This page is referenced by:

• 1 2020-03-11T21:54:28+00:00 Lino Rivera grabbed & Charles Hurley and Steve Urban assaulted 162 plain 2023-09-13T14:07:30+00:00 When Charles Hurley, a floorwalker, and a Kress' store detective confronted Lino Rivera, an unemployed sixteen-year-old Puerto Rican boy, about stealing a pocketknife in Kress’ store, and started pushing him out of the store, the boy bit the hands of Hurley and a white window dresser who came to their aid, Steve Urban. After initially indicating that they wanted Rivera charged with assault, the two men ultimately did not ask police to arrest him. The incident is treated here as an assault as the New York Evening Journal, New York Post, New York American and Daily News listed the two men among the injured.
  
  As the incident between Rivera and the store staff triggered the disorder, it was widely reported in the press and investigated by the MCCH. This analysis relies on testimony given in MCCH public hearings as that was by far the most complete and detailed evidence. Newspaper narratives varied in detail, consistently reporting only that a boy had been grabbed by store staff for taking merchandise, and later released, but omitting most other details. Several white newspapers also published separate stories based on statements made by Rivera at the West 123rd police station during the disorder or at his home the next day that included additional details of why he was in the store and his encounter with the store staff but not of subsequent events in the store.
  
  Rivera had begun the day by taking the subway to Brooklyn, in pursuit of job as an errand boy, he told reporters for the New York American and New York Herald Tribune. Finding the job already filled, he returned to Harlem. Getting off the subway at West 125th Street, Rivera decided to go to a show or movie at one of the theaters that lined the street, perhaps at the Apollo Theater opposite Kress' store, as a story in the New York Evening Journal claimed. When the show ended, Rivera went into Kress' store, a detail also reported in the New York Sun. He said he did so because he had "nothing to do," according to the New York Post, "just to look around I guess," according to the New York World-Telegram, "to walk through to 124th Street," according to the New York American, and "to take a short cut home," according to the New York Herald Tribune. 
  
  Testifying in a public hearing of the MCCH, Hurley, a twenty-eight-year-old white resident of the Bronx, said he was with the store manager Jackson Smith in an office overlooking the rear of the store when he saw Rivera take a pocketknife from a counter around 2:30 PM. Calling down to the store detective, he pointed out Rivera and then headed to the floor himself. Rivera later admitted to reporters that he did take the knife, after it "caught his eye," according to the New York Post or "attracted" him according to the New York World-Telegram and New York American, or because it "matched a fountain pen set he had," according to the New York Herald Tribune. (The New York Sun mistakenly reported that it was chocolate that Rivera had taken). When Rivera denied having the knife, Hurley took it from the boy’s pocket. Both Rivera and Hurley testified that the men started to push him out of the store. According to Hurley, near the front door Rivera became scared and started to lash out at them. Rivera reportedly told journalists from the New York World-Telegram, New York Post and New York Evening Journal that he had told the men he could walk out on his own, and tried to shake free of their hold, "really started fighting" when, as he also testified in a MCCH hearing, Hurley said, "Let's take him down the cellar and beat hell out of him.” Hurley denied making that statement; he told the MCCH hearing that he held Rivera around his shoulders while the store detective tried to calm the boy. As a struggle developed, another store employee, Steve Urban, a thirty-nine-year-old white window dresser, also grabbed hold of Rivera, according to Hurley. Once the group was through the front door and into the store's vestibule, a recessed area of the street surrounded by display windows, the store detective went to get a Crime Prevention Bureau officer. That police agency provided an alternative to having children arrested; its officers instead undertaking investigations of their conditions in order to refer them to social agencies to better prevent “juvenile delinquency.” Kress store staff turned most of the boys they caught shoplifting over to the Crime Prevention Bureau, according to Hurley, and had police arrest only one or two a week.
  
