This page was created by Anonymous.
"Riot Link Found in Typewriter," New York World-Telegram, March 22, 1935, 12.
1 2020-10-30T19:43:52+00:00 Anonymous 1 4 plain 2023-02-11T18:16:57+00:00 AnonymousThis page is referenced by:
-
1
2023-02-09T20:01:58+00:00
Dodge grand jury hearing, March 21 (12)
64
plain
2023-07-27T18:00:32+00:00
With only a handful of those arrested during the riot arraigned in the Magistrates Court on March 21, the focus of the press shifted downtown to DA Dodge’s grand jury investigation. As grand jury proceedings were closed, no details of the evidence presented were available to reporters, and only how many individuals the jurors voted to indict, not their names. Partly as a result, statements Dodge made to the assembled reporters dominated the stories. That he focused attention and blame for the disorder on Communists resulted in particularly prominent stories in the city’s anti-Communist newspapers. Among the Black newspapers, only the Afro-American and Norfolk Journal and Guide published any details of Dodge’s claims, while both the Amsterdam News and New York Age quoted editorials rejecting the idea that Communists were responsible for the disorder.
The first day of District Attorney Dodge’s grand jury investigation was widely reported in New York City’s white daily newspapers. Twenty-six witnesses appeared before the grand jury that day according to the New York American, Daily News, New York World-Telegram, New York Times, New York Herald Tribune and Home News; three other publications reported a different number, 25 witnesses in the New York Evening Journal, and 30 witnesses in the New York Post, New York Sun and Times Union (the Daily Mirror did not mention witnesses). According to the New York Post, more than 70 additional witnesses were in attendance, likely responding to the subpoenas sent the previous day. The New York Sun reported that Assistant District Attorney Saul Price questioned a number of those witnesses before the grand jury convened at 10:30 AM. The witnesses were described as mostly policemen in the New York Times and New York World-Telegram, and as a mix of policemen and Black witnesses by the New York Post, New York American, and Times Union, which all included the detail that the police were bandaged.
Several newspapers identified Lino Rivera as among the witnesses. ADA Saul Price questioned Rivera (before the grand jury convened at 10:30 AM according to the New York Sun), with photographs of the pair sitting at a desk published in the Daily Mirror, New York American and New York Evening Journal. Price told the assembled reporters that a threatening postcard had been sent to the boy’s home. It read: "Get out of this city or we will burn you alive. Fair Warning." The threat and text of the postcard were reported by the New York Sun, New York Evening Journal, Times Union, New York Herald Tribune, Daily News, Daily Mirror and New York American. The New York Post and New York Times simply mentioned Rivera as “among the witnesses,” without noting the threat. No mention of the boy appeared in the New York World-Telegram. Price also told reporters he had placed Rivera under the supervision of Patrolman Eldridge of the Crime Prevention Bureau (the New York Evening Journal described him as also a “guard” for Rivera, the Times Union as assigned to Rivera as “safety measure;" the Daily Mirror reported a police guard for Rivera without mentioning Eldridge). The Daily News published a photograph of Rivera and Eldridge leaving the building. While the New York Times and Home News included Rivera among the 26 witnesses who appeared before the grand jury and New York Evening Journal reported that he “testified,” other newspaper stories did not include him in those proceedings. The Daily News story had Rivera dismissed when Dodge left for the grand jury. The Times Union reported he would be called before the grand jury. No mention of Rivera testifying appeared in the New York Herald Tribune, New York Sun, Daily Mirror and New York American. Later, Jackson Smith, the manager of the Kress store, told a hearing of the MCCH that he had sat beside Rivera “before we went in to the Grand Jury room.” [Hearing, May 18, 22] It is not clear what day that happened.
