victim.” The Daily Worker more generally noted that, "Throughout the hearing, the Mayor's Committee sought to dispose of rumors, still persisting in Harlem, that the Rivera boy had been substituted by the police for the real victim."
-
1
2021-08-05T19:48:50+00:00
Carl Jones arrested
29
plain
2024-01-18T20:23:53+00:00
Around 1:45 AM, Officer Raymond Early arrested eighteen-year-old Carl Jones in front of 391 Lenox Avenue. From across the street he had allegedly seen Jones pick up an object and throw it through the window of the stationery store owned by Harry and Morris Farber located at that address. Early must also have alleged that Jones reached into the window or tried to climb through it, as he charged Jones with attempted burglary. The Home News reported that police alleged that Jones "attempted to steal merchandise" after smashing the window. Jones, who lived several blocks to the north in a furnished room at 84 West 134th Street, admitted that he smashed the window, but denied trying to steal any merchandise. However, given that Early had some distance to cover (across the four lanes of Lenox Avenue), Jones evidently did not immediately flee after the window was smashed. The Probation Officer investigating Jones appeared to have sought another motive for Jones' attack other than theft, recording that Jones "had been a regular customer of the complainant's store, but denies that he had any personal grievance against the complainant." The explanation the probation officer settled on was that Jones had become "imbued with the mob psychology prevalent at the moment," echoing the conclusion of Dr. Charles Thompson after examining Jones in the Court Psychiatric Clinic.
Morris Farber told the probation officer that he wanted "the leniency of the Court be extended to [Jones]." The District Attorney's case file for Jones was missing, producing some confusion about his prosecution. Jones appeared in the lists of those arrested during the disorder charged with burglary, published in the Atlanta World, Afro-American, and Norfolk Journal and Guide, and in the New York Evening Journal. The docket book recorded that Jones appeared in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, charged with attempted burglary. Magistrate Renaud held him on bail of $1,000 and, when he returned to court on March 25, discharged him, an outcome also recorded in the 28th Precinct police blotter. The Home News reported the discharge resulted from the grand jury having indicted him in response to evidence presented as part of District Attorney Dodge's investigation. The docket book did not record that information as it did in the case of others discharged because they had been indicted, but ADA Kaminsky identified Jones as one of those indicted in those circumstances in testimony to the first public hearing of the MCCH. On March 29, Jones pled guilty to unlawful entry, the Probation Department investigation report recorded, and was sentenced to the Workhouse for four months on April 9. The plea bargain the district attorney offered Jones was in line with that offered to others not allegedly found with stolen goods in their possession, as was the sentence. Other offenders around eighteen years of age were sentenced to institutions for youthful offenders, but the Probation Department investigation raised questions about Jones' age that likely worked against such an outcome in his case. While noting that Jones "claims to be 18 years, four months of age," a probation officer wrote that he "appears to be several years older than he claims." The department was unable to obtain any evidence of his date of birth in the eleven days it spent investigating Jones.
It was not only Jones' statement about his age that the probation officer considered unreliable. Jones said he had been born in St. Louis, Missouri, leaving at age fourteen to travel to New York City. The only response to the department's inquiries about Jones that appears in his file is a letter dated April 5 from the St. Louis Juvenile Court, reporting that the court could find no mention of Jones in its files, nor anyone at the address Jones gave for his father who knew him or his family. A probation officer was able to confirm that Jones had lived at a furnished room at 84 West 134th Street for six months prior to his arrest, with an eighteen-year-old Black woman named Georgia Harris. Jones' statements about his employment proved less reliable. The bakery on East 103rd Street that Jones named as his employer at the time of his arrest did not exist. Prior to that, he said he worked for a year at a shoe repair store at 395 Lenox Ave, in the same building as the Farber's store; the owner said Jones had been employed only for several months, about three years earlier. The neckwear manufacturer Jones identified as his employer for nine months had no recollection of him. The probation officer's frustration with Jones is evident in his conclusion that "the manner in which he has lived during this time is decidedly questionable." He was more direct in the preliminary investigation, scrawling "Liar" across the section of the form relating to manner and "etiology of maladjustment." Dr. Charles Thompson's psychiatric examination report did not offer similar assessments. He found Jones neither psychotic nor mentally defective, but merely "an immature youth" of "low average intelligence." The explanation of his alleged crime lay in outside forces: "he seems to have acted together with other individuals under the influence of mob spirit, with no purpose in his action." -
1
2023-03-11T19:55:35+00:00
Indicted by Dodge's grand jury (17)
15
plain
2024-01-27T02:17:24+00:00
Five of the seventeen men indicted by the grand jury in response to District Attorney Dodge's investigation were identified by Assistant District Attorney Alexander Kaminsky in testimony before the first public hearing of the MCCH on March 30: Carl Jones, James Hughes, Thomas Jackson, Joseph Wade, and Hezekiah Wright. He was prepared to identify those men because they had pled guilty. The closed nature of grand jury hearings prevented the other men from being named. However, those that were initially held for investigation in the Magistrates Court are identified in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book: when they reappeared in court, as they had been indicted, a Magistrate had to discharge them so they could be rearrested on those charges. That outcome is recorded for fourteen men; it was not necessary in the case of Thomas Jackson, Joseph Wade, and Hezekiah Wright, who Magistrate Renaud had sent to the grand jury when they first appeared in court. In other words, Dodge preempted the normal legal process in the cases of just fourteen men.
The charges against the seventeen men do not line up with those reported in newspaper stories about the grand jury hearings on Dodge's investigation. The stories reported ten men indicted for burglary, five for riot, and two for assault. Only four of the seventeen men, the four Young Liberators, not five, faced charges of riot. Three men, not two, faced charges of assault: James Hughes, Isaac Daniels, and Douglas Cornelius.
If the reported charges are correct, which of the men were indicted on which days can only be determined with certainty in the case of the four Young Liberators, as indictments for riot were only voted on March 21, the first day of hearings. Indictments for assault were also only voted on that day, but there is no evidence of which of the three men charged with that offense were named in those indictments. It was most likely James Hughes and Isaac Daniels as they were discharged so they could be rearrested on March 22; Douglas Cornelius was not similarly discharged until March 25. However, as the four Young Liberators were not discharged until March 25, the timing of that process is not certain evidence. As there were only seven indictments on March 21, at least one more had to name more than a single individual, as the indictment naming the Young Liberators did. Nelson Brock, Reginald Mills, and William Grant were indicted together for burglary, so they were likely among those indicted on March 21. Milton Ackerman was the most likely of the men to have been the single person indicted on March 25, as the New York Times reported Ackerman was charged with "taking two rolls of paper, worth 5 cents, and 8 cents' worth of napkins from a Lenox Avenue store," close to the 15 cent value of the theft mentioned in stories about that indictment.