  Sometime after the store detective left, Rivera bit both Hurley and Urban on the hands and wrist while "trying to get away," he told a public hearing, reportedly explaining to journalists from the New York World-Telegram and New York Post that "I didn't want a licking." The struggle in the vestibule attracted the attention of Patrolman Donahue, who was the nearest of several police officers on West 125th Street at the time (identified in some newspapers as a traffic officer and by Rivera in a MCCH hearing as a mounted patrolman). Donahue took Rivera back into the store, to near the candy counter at the front, to get away from a curious crowd gathering on 125th Street, and sent an officer to get an ambulance to provide treatment for Hurley and Urban. (He told the MCCH hearing that the officer was his partner Keel, or another patrolman named Walton; the call log records the man's name as Miller, who was later identified by the store manager as a Black officer). The telephone call to Headquarters was logged at 2:30 PM, followed by one from Police Headquarters to Harlem Hospital at 2:35 PM, with the ambulance bringing Dr. Sayet recorded in the hospital records as having arrived at 2:40 PM. Those records provide better evidence of the timing of the incident than Donahue’s testimony that he witnessed the struggle at 2:15 PM. Soon after the ambulance arrived, the manager, Jackson Smith came to the front of the store, he testified in a public hearing, after being told a crowd had gathered by a staff member. Informed that a Crime Prevention Bureau officer had been called, Smith decided there was “nothing further for him to do,” and he returned to his office. A few minutes later Alfred Eldridge, a Black Crime Prevention Bureau officer, arrived. Usually the store staff would have turned Rivera over to Eldridge, who would have taken Rivera with him. However, on this occasion Hurley and Urban told Eldridge they wanted the boy arrested and charged with assault. Hurley told a public hearing he had gone to the rear of the store before Eldridge arrived, and did not want Rivera arrested, but the officer was clear that he spoke with both Hurley and Urban. The store manager similarly told a later public hearing that “Hurley wants to press charges for biting.” Eldridge could not take Rivera with him if he was arrested: “The job and purpose of our bureau is not to arrest a child," the told the MCCH hearing. He telephoned his superior, and told him that “the 5 & 10 wanted the boy arrested.” In response that officer told him to “let the patrolman take care of it due to the fact that he was first on case.” So after about 25 minutes at Kress, around 3:15 PM, Eldridge left the store.
  
  However, Eldridge testified he later found out that soon after he left, “the store officials changed their mind.” Donahue simplified those events in the public hearing, testifying that “The boy was not arrested, but was taken through the basement to 124th Street and sent home.” He did not mention Eldridge or who reversed the decision to arrest Rivera. Hurley’s self-interested statement that he did not want him arrested made Urban responsible. Urban himself was not among those who testified before a MCCH public hearing.  It does seem that it was Urban who Donahue said was with him when he released Rivera; the officer referred to him not by name but as “the window dresser.” They took Rivera out the rear rather than on to 125th Street as there was a crowd in front of the store and Donahue “didn’t want to start something,” he told a public hearing. He was clearly anxious enough about the situation in the store to ignore another option that Eldridge had given him, “that in the event that Kress Store did not want to press charges, that the boy could be handed over to us for supervision,” according to the Crime Prevention Bureau officer’s testimony. After releasing Rivera on to 124th Street, Donahue left the store, at around 3:30 PM. Many of the fifty or so mostly black women shopping in the store observed these events, after their attention had been attracted by the struggle between the two men and Rivera, and the appearance of an ambulance. None of these women testified in a public hearing. A Black man named L. F. Cole told a MCCH public hearing that he saw Rivera being taken to the basement by two men.  As they had not seen Rivera leave the store, groups of women concerned to find out what had become of him remained in the store until Smith closed it and police pushed them out sometime around 5:00 PM or 5:30 PM.
  
  Bites are a relatively minor injury, and the hospital record indicates that both men received treatment at the scene and were not taken to the hospital. Hurley did still have a scar when he testified at a MCCH public hearing on April 20. Hays examined it, announcing that “I should say enough [of a scar] to indicate there was a bite,” adding in response to a question from the audience that he saw four teeth marks.” Only one other individual in the disorder was described as having been bitten, Arthur Block, a Black man. He appeared among lists of the injured in only three publications, with no details provided of the circumstances in which he was assaulted.
  