Dodge himself presented the cases to the grand jury, despite assigning that role to ADA Price the previous day, a change only the New York Post noted. Dodge, Price spent much of the day in the grand jury with the result that the body voted for seven indictments charging twelve individuals. While the New York Post, and New York Times reported only the number of people indicted, the New York American, New York Evening Journal, Daily Mirror, Times Union, Daily News, New York World-Telegram, New York Sun and New York Herald Tribune also mentioned the crimes with which they had been charged: inciting riot in the case of five men, assault in the case of two others and burglary for the remaining five men. (The next day Dodge announced he had decided not to prosecute the men charged with rioting in the Court of General Sessions, for a felony, but instead in the Court of Special Sessions, for a misdemeanor, according to stories in the New York Sun, Times Union and New York World-Telegram). While the seventeen men indicted as a result of Dodge's investigation can be identified, either by notes in the court docket book or in the testimony of ADA Kaminsky at the first public hearing of the MCCH, which of those men were in that group is not clear. Certainly those charged with riot included Daniel Miller and the three Young Liberators, the only group indicted together for riot, who were all prosecuted in the Court of Special Sessions, as Dodge intimated were the men indicted on this date. However, none of the others identified as indicted by Dodge's grand jury are recorded as charged with riot. While the two indictments for assault reported on this date were the only ones for that offense reported as resulting from Dodge's investigation, three men identified as indicted in that process were charged with assault: James Hughes, Isaac Daniels, and Douglas Cornelius. Any of the ten men in the group charged with burglary could have been indicted on this day.
Dodge spoke to the reporters before and after he went into the grand jury, and again after he later met with police officials. Those statements and responses to questions from reporters expanding on his claim the previous day that Communists were responsible for the disorder dominated stories about the grand jury, reported in varying detail and emphasis by different publications. A handful of newspapers noted that Dodge’s statements came at different times; most simply combined them in some way.
On his way into the grand jury, according to the New York World-Telegram and New York Evening Journal, Dodge told reporters: “The Reds have been boring into our institutions for a long time, but when they begin to incite to riot it is time to stop them.” "They have been safe because we are sticklers for free speech, but when that free speech undermines our laws and causes riots drastic action must be taken.” Those were Dodge’s most widely reported statement, in the New York Evening Journal, New York Post, New York World-Telegram, Times Union, Daily News, New York American, New York Herald Tribune, Daily Mirror, and New York Sun. The New York Evening Journal, New York World-Telegram, Times Union and New York Post added, “We must stiffen our laws.” Only the Daily Mirror reported Dodge suggesting that as “dealing with rioters on the basis of their having committed misdemeanors is not practical” an alternative would be to use Sect. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided a sentence of ten years for those advocating the overthrow of organized government by force or violence.” Given the reaction provoked when Dodge made the same call several days later, it is unlikely that would have gone unreported by other publications. [A reporter from the New York American raised the use of this statute in questions posed to Commissioner Valentine after he left a meeting with Dodge later in the day]
In seeking action against those involved in the disorder, Dodge also argued that those found guilty should be removed from Home Relief rolls” and if aliens, deported. He would make those recommendations to the Mayor and the Home Relief Bureau and Commission of Immigration respectively. The New York Post, New York World-Telegram, Times Union, New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Home News, New York Sun reported those proposals; they were not mentioned, somewhat surprisingly, in the Hearst newspapers, the New York Evening Journal, New York American, and Daily Mirror, that otherwise amplified Dodge’s anti-communism.
Some of the charges Dodge made against the Communist Party were also absent from the three Hearst newspapers. They did not join the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, Times Union, New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, New York Sun in reporting that Dodge said, “Half the troubles in labor unions are caused by Reds.” However, the New York Evening Journal together with the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, Times Union, New York Times, did report his charge that Communists had sent threatening letters to judges. The Times Union named General Sessions Judge Joseph E. Corrigan, Judge Otto A. Rosalsky and Edward R. Finch as recipients, the New York Post Corrigan and Rosalsky, the New York Evening Journal Corrigan and Finch, the New York Times only Finch, and the New York World-Telegram just “various judges.”
Dodge’s claims were staple anti-Communist charges. The New York Post reporter recognized them as such, noting that the “inquiry threatened to turn into a red-baiting campaign.” That prospect concerned the New York Herald Tribune, which saw "red-baiting" as one of "passions, fears and follies" that the disorder could incite, and wished that Dodge had restrained himself from "making allegations and proclaiming crusades." A New York Sun editorial (reprinted in the New York Age on March 30) was more dismissive of Dodge’s charges commenting that “seeing red is an official privilege, diversion and avocation at the moment; no disorder can occur without being attributed to those terror-inspiring Communists whose shadows darken the sky at noonday.” So too was a story in the Afro-American later in the week, which asserted that “Colored goody, goodies—ministers, social workers, et al—who are whooping it up that last week’s rioting was the work of Communists, and who are ready to deny freedom of speech to “radicals who come to Harlem,” are, right now, a greater menace to Harlem than the Reds.”
