This page is referenced by:

• 1 2023-03-14T20:07:41+00:00 In Harlem court on March 23 (6) 41 plain 2023-04-08T17:29:56+00:00 All the city's the major newspapers reported the hearings in the Harlem Court even as they involved just five men and one woman arrested in the disorder being sentenced on the minor charge of disorderly conduct. Only the New York Evening Journal story referred to conditions at the court, that "special squadrons of police stood guard outside." Given that previous stories in other newspapers had mentioned similar deployments, their failure to do so on this occasion likely indicates that additional police were not actually present. The New York Evening Journal was also alone in directly drawing attention to what the charges and outcomes reported in the stories indicated, that those sentenced were "minor offenders in the outbreak."
  
  The woman, Margaret Mitchell, was mentioned in all those stories. Those stories continued to confuse her with a woman on 125th Street who screamed that Rivera had been killed some time after Mitchell’s arrest. They presented Mitchell's actions as having started the disorder, a claim that publications presented in different ways. The New York American reported Mitchell "started" the disorder, the Afro-American and New York Times that she "provoked" it (a claim they attributed to police), the Daily News that she "precipitated" it, the New York Evening Journal that she "set-off" the disorder," the New York Herald Tribune that she was "the spark which fired the riot," a claim attributed to police, and the Home News and New York Amsterdam News that she "stirred up the mob." More qualified claims were presented in the New York World-Telegram, that she only "helped stir Harlem mobs to rioting," and the New York Age, that she "precipitated" the disorder, but that the reaction to her outcry was "magnified to riot proportions by Communist literature." The New York Post opted for a more specific framing that more clearly captured the scope of Mitchell's responsibility, that she was "instrumental in starting the rumor that led to the riots." The Daily Worker did not ascribe any responsibility to Mitchell, describing her only as having "raised the outcry." The headlines to stories in the in the Home News and New York World-Telegram described Mitchell as the "cause" of the disorder (notwithstanding the more qualified statement in the later story itself), and "Blamed for Riot" in the New York Times. Mitchell shared the description in newspaper headlines of having caused the riot with Lino Rivera.
  
  Only the New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram and Home News reported that Mitchell told Renaud that she was "sorry." Whatever her role, Magistrate Renaud determined it was not "malicious" or intended to have the consequences it did. That statement appeared in only the New York Times, New York World-Telegram, Home News, and New York Age, and implicitly in the New York American, which did not mention Renaud, but described Mitchell as having "unwittingly" started the disorder. By contrast, the New York Herald Tribune reported that Reanud "lectured Miss Mitchell on keeping the peace." No story mentioned her lawyer, who likely would have had some role in promoting Renaud's assessment. The magistrate's judgement was reflected in the light sentence he imposed, reported as a choice between a $10 fine and three days in the workhouse in the New York Times, New York Evening Journal, Daily Worker, New York Age, and Afro-American and simply as a fine in the Daily News, New York American, New York World-Telegram, Home News, New York Post, New York Herald Tribune and New York Amsterdam News. However, Mitchell's sentence proved to be more punitive than those given to most of the others arrested for inciting crowds: six of the seven received suspended sentences, the other a month in the workhouse.
  
  Four of the five men sentenced at the same time were reported as charged with breaking windows, rather than the actual offense, disorderly conduct, in the Daily News, New York Times, Home News, New York World-Telegram, New York Age, and Afro-American, while the offense was reported in the New York Herald Tribune, New York Post, New York Evening Journal and New York American. Unlike Leo Smith, James Bright and Arthur Bennett, there was no other evidence that John Hawkins had broken windows. Initially charged with riot, in the analysis he has been classified with those inciting riot. The Home News, New York American, New York World-Telegram, New York Post and New York Evening Journal did not name the men. While the Daily News, New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, New York World-Telegram, and Home News, and the New York Age and Afro-American, identified a white man, Leo Smith, among that group, his presence went unmentioned in the New York Post, New York Evening Journal and New York American. In the later two Hearst newspaper that silence fitted their emphasis on white men and women as victims of violence during the disorder. The men were not mentioned at all in the New York Amsterdam News. The fifth man, Rivers Wright, had been charged with assault. None of the stories mentioned a charge in his case, only his conviction of disorderly assault and lesser sentence, ten days in the workhouse compared to thirty days for the other men.
• 1 2020-10-01T19:25:21+00:00 Rivers Wright arrested 27 plain 2023-08-19T17:51:47+00:00 Detective Doyle of the 5th Division arrested Rivers Wright, a twenty-one-year-old Black man for allegedly being part of a group of men who attacked an unnamed white man at 125th St and Lenox Avenue at some point in the disorder. Wright lived at 2137 7th Avenue, a block west and two blocks north of the site of the alleged assault, and in the heart of the disorder. Police arrived at the intersection around 11:00 PM, so Doyle likely arrested Wright around then or later.
  
  Only one source provided any details of the circumstances of his arrest. The Home News reported on March 21 that Wright was arrested "after he and a number of others are said to have attacked a white man at 125th St and Lenox Ave." Wright appeared in lists of those arrested during the disorder in the Atlanta World, Afro-American and Norfolk Journal and Guide, the New York American, New York Evening Journal, and Daily News.
  