  The significantly less detailed narratives of what happened between Rivera and the store staff published in newspapers largely reflected what Inspector Di Martini told a journalist working for the Afro-American and others in front of the store around 7:30 PM: "A boy stole some little article here this afternoon. The manager caught him, grabbed him by the arm, and was taking him in the back when a woman screamed. The crowd gathered. The manager did not press charges, and let the boy go home through the back.” (Di Martini’s information at that time came only from interviewing Jackson Smith and Hurley, as both Donahue and Eldridge were off duty and would not learn of the disorder until the next day). Missing from his narrative was Rivera biting the men, a detail that was also missing from stories in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, New York World-Telegram and New York Evening Journal, and Daily Worker. However, the assault was mentioned in the New York American, Home News, New York Sun, New York Herald Tribune, New York Times, Daily News, New York Post, Atlanta World, New York Age, Philadelphia Tribune, Pittsburgh Courier, La Prensa and in Time magazine and the New Republic. Only the New York American, Daily News and New York Herald Tribune included language that gave a particular slant to the assault. The New York American and Daily News describing Rivera as “hysterical” in his response to being grabbed by Hurley and the store detective, while the New York Herald Tribune labelled him pugnacious. The New York Age reported that “someone” had hit Rivera, the New York Herald Tribune and Brooklyn Daily Eagle that Hurley or Urban “slapped him", or “slugged him” according to the Pittsburgh Courier, with the New York Age mistakenly reporting that he was being treated at Harlem Hospital. That story was in a special edition of the New York Age published in the midst of the confusion early in the disorder. Two stories, in the New York American and New York Sun, had Rivera leave the store rather than being released. A story in The New Republic by white journalist Hamilton Basso included dialogue, almost certainly invented, between Rivera and the two men who grabbed him and comments from a crowd around him (Basso also mixed up the sequence of events inside and outside the store after Rivera's release).
  • Lino Rivera grabbed & Charles Hurley and Steve Urban assaulted (Part 2)
  • Lino Rivera grabbed & Charles Hurley and Steve Urban assaulted in secondary sources
• 1 2021-11-01T19:47:39+00:00 Black-owned business signs (6) 88 plain 2023-10-25T03:27:48+00:00 Six businesses were identified as having signs in their windows identifying them as Black owned. Stories in both white and Black newspapers presented such signs as a more widespread part of the disorder and as a key reason why Black-owned businesses were generally spared from damage and not looted. On placards and directly on windows with whitewash or soap were written “Colored,” "Black," and “This Store Owned by Colored,” the Afro-American reported. Three of the identified businesses fitted those generalizations, with a reporter for La Prensa describing signs that read "Colored" on a billiard hall and the Castle Inn on Lenox Avenue, and a sign reading "This is a Store Owned By Colored" in the Monterey Luncheonette reported by the Afro-American. Three other stores reportedly used a variation on those signs. Seven signs identifying a store named “Winnette’s Dresses” as a “Colored Store” are visible in both a photograph of an arrest taken during the disorder published in the Daily News, and a photograph taken the morning after the disorder showing a group of Black boys in front of the store published in the Afro-American.
  
  
  
  The sign on the Williams's drug store used the same phrase, "Colored Store" with the additional phrase "Nix Jack," repeating the combination twice on its side windows. There is no information on the meaning of the phrase "Nix Jack." Roi Ottley, writing in his column in the New York Amsterdam News about the looting during the disorder as targeted at white-owned businesses, ended with an echo of that phrase: "THIS IS A COLORED COLUMN, NIX JACK!" The Cozy Shoppe customized the phrase to fit its name, rendering it as "Colored Shoppe." The Home News reporter departed from those descriptions, apparently confusing the nature of the signs displayed. Explaining how it was that "Most of the damage was done to shops which were known to be operated by white persons," the reporter claimed, "The colored persons who owned stores protected their shops against vandalism by picketing their establishments. They carried signs stating that the store was operated by colored people." No other sources mention pickets in front of Black-owned stores. There was no mention of signs being displayed in store windows in the Daily Mirror, New York American, New York Sun, or in Harlem's Black newspapers, the New York Age and New York Amsterdam News, or in the MCCH Report.
  