After Dodge left the grand jury, the Daily News, New York Times, New York American, New York Herald Tribune and Home News reported he made a more specific claim about the Communist role in the disorder. "We have evidence that within two hours after that boy stole a knife the Reds had placed inflammatory leaflets on the streets. We know who printed those leaflets and where they were printed.” That allegation echoed what police had told reporters in the immediate aftermath of the disorder; those papers that did not include it in their stories may not have seen it as new information.
Following a meeting with several police leaders, including Commissioner Valentine, that lasted around an hour and a half, Dodge returned to his broad attacks on Communists. While the New York American and Home News stories suggested a statement (and the Am reported slightly different wording), the New York Times reported Dodge as responding to questions from reporters. Dodge likely announced his plan to have the grand jury undertake a city-wide investigation of radical agitators. It was in answer to a question as to whether that investigation would be focused on Communists that Dodge asserted, "I am not interested in the labels by which they are known. We are interested in any people, no matter what they call themselves, who believe and advocate the overthrow of the Government.” He went on, “"A challenge has been made thrown down to law and order, and the Grand Jury, the District Attorney and the Police Department have accepted that challenge.” Despite repeated questions, he declined to offer further details. That it was late in the day by the time the meeting was over likely contributed to how few papers reported; other reporters had left.
Despite the unity of purpose Dodge claimed with the Police Department, Commissioner Valentine did not echo the DA’s plans to target Communists. He took the opportunity of appearing before reporters to announce a summary of the report Inspector Di Martini had submitted about the disorder. The New York American, Home News, New York Sun, New York World-Telegram and New York Times reported Valentine pointed to four causes for the disorder: "a Negro youth had been caught stealing, that a woman had screamed, that the "Young Liberators" had met, that they had thereafter disseminated "untruthful deceptive and inflammatory literature" and that all these events had been climaxed by the appearance of a hearse in the vicinity," as summarized by the New York Sun. The New York Times and Home News offered slightly longer summaries that described the woman who screamed as “hysterical” and the appearance of the hearse as “accidental.” The Daily Mirror mentioned only the role of the Young Liberators and the appearance of the hearse, quoting Valentine as saying that he believed “that the hearse which drew up in front of the store Tuesday was part of the plot.” The remaining reports of Valentine’s statements in the New York Post, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, and Daily Worker described him as simply blaming Communists for the disorder. The New York Post, New York Evening Journal, Times Union, New York Herald Tribune and Daily News made no mention of Valentine's statement in their stories.
The reporter for the New York American also put a series of “written” questions to Valentine reflecting the newspaper’s anti-Communist agenda, asking: “Why are Communists allowed to roam in Harlem?; "Why was the situation allowed to get out of control?"; and "Why were no steps taken to invoke the penal law regarding advocacy of criminal anarchy?” Only the New York Times joined the New York American in including his answers in its story, publishing more extensive answers to some questions, with the New York Evening Journal following suit the next day, while the New York Post summarized those answers as Valentine indicating “that his men would be careful not to violate constitutional rights of agitators.” Valentine had answered that the Constitution gave Communists the right to assemble, that the situation did not get out of control, and that ther had been arrests under the criminal anarchy statute but “It is difficult to convict under this section. The smart fellow does not advocate anarchy. He is very cautious not to overstep himself."
-
1
2022-12-07T18:32:00+00:00
In Harlem court on March 22 (18)
39
plain
2024-01-12T20:54:49+00:00
Only the stories in the New York Times and Daily News described the scene at the courtroom on March 22. Police searched several who entered courtroom for weapons, according to the former story, and turned away those who “bore indications of connection with the Young Liberators, the Communist organization which fomented the disorder” according to Daily News. Neither of those stories indicated that police had to control a crowd like that which had gathered two days earlier. However, the Daily Mirror reported that "several hundred Colored persons" "thronged" outside the court. That story was discounted given that reporters from other publications had noted the presence of crowds earlier in the week, so it was likely that they would have again on this day if they had been present.
The Daily Mirror story did provide a context for the day's proceedings, that "Magistrate Renaud began yesterday the work of cleaning his calendar of the remainder of 85 cases growing out of the Harlem riots." Only the New York Times explicitly offered a similar framing, that Renaud had "disposed of the cases of Negroes accused in the rioting and looting Tuesday night and Wednesday morning." The number of cases in the Daily Mirror story does not fit the legal records. No newspaper story identified all those who appeared in the court. The Home News, as it did on other dates, mentioned the largest number, ten of the seventeen. Its story described the charges against three of those convicted, Elizabeth Tai, Arthur Davis, and Herbert Hunter and reported testimony by the storeowner whose business Daughty Shavos and Clifford Mitchell had allegedly looted. Tai, Davis, and Hunter's convictions were the hearings reported most widely and in the most detail, also mentioned in the New York Evening Journal, Daily News, and Daily Worker. Mitchell and Shavos, appearing in the Magistrates Court for the first time and sent to the grand jury, were also mentioned in the New York Evening Journal, Daily News, and Daily Mirror.