  Among the first arraigned in the Harlem Magistrates Court on March 20, Wright was charged with disorderly conduct, not assault, as was the case with half of those arrested for assault. As the statute applied only to a person who used "offensive, disorderly, threatening, abusive or insulting language, conduct or behavior," police did not appear to have evidence that Wright participated in the assault. Instead, he may have been part of a crowd nearby, caught up in police efforts to arrest those responsible for the assault. Those circumstances fitted the definition of the offense.
  
  Disorderly conduct was an offense that was adjudicated by a magistrate rather than referred to another court as was the case with misdemeanor and felony offenses. Magistrate Renaud convicted Wright and remanded him for sentence on March 23. On that date, he sent Wright to the Workhouse for ten days. His appearance was widely reported, in stories that named him in the Daily News, New York Times, New York Herald Tribune and New York Age and stories in which he was unnamed in the New York World-Telegram, New York American, New York Post, New York Evening Journal, and Home News. None of those stories mentioned what Wright had allegedly done. Four other men convicted of disorderly conduct sentenced at the same time, after being charged with breaking windows, received terms of thirty days. The disparity in sentence offered further evidence that Wright had not actually been involved in the alleged assault.
• 1 2022-12-03T20:38:55+00:00 In court on March 23 6 plain 2023-04-08T20:11:44+00:00 While none of those arrested in the disorder faced trial on Saturday, the six convicted of disorderly conduct by Magistrate Renaud on March 20 returned to the Harlem court for sentencing. While the hearing was widely reported in the city’s newspapers, the details hardly warranted that attention. Only the New York Evening Journal story made that clear in commenting that those who appeared were “minor offenders in the outbreak." At the same time, District Attorney Dodge continued to assert that Communists had been responsible for the disorder and represented a greater threat, affirming to reporters his commitment to having the grand jury investigate those who advocated the overthrow of government by force and violence.
  
  Margaret Mitchell, the one woman in the group, drew the most attention, with her reaction in Kress’ store to Rivera being taken away by staff presented by the press as having had a role in starting the disorder. Those stories continued to confuse her with a woman on 125th Street who screamed that Rivera had been killed some time after Mitchell’s arrest. In court she said “sorry.” That would be the only public statement Mitchell would make about the disorder, as she refused repeated requests to testify at one of the MCCH’s public hearings in the following weeks. Her silence worked to disassociate her from disorder, perhaps to protect the respectability of her family or to avoid putting herself at odds with police and white authorities. While other women shopping in the store did speak to MCCH investigators, they also ultimately did not testify. Their silence contributed, in combination with the apparent unwillingness of police to arrest women, to historians overlooking the role of Black women in the early hours of the disorder.
  
  Magistrate Renaud determined that Mitchell had not intended to provoke violence, describing her actions as not “malicious.” He was likely encouraged in that conclusion by Mitchell’s lawyer, Sidney Christian, a prominent West Indian attorney. At the same time, the magistrate evidently did believe Mitchel had contributed to the disorder in Kress’ store. That was not immediately obvious in the sentence he imposed of three days in the workhouse or a fine of $10, a lesser sentence than he gave the others who appeared in court that day. However, Mitchell's sentence proved to be more punitive than those given to most of the others arrested for inciting crowds: six of the seven received suspended sentences, the other a month in the workhouse. In Mitchell’s case, she (or her family) was able to mitigate that difference by paying the fine. That they had the financial resources to do so sets Mitchell apart from most of those arrested in the disorder, reinforcing the sense that the politics of respectability motivated her silence.
  
  The other member of the group being sentenced who would have stood out was Leo Smith, a white man, but he did not receive the attention given to Mitchell. The Hearst newspapers, New York Evening Journal and New York American, did not mention him at all, avoiding distracting from their emphasis on white victims of violence. The other newspapers simply identified his race. Smith’s attorney apparently did not repeat the claims that the disorder had been a race riot started by black residents, so not something a white man could have been involved in, that had provoked the Magistrate and Black spectators at his first appearance on March 20. Like three Black men who appeared with him, John Hawkins, James Bright and Arthur Bennett, he received a sentence of one month in the workhouse. Newspapers reported they had all broken windows, even though they would have been convicted of malicious mischief not disorderly conduct if police had evidence to support that charge. There was no suggestion that he had broken windows in Black rather than white businesses or otherwise been in conflict with Black residents during the disorder, so his presence among those convicted did not undermine efforts to present the disorder as “not a race riot,” but added to the variety of those involved in the disorder and to economic rather than racial motivations. The three men’s sentences of a month in the Workhouse were among the more punitive given to those accused of breaking windows, only half of whom served terms of one to six months.
  
  The final man sentenced, Rivers Wright, received a term of only ten days. He had been arrested for assault, but as he had only been charged with disorderly conduct in court police clearly did not have evidence he had participated in such violence. While not released as a bystander, his short imprisonment cast him as someone police encountered in the crowds on the streets not a participant in assaults or attacks on businesses.
  
  Up in the Washington Heights court, unreported in the press, another of those arrested in the disorder joined those in the Harlem court in being removed from the ranks of those precipitating violence. Elva Jacobs was returned to court to have the charge against her reduced from burglary to unlawful entry. In other words, police only had evidence that she had entered a store not that she had broken in or taken any merchandise. She was sent to the Court of Special Sessions for trial as that charge was still a misdemeanor. However, the magistrate set bail for Jacobs at only $50, the lowest for anyone arrested during the disorder.