  Signs appeared in Black-owned businesses as a response to windows being broken in nearby stores, providing material evidence that those throwing objects at windows chose their targets rather than being an irrational "mob." In some stories, those attacks were indiscriminate until signs appeared; other stories leave open the possibility that the signs reflected store owners' sense of the targets of those throwing objects at windows. "The mob made no choice, at first, of victims," in the most elaborate story, in the New York Evening Journal. "And then one colored man who owned a small restaurant pasted a sign in the window. It bore one word: 'Colored.' The mob passed him by and when others saw how the 'miracle' was worked, signs flashed up in store windows throughout West Harlem. Those owned by Negroes, in most cases, were not broken into." The dismissive tone of the story was typical of that newspaper's treatment of Black subjects; attributing the posting of signs to an individual and the protection from damage that resulted to a "miracle" diminished the decisions those on the streets made about what stores to target that Black store-owners recognized. By contrast, the Black reporter for the Afro-American, emphasized “Stores owned by colored persons in the rioting area had to rush improvised signs reading ‘Colored, “Black,” “This Store Owned by Colored," but cast the signs as based on an understanding of the intentions of those attacking stores, created "in order to be spared in the rain of bricks, whiskey bottles, and other missiles."
  
  Briefer mentions in other newspaper stories generally echoed that framing. Among Black newspapers, the Norfolk Journal and Guide went furthest in emphasizing that Black-owned businesses initially were damaged: "Some Negro establishments were among the 200 which lost their plate-glass windows and had the window contents looted. Finally, some Negro stores in the affected area...had to resort to self preserving signs such as 'Colored' 'Owned by Colored' and 'Black.'" The Philadelphia Tribune ambiguously alluded to earlier attacks, while also erroneously expanding the violence to homes, reporting "Risks to live became so grave Tuesday night that Negroes put up signs on their stores and homes to indicate 'colored' lived there." Signs are simply presented as a response in the Indianapolis Recorder, "As the swarms of rioters swooped down upon the business district breaking store windows and stealing merchandise signs saying 'Colored Store' went up." Among white newspapers, those brief mentions emphasized the lack of damage to businesses that put up signs, without reference to what had happened earlier. Two such mentions came in additional stories in the New York Evening Journal. "The mob wrath in most instances touched no windows whose proprietors had had opportunity to scribble 'colored' in white chalk on the glass," wrote Joseph Mickler. Robert D. Levit similarly noted, "They carefully left unmolested those store which displayed hastily constructed signs with the word 'Colored.'" The story in the New York Post included a similar description, that "Many Negro storekeepers scrawled on their windows, with soap, the word 'colored' and the heat of the mob was never sufficient to cause the Negroes to attack their own." While stories in the Daily News did not mention signs, they appeared in the background of a photograph of two police officers making an arrest, drawing a mention in the caption: "On the dress store window are signs proclaiming it to be a ‘colored shop,’ to protect it from the raiding marauders."
  
  Two more stories, in the New York Times and New York World-Telegram, described signs in windows the next day rather than during the disorder. Those signs may have gone up after the disorder, as storeowners became aware of details of the previous night's violence, or the white reporters may not have seen those signs during the disorder. The latter seems more likely. The signs in Winnette’s Dresses photographed after the disorder had been present, and photographed, during the disorder; likewise the sign on the Cozy Shoppe window filmed after the disorder was also reported during the disorder. In both the New York Times and New York World-Telegram stories, not only Black owners put up signs. "Negro proprietors had large white-washed signs on their windows announcing that 'This shop is run by COLORED people,'" the New York Times reported, adding, "Several white store owners took the cue and covered their windows with signs announcing that 'This store employs Negro workers.'" The previous year, the boycott campaign had tried to expand the number of stores with Black staff. Newspaper stories offered contradictory claims about whether such businesses were attacked during the disorder: the New York Post and Pittsburgh Courier reported they were spared, the Afro-American and Norfolk Journal and Guide reported they were among those damaged.
  
  A further set of store-owners' responses are included in the New York World-Telegram. "On every Negro store in Harlem today there were signs bearing this legend, 'Colored Store.' One said:-'Do not break this window. This is colored.'" Also, "There are many Chinese restaurants in Harlem, and they have placed similar signs on their windows. Chain stores have filled their windows with empty pasteboard boxes. Others have nailed boards across their windows." The only other mentions of Chinese-owned businesses as targets of attacks were of a single Chinese laundry posting a sign reading "Me Colored Too," reported by the Associated Press, in the New York Herald Tribune and Daily News (two newspapers that otherwise did not mention signs in their stories on the disorder), and in Time Magazine. That sign captured the issue raised by attention to those businesses: how did those attacking white-owned businesses regard those from other ethnic groups. The New York World-Telegram story implied that Chinese-owned businesses, of which there were 209 (3.5%, 209 of 5791) dispersed throughout Black Harlem, were not attacked, that those on the streets during the disorder agreed their owners were "colored too." Newspaper stories in the New York Herald Tribune, Daily News, and New York World-Telegram about the laundry contradicted that view, reporting that the business' windows were broken after the sign was displayed. However, there are no other reports of damaged or looted Chinese-owned stores. By contrast, La Prensa reported several Hispanic-owned businesses that suffered damage and looting, and no mention that such stores sought to identify themselves as a "colored store." The final response described by New York World-Telegram offered further recognition among storeowners of who the violence targeted. Rather than signs identifying why they should be spared from attack, white-owned stores barricaded their windows, seeking to prevent damage from objects that would be thrown at them.
  