The three men discharged and rearrested as they had been indicted by Dodge's grand jury, James Hughes, Charles Saunders, and Isaac Daniels, are identified in the Home News and are the only individuals whose appearance was reported by the New York Post. Only Hughes and Saunders are mentioned by the Daily Worker, which describes them simply as held for the grand jury, omitting any reference to their discharge. Of the five additional men Renaud sent to the grand jury, Amie Taylor and Arthur Merritt are mentioned in the Home News, New York Evening Journal Daily News, and Daily Worker. No newspaper mentioned the appearances of the other three men sent to the grand jury, James Williams, John Henry, and Oscar Leacock (although the Home News had reported that morning that Henry and Leacock would appear, they were not in its story on the hearings published the next day, March 23).
Nor did any publication mention the four men sent to the Court of Special Sessions, William Jones, Henry Goodwin, Frederick Harwell, and Jackie Ford. Ford, the third man to appear in court for the first time on March 22, with Shavos and Mitchell, was not mentioned in any of the stories on the day's hearings, although his arrest that day was reported by the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and La Prensa. Paul Boyett, remanded a second time, also did not appear in stories about the day's hearings.
According to stories in the Daily Mirror and the Home News, police also brought Daniel Miller and the three Young Liberators to Harlem court on March 22. They did not appear before the magistrate, according to the Home News, because just before the hearing began, police found out that they had been indicted by Dodge's grand jury. The Daily Mirror reported only the consequence of that news, that they waited for a bench warrant to be served that would allow them to be discharged and rearrested as Hughes, Saunders, and Daniels had been. By the next day, March 23, several newspapers reported that process would occur at a later hearing, on March 25.
The uneven coverage of these hearings is a further example of the incomplete and unreliable nature of newspaper stories about legal proceedings. That the mix of cases the stories reported included convictions and referrals of those charged with felonies but not any of those sent to the Court of Special Sessions suggests newspapers focused only on the more serious allegations. That focus is also evident in how the Home News emphasized the charges against Tai, Davis, and Hunter, notwithstanding that the outcome of the prosecution and short sentence indicated that they had been involved in less serious acts. The story reported their arrest for "stealing groceries" and that they had been found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to five and ten days in the Workhouse, before noting that the original charge of burglary had been reduced by the court without addressing the implications of that change. -
1
2020-09-28T20:32:00+00:00
Douglas Cornelius arrested
37
plain
2024-01-23T20:27:16+00:00
Around 10:30 PM, Patrolman Walter MacKenzie arrested Douglas Cornelius, a twenty-two-year old Black man, for allegedly using a rock to hit Thomas Wijstem, a thirty-year-old white carpenter, in front of the W. T. Grant store at 226 West 125th Street. Newspapers reported that a group of men had attacked Wijstem, but police arrested only Cornelius. Patrolman Mackenzie appeared in the Harlem Magistrates Court as the arresting officer of two other men arrested in the same area of West 125th Street around the same time: Claude Jones, also at 10:30 PM at Blumstein's department store at 230 West 125th Street, immediately west of where Cornelius was arrested; and William Ford, ten minutes later, at Kress' store at 256 West 125th Street, several buildings further west. It is not clear he actually made the arrests. There are no details of what MacKenzie said in regards to the assault on Wijstem, but in the other two incidents, which resulted in the arrests of Jones and Ford, he stated he had witnessed the men breaking windows and inciting the crowd, but made no mention of arresting them. Police had established a headquarters in front of Kress' store, and officers from throughout the city had begun arriving there before 10:30 PM, so there were likely other officers in the area who could have made the arrests.
Like the man he allegedly assaulted, Cornelius lived in East Harlem, at 52 East 118th Street, a mixed black and Puerto Rican section. He appears in the list of those arrested for assault published in the Atlanta World, Afro-American, and Norfolk Journal and Guide, but he is linked to the unidentified man with the fractured skull only in a story in the New York Times, a list of the arrested in the New York Evening Journal, and lists of the injured in the New York Herald Tribune, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, and Home News. (Wijstem was named as the unidentified man in stories published by the New York Post and New York World-Telegram on March 22).
After being one of the last of those arrested in the disorder to appear in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, Cornelius was charged with felonious assault. He was one of only eighteen of those arrested in the disorder to have a lawyer representing him listed in court docket book, in his case Pope Billings, a former state assemblyman and prominent member of the Elks Lodge with an office at 211 West 135th Street (both the other men arrested at same time, Claude Jones and William Ford, also had Black lawyers representing them). Magistrate Renaud held him until March 25 on bail of $1,000, according to the docket book. When he appeared again, Magistrate Ford dismissed the charge against him, as he had been indicted by the grand jury. The 28th Precinct police blotter simply listed the charges as "Dism[issed]," as it did with other men dismissed in the Magistrates Court, as they had been indicted. However, there was no case file for Cornelius in the District Attorney's records, and no other information on the outcome of his prosecution. Wijstem's condition may have delayed the legal process. A brief story in New York Herald Tribune in June 1935 reported Wijstem had died in Bellevue Hospital without regaining consciousness. -
1
2020-02-25T03:21:30+00:00
Thomas Wijstem assaulted & killed
35
plain
2023-11-09T07:10:51+00:00
Around 10:30 PM, Thomas Wijstem, a thirty-four-year-old white carpenter, was struck on the head by a rock and knocked unconscious in front of the W. T. Grant store at 226 West 125th Street.There is no information on why Wijstem was on West 125th Street at that time. He lived across town to the east, at 16 East 127th Street, a racially mixed section likely too far away for him to have heard the noise of the disorder. By 10:30 PM, police had established a perimeter around 125th Street and the large crowds that had been concentrated there earlier had broken into smaller groups, many of which scattered north and south up the avenues. However, around 10:30 PM, crowds broke through the police cordon on to this block of 125th Street. Three of the four brief newspaper accounts of the assault reported that a group of Black men attacked Wijstem. At the same time, a rock was thrown through the window of Blumstein's department store, the building immediately to the west of where Wijstem was struck, and ten minutes later, a rock was thrown that broke windows in Kress' store. In both those cases, police alleged that the men responsible urged people on the street to attack police, causing large crowds to gather. With police reinforcements having arrived, unlike earlier in the disorder, police made arrests in all three of those incidents, albeit of only one individual at each location. Douglas Cornelius, a twenty-four-year-old Black man, was arrested for allegedly throwing a rock that struck Wijstem. Given the objects being thrown at nearby store windows at this time, it is possible that the rock that hit Wijstem may have been meant for the windows of the W. T. Grant store, which were broken during the disorder
While many of those injured in the disorder suffered head injuries, Wijstem’s injury was one of the most severe, a fractured skull that rendered him unconscious. As a result, he appears in stories of the disorder and lists of the injured in the New York Evening Journal, Daily News, New York American, Home News, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Atlanta World, Afro-American, and Norfolk Journal and Guide as a seriously injured "unidentified white man." The Home News, New York Post and New York World-Telegram did eventually name him, on March 22, with the Home News and New York World-Telegram reporting that his brother had identified him and the New York Post that his neighbors had identified him (the Home News misreported his name as "Thor Wigstrom"). Three months later, a brief story in New York Herald Tribune reported Wijstem had died in Bellevue Hospital without regaining consciousness. However, as the attack on Wijstem led to an arrest and prosecution for assault, he is included among both those assaulted and killed (but not among those injured in assaults).
Like the man he targeted, Cornelius lived in East Harlem, at 52 East 118th Street, a mixed Black and Puerto Rican section. He appeared in lists of those arrested for assault in nine newspapers, but only five of those reports link him to the unidentified man with the fractured skull. After appearing in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, charged with felonious assault, he was remanded in custody. He appeared in court again on March 25, when Magistrate Ford dismissed the charge against him as he had been indicted by the grand jury. The 28th Precinct police blotter simply listed the charges as "Dism[issed]," as it did with other men dismissed in the Magistrates Court because they had been indicted already. However, there is no case file for Cornelius in the district attorney's records, and no other information on the outcome of his prosecution. -
1
2021-11-21T17:48:45+00:00
Windows broken without arrest (54)
30
plain
2023-11-07T16:28:13+00:00
No one was identified as being arrested for breaking windows in 75% (54 of 72) of the businesses identified in the sources (as no one was arrested for the first broken window in Kress' store, the store appears among those cases in which no arrests were made even though an arrest was made for allegedly breaking a window after another attack over four hours later). There are four individuals arrested for breaking windows for whom there is no information about their alleged targets; some of those three men and one woman may have been charged with breaking windows in stores for which there were no reported arrests. So could the twenty-one men charged with disorderly conduct in the Magistrates Court for which there is no information about their alleged actions, although only just over one in four of those accused of breaking windows were charged with that offense.