  
   
• 1 2021-11-01T19:56:41+00:00 Windows broken in Black-owned businesses (8) 66 plain 2023-11-07T05:08:51+00:00 At least eight Black-owned businesses had windows broken during the disorder, 11% (8 of 72) of the businesses reported damaged. That proportion is far below the share of Harlem's businesses that had Black owners, 28% (1690 of 5791) in the area from 110th Street to 155th Street, east of Amsterdam Avenue to west of Madison Avenue identified by the MCCH business survey taken after the disorder. The limited scale of that damage fits with stories in the Home News, New York Post, New York Evening Journal, and Afro-American, and Inspector Di Martini's "Report on Disorder" for the Police Commissioner, that the windows of Black-owned businesses were generally not broken. Lieutenant Samuel Battle, New York City's most senior Black police officer, asked in the MCCH's first public hearing on March 30, 1935 if the crowds made any distinction between white-owned and Black-owned stores, insisted that Black-owned businesses did have windows broken, but then qualified the extent of such attacks: "In many cases, if they knew it was colored, they passed the shop up." James Hughes, a twenty-four-year-old Black shoe repairer, who was part of the crowd at West 125th and 8th Avenue around 10 PM, also told a probation officer that those around him were breaking windows "where no colored were employed."
  
  "Fully 30 of the store fronts shattered in Harlem were in Negro establishments," white journalist Edward Flynn claimed in a story in the New York Evening Journal focused on Communist activities in Harlem. In arguing that "the riot [was] conducted on the best Communist lines," the reporter pointed to how "the Negro merchant's property was destroyed as well as that of the white." Three Black-owned businesses close together on 7th Avenue that had windows broken were identified in the story. Battle's Pharmacy on the northwest corner of 7th Avenue and West 128th Street was mentioned together with the Williams drug store, across 7th Avenue on the southeast corner of 128th Street. "Both of these stores were damaged by the rioters although virtually everyone in Harlem knows who operates them." The third store was the Burmand Realty office at 2164 7th Avenue, two buildings north of the pharmacy. Not mentioned in the New York Evening Journal story was the Cozy Shoppe restaurant at 2154 7th Avenue across the street from Williams drug store which had a sign on its window identifying it as Black-owned, and had no windows broken. If the number of Black-owned stores with broken windows did total thirty, that would amount to approximately 10% of those damaged, a little over one-third of the proportion of Harlem's businesses that were Black-owned. That disproportionate share of the damage does not suggest indiscriminate attacks on store windows.
  
  A claim of more extensive damage to Black-owned businesses, that "forty windows were broken in the exclusively Negro section [of 8th Avenue] north of 130th Street,” did appear in a story published in the New York Herald Tribune. However, that story misrepresented those blocks of 8th Avenue; the MCCH business survey showed they were still predominantly populated by white-owned businesses. The character of the street did change, but from 92.5% (74 of 80) white-owned businesses from 125th to 130th Streets, to 71% (34 of 48) white-owned businesses from 130th to 135th Streets, and 74% (65 of 88) white-owned businesses from 135th to 140th Streets. The one arrest in this area for allegedly breaking windows, of Henry Stewart, involved a white-owned business, a meat market at 2422 8th Avenue, between 130th and 131st Streets. If there were another thirty-nine windows broken in this area, almost all were likely also in white-owned businesses. However, that number seems exaggerated, as Inspector Di Martini's "Report on Disorder" estimated only eighty-five broken windows in total north of 130th Street, in the 32nd Precinct that also covered 7th, Lenox, and 5th Avenues.
  
  The MCCH report did also seek to emphasize that damage was done to Black-owned businesses rather than how many were spared damage. It only implicitly recognized that those on the street chose their targets, casting that behavior as present only early in the disorder, giving way to more indiscriminate violence, cast as more important to understanding the events: "While, of course, many motives were responsible for the actions of these crowds, it seems that as they grew more numerous and more active, the personality or racial Identity of the owners of the stores faded out and the property itself became the object of their fury. Stores owned by Negroes were not always spared if they happened to be in the path of those roving crowds, bent upon the destruction and the confiscation of property." Unmentioned in the report is the countervailing development in which, after the initial attacks on store windows, Black-owned businesses identified themselves with signs. The New York Evening Journal, New York Post, and Afro-American reversed the chronology presented by the MCCH report, locating the damage to Black-owned businesses early in the disorder, until signs appeared identifying "Colored Stores," after which they were no longer attacked. The period of indiscriminate violence posited by the report was also when looting became widespread, according to newspaper narratives of the disorder and reported events. However, there were no reports of Black-owned stores being looted, and the New York Evening Journal and New York Post noted that merchandise had not been taken from them, which they attributed to the signs placed on those businesses.
  
  There is no information on when the eight stores were damaged, so no evidence if they fit the picture provided in the MCCH report. Five of the Black-owned businesses that were reported damaged do not clearly contradict claims that those on the street directed violence at specific targets (there is no information related to Battle's Pharmacy, Burmand Realty, or Gonzales Jeweler). The Manhattan Renting Agency storefront was the office of Everard M. Donald, a twenty-seven-year-old Black real estate broker and owner of a chain of barbers, but also where Hary Pomrinse, a sixty-six-year-old Jewish real estate broker, did business. A similar ambiguity surrounded the ownership of the grocery store that had windows broken, a Peace Market operated by followers of Father Divine, a Black religious leader whose theology and claim to be God in a body drew criticism from Harlem's Black clergy and leaders. The Peace Food Market name and sign would have identified the store as not being a white-owned business, but Divine's Peace Mission had white members in its Harlem ranks, historian Judith Weisenfeld has shown. That interracialism that may have made the store a target; so too might the controversy Divine provoked within Harlem's Black community.
  
  The nature of the damage done to the other three Black-owned businesses reported to have had windows broken offers another manifestation of how confusion over the ownership of stores, rather than disregard for it, produced attacks on stores. After the front windows of the Williams Drug Store facing 7th Avenue were broken, the owner wrote “Colored Store, Nix Jack” on the side windows on West 127th Street. Those windows were not damaged. Two other businesses that a La Prensa reporter recorded as having damaged windows, a billiard parlor and the Castle Inn saloon on Lenox Avenue south of 125th Street, also put up signs, according to another story in La Prensa. That reporter did not appear to understand the intent of the signs, seeing them as an effort to establish a racial divide in the neighborhood, to segregate Black and white residents, and did not relate them to the damage suffered. However, as the reporters could see the signs as well as broken windows, those stores too had been able to prevent extensive damage by identifying themselves as having Black owners. Other businesses also put up signs, and at least three suffered no damage. The success of that strategy suggests that broken windows in Black-owned businesses resulted from ignorance of who owned them, produced perhaps by residents joining crowds that moved beyond the areas where they lived. Edward Flynn, a white journalist writing for the New York Evening Journal, insisted that "virtually everyone in Harlem knows who operates [Battles Pharmacy and Williams drug store]," which nonetheless had windows broken. While he was certainly right about those who lived nearby or passed by that section of 7th Avenue, it is less clear how widely that knowledge would have been shared by those who lived and spent their time in other areas of the neighborhood and found themselves part of crowds moving up the avenue. Although the MCCH business survey found only six other Black-owned drug stores in Harlem, compared to 116 white-owned stores, neither business advertised extensively, nor were pharmacies and drug stores unusual enough to make them widely known to the changing population of the neighborhood who largely frequented drug store chains.
• 1 2022-01-31T20:16:15+00:00 Crowd inside Kress 5, 10 & 25c store 60 plain 2023-10-30T01:58:40+00:00 After Patrolman Donahue released Lino Rivera and then himself left Kress’ store around 3:30 PM, groups of shoppers remained. They wanted to know what had happened to the boy and to see that he had not been harmed. Over the next two hours, the manager and several police officers unsuccessfully tried to reassure them and others who came into the store to investigate what was happening. During that time Clara Crowder, a twenty-year-old white clerk, fainted and was attended by an ambulance, and Margaret Mitchell, an eighteen-year-old Black woman, was arrested for disorderly conduct. Sometime around 5:00 PM or 5:30 PM, the manager decided to close the store, and police cleared out all those inside.
  
  
  
  Events inside Kress 5, 10 & 25c store after Lino Rivera had been grabbed by store staff moved far more slowly than newspaper narratives portrayed. Whereas reporters strung together the specific incidents they identified into a tight sequence, testimony to the MCCH’s public hearings provided additional information that spread those events over almost two hours.
  
  The Black women and a few men who remained in the store did not immediately start shouting and overturning displays, nor was Margaret Mitchell immediately arrested. They gathered in small groups of two or three. A few minutes after Donahue had released Rivera and left the store, Smith, the manager, as he told a public hearing of the MCCH, had become concerned about their presence and went to the shop floor to investigate. “Some women were going around saying a boy had been beaten, an ambulance had come and she knew it. I went to two groups trying to explain to them that nothing had happened to cause any excitement.” Having no success, Smith went out to 125th Street, where he found Patrolman Miller, a Black officer who had earlier called for the ambulance to treat Hurley and Urban, who he asked to “come in and see if he could not explain to those people.” The women “didn’t pay much attention” to Miller. By 4:00 PM, “the thing was getting to be worse,” Smith testified. That likely meant both that the number of people inside and outside that store was growing, and that, as Thompson later described happening inside the store, as they waited for proof the boy had not been harmed, “patience began to give way to indignation. Their voices rose.” Smith found additional police on 125th Street. Patrolman Timothy Shannon arrived in the store at 4:00 PM. By 4:20 PM he decided he needed to call for radio cars with additional police officers, who arrived within five minutes. Those officers had no more success than those before convincing the women and men in the store that Rivera had been let go, the message Hurley said they were delivering. Ten minutes later, Smith called the station and told them “the thing was beginning to get out of control and to do something.” Like the manager of the neighboring Woolworth's store, he clearly felt "under considerable tension" when a "commotion takes place with a [Black] customer." Sgt Bauer was sent. At some point Shannon claimed that he formed a committee of three shoppers, two men and one woman, whom he took to the basement to see that Rivera was not there, and then went with “from one crowd to another but they would not listen.” No other witness or source mentioned such a committee, and Shannon could not identify its members.
  
  The situation had not improved after 4:30 PM, when Smith testified the number of people in the store had grown to around 100, and Sgt Bauer told him, “'I don’t know what we can do.' We didn’t want to start a riot. We didn’t want to excite them.” Smith decided that he needed to close the store and called the police station again and “pleaded for enough men to close the doors without causing trouble.” Around the same time, Louise Thompson, a Black Communist activist and journalist with many friends among the authors and artists of the Harlem Renaissance, entered the store. She had been shopping at the Woolworth’s store further along 125th Street when she saw groups of people gathered on the sidewalk. Asking around to find out what was going on, a man told her “something was going on in the store and that a boy was beaten,” she testified. Thompson then went into Kress’, which she would describe later in her autobiography as a store “where you have all of these small counters throughout the store,” and found “little clusters of people standing here and there in the store,” with “most of the girls behind the counter ... still in their places but no floor-walkers or officials were in evidence,” she wrote in a version of her testimony published in the New Masses. Approaching the largest group, standing by the candy counter, Thompson learned that they believed a boy had been beaten up by store staff, and that they intended to “stand here until they produce him.”
  
  More police officers then arrived and went to the rear of the store, where Smith’s office was located, Thompson wrote. They were the additional officers that the manager had had requested. At this time, Smith told a public hearing, he closed the store doors. His testimony was that happened at 5:30 PM, but other evidence suggests that Smith might have been mistaken about the time. Around 5 PM, Clara Crowder, a twenty-year-old white clerk, fainted while “aiding another employee,” according to the records of the ambulance that attended her. That ambulance, the second sent to the store, arrived at 5:05 PM. Thompson testified that she was outside on West 125th Street when she saw it arrive, having been one of the last to leave the closed store. It seems likely that Crowder was behind a counter, and fainted during the struggles between the people in the store and police that began after a woman inside the store screamed and pots, pans and glasses were knocked off displays. Smith testified that damage happened as the door was closed. Thompson also described hearing the closing bell as part of the noise in the store in her article in New Masses.
  
  Jackson Smith and Patrolman Timothy Shannon testified that a woman screamed and knocked merchandise off counters after the store was closed, but only Thompson described the circumstances that produced that noise. She did not see the woman who screamed, but was part of the crowd who rushed to where the noise came from, the rear of the store. Police there pushed those women and men back and refused to answer when women asked “if the boy was injured and where he is,” Thompson wrote in New Masses. The officers also “began to get rough.” A woman with an umbrella retaliated; she either hit an officer, according to Thompson’s testimony, or “knocked over a pile of pots and pans,” according to her article. Many of those in the store rushed to leave once the noise and struggles with police began, both Thompson and Smith testified. It is likely that it was around this time that police in the store arrested Margaret Mitchell, an eighteen-year-old Black woman, although none of those who testified about this period of time in the store mentioned the arrest. Police charged her with “throwing pans on floor and causing crowd to collect,” according to Inspector Di Martini’s report on the disorder. It was only once the store was closed that merchandise was knocked off displays, according to the testimony of those in the store.
  
  A small number of people resisted leaving the store, “refusing to move until they got some information about the boy,” Thompson wrote. Gradually police officers pushed them too out of the store; Thompson was one of the last to leave, about half an hour after she entered. On the street at that time, she testified, were several hundred people, most “in front of the Apollo Theatre,” opposite Kress’ store across 125th Street. By the time Inspector Di Martini, in charge of the four precincts that made up the Sixth Division, arrived at 5:40 PM, to investigate the reports of disorder, the store was closed and only a few employees remained inside. He interviewed Jackson Smith and Charles Hurley, he testified. “After finding out that no assault had been committed and thinking that something might occur, I stationed Sergeant Bauer, two foot policeman, one mounted policeman in the rear to prevent a riot.” Di Martini then spent some time talking to groups of people gathered on West 125th Street, telling them Rivera had not been beaten. As he saw no “indications of further trouble,” the inspector testified that he left around 6:00 PM.
  
  Newspaper narratives truncated the extended standoff between the Black women and men and store staff and police into a rapid sequence of events, eliding the role of Black residents’ distrust of a police force that routinely disregarded their rights and subjected them to violence in fueling the disorder. The New York American, New York Post, New York World-Telegram, Daily News, and Daily Mirror included none of the events in the store in their narratives of the disorder, jumping from Rivera being grabbed to the crowds outside Kress’ store. Those in the store, reported to be mostly Black women, began to damage displays immediately after Rivera had been taken to the basement in the narratives published in the Home News, New York Sun, New York Times, and La Prensa. The New York Times, New York Sun, and Time greatly inflated the size of that crowd, from 50 to 500 customers. The Home News reported they “started to wreck the store, pulling dishes off of the counters and, in some instances, tipping over tables on which merchandise was displayed,” the New York Times that they “went on the rampage, overturning counters, strewing merchandise on the floor and shouting,” La Prensa that “All the people of color who were in the store at the time began to throw all the articles that were on the tables to the floor and to shout in protest.” The New York Sun opted for the most sensational language, that they “had been galvanized into a frenzy of sabotage. Glass in the counters was shattered, tables overturned and merchandise torn and hurled about.” By contrast, the New York Evening Journal, New York Herald Tribune, and Daily Worker (on March 29) reported crowds jamming the store after rumors about a boy being beaten or killed circulated, demanding he be released (the Daily Worker had earlier reported, on March 21, the involvement of a member of the ILD, Reggie Thomas, in leading the women’s protest. He was not mentioned in subsequent stories, and did not testify in the MCCH public hearings, suggesting that he was not in fact present in the store.) Patrolman Shannon was identified by the New York Times and New York Sun as one of the police officers who investigated what was happening in the store, and summoned the reinforcements who cleared the store (Time identified him as "an Irish policeman;" the New York Evening Journal and New York American mentioned Shannon arresting Miller.