There are significantly more businesses with broken windows for which no one was charged than businesses that were looted, 75% (54 of 72) compared with 55% (37 of 67). Most of those stores were on and around West 125th Street, the area where the disorder began, and likely suffered damage during the time when small numbers of police struggled to control crowds that had gathered in front of Kress' store. Three arrests on West 125th Street, of Frank Wells, Claude Jones, and William Ford, came after police reinforcements arrived. The reported arrests on Lenox Avenue around West 125th Street for which there is information on timing, of John Kennedy Jones, Bernard Smith, and Leon Mauraine and David Smith, came after midnight, when businesses in that area began to be looted. Another cluster of businesses with broken windows for which no one was arrested was on West 116th Street and the blocks of Lenox Avenue around it. That lack of arrests could indicate the absence of police in that area, which also was ignored in the English-language press. Those damaged businesses were only reported in La Prensa, with the arrest of Jackie Ford two days after the disorder for allegedly breaking a window in a store at 142 Lenox Avenue also mentioned in the New York Post and New York World-Telegram. Several newspapers drew the boundary of the disorder north of West 116th Street: crowds only went as far south as 120th Street according to the New York World-Telegram, New York Herald Tribune, New York Evening Journal, and Daily Mirror; and as far south as 118th Street according to the Home News. (The Daily News and Afro-American did report crowds as far south as 110th Street).
The low proportion of arrests supports the claim that police were unable to protect businesses made in multiple newspaper stories and by business owners who sued the city for damages, as well as in the MCCH report. Once the crowd around Kress’ store broke into smaller groups sometime after 9:00 PM, police were unable to clear the streets or contain all those groups. When police did disperse crowds, they simply reformed, according to the New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram, Norfolk Journal and Guide, and the MCCH Report. An alternative account in the Daily News presented crowds not as elusive but as "too scattered" to be controlled. As a result, rather than being ineffective, police were absent from the scene of some attacks on businesses. Business-owners who sued the city for damages made that complaint. No police officers came to protect the stores of Harry Piskin, Estelle Cohen, and George Chronis despite Piskin approaching police officers on the street and them all visiting or calling the local stationhouse.
The absence of police from some parts of Harlem resulted in part from a decision to concentrate them elsewhere. Reported police deployments focused on West 125th Street. Inspector McAuliffe used the reserves sent to Harlem after 9:00 PM to establish a perimeter around the main business blocks of the street, from 8th to Lenox Avenues, from 124th to 126th Streets, according to stories in the New York Times, Daily Mirror, and Pittsburgh Courier, the only stories that described police deployments. Beyond West 125th Street, the police relied on radio cars patrolling the avenues and limited numbers of uniformed police and detectives in plainclothes moving through the streets. -
1
2023-02-10T18:13:57+00:00
Dodge grand jury hearing, March 22 (4)
16
plain
2024-01-23T20:08:37+00:00
Despite Dodge’s statements that the grand jury investigation of the disorder would be as extensive on March 22 as it had been the previous day, it heard only eight witnesses give evidence, less than a third of the number who had appeared earlier. Neither Dodge nor Price presented those witnesses, leaving the task to a group of assistant district attorneys, a further suggestion that their evidence did not relate to the DA’s claim of Communist responsibility. The three indictments charging four people voted by the grand jury were for the offense of burglary, looting in the context of the disorder, not for the incitement of riot and violence that Dodge had invoked the previous day. In addition, Dodge had to announce that he had sent the men indicted for inciting riot the previous day for trial on lesser misdemeanor charges not they felony offense with which they had initially been charged. In the afternoon, Dodge returned to the grand jury to present evidence seized that day in raids on the offices of organizations affiliated with the Communist Party, the ILD, and the Nurses and Hospital League. He took a typewriter and a mimeograph machine into the grand jury room, together with two unnamed witnesses. No indictments resulted from that evidence; the grand jury instead adjourned for the weekend.
Only the New York Sun and Times Union reported the number of witnesses, while the Daily Mirror mentioned that most were police officers. The assistant district attorneys presenting the witnesses were also identified by the New York Sun and Times Union, while the New York Times gave their number. The number of indictments, the number of people charged in them and the offense with which they were charged were widely reported, in the New York Evening Journal, New York Sun, Times Union, New York American, New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram, Daily News, and Daily Mirror. Only the Home News, New York Post, and New York Herald Tribune did not report the indictments. That Dodge had to reduce the inciting riot charges the grand jury voted the previous day was only mentioned in the New York World-Telegram, New York Sun, and Times Union, none of which commented on that decision.
The grand jury voted those indictments in the morning, before adjourning for lunch. Reporters from most newspapers appeared not to have returned in the afternoon. Only the New York American, New York World-Telegram, and New York Herald Tribune included the typewriter taken from the ILD offices at 415 Lenox Avenue and the mimeograph machine from the offices of the Nurses and Hospital League at 780 Broadway in their stories. The New York World-Telegram led with those details, that the typewriter had “type faces which seemed to correspond with those of allegedly inflammatory circulars distributed before the Harlem riot Tuesday night.” It attributed that information to police, who likely also provided the information that one of the two unnamed witnesses who appeared before the grand jury after the machines had to be threatened with removal to the House of Detention, reported in both the New York World-Telegram and New York American. The New York Herald Tribune quoted Dodge as saying “experts would testify” that the circulars had been produced on the machines. The New York Post mentioned only that the typewriter was believed to be in the district attorney's possession (it did not report the grand jury hearings). -
1
2021-12-14T19:50:40+00:00
Jackie Ford arrested
15
plain
2024-01-27T16:20:57+00:00
Early on March 22, Officer Mckenna of the 28th Precinct arrested Jackie Ford, a twenty-eight-year-old Black man, for allegedly being one of a group who broke windows in Julia Cureti's restaurant at 142 Lenox Avenue. Where that arrest took place is unknown. While police made other arrests after the disorder at the homes of those they arrested, Ford was recorded in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book as having "no home." Stories about Ford's appearance in court that same day in the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and La Prensa mention only that Cureti had identified Ford as one of those she saw break windows. There was no information on how she came to identify Ford.
As Ford was arrested two days after the disorder, he did not appear in the transcript of the 28th Precinct police blotter or lists of those arrested published on March 20. In the Harlem Magistrates Court, Ford was charged with malicious mischief, the offense used in cases in which windows were broken. Magistrate Renaud transferred him to the Court of Special Sessions and held him on bail of $500, indicating that the value of the damage to the building was not more than $250, the level required for the charge to be a felony. There was no information found on the outcome of the prosecution. -
1
2021-12-14T19:44:16+00:00
Julia Cureti's restaurant windows broken
14
plain
2024-01-27T22:34:22+00:00
Sometime during the disorder, windows in Julia Cureti's restaurant at 142 Lenox Avenue, on the southeast corner of 117th Street, were broken. Several businesses on the blocks of Lenox Avenue south and north of 116th Street had windows broken, damaged reported only in a story by a reporter for La Prensa who walked up Lenox Avenue the morning after the disorder. However, although the reporter would have walked by it, the restaurant is not included in that story. That likely indicates it was one of the business they reported had not been included as they had only suffered minor damage.
Cureti must have been in the business at the time, as early on March 22 she identified Jackie Ford, a twenty-eight-year-old Black man, as one of the group who broke the windows. There is no information on how she came to identify Ford. Reports of his appearance in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 22 in the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and La Prensa only mention Cureti's identification and that Ford had broken her store windows. Cureti is recorded as the complainant against Ford in the Harlem Magistrates Court docket book, where the charge against him is recorded as malicious mischief. Magistrate Renaud transferred him to the Court of Special Sessions and held him on bail of $500. There is no information on the outcome of the prosecution.
A white-owned restaurant is recorded at 142 Lenox Avenue in the MCCH business survey taken in the second half of 1935. While that record likely indicates that Cureti remained in business, she may not have operated the restaurant much longer. When a man and woman were arrested after using counterfeit $10 bills to pay for food at the restaurant in July 1937, the New York Amsterdam News story identified Dennis King as the owner. Whoever owned it, a chicken restaurant is visible at 142 Lenox Avenue in the Tax Department photograph from 1939–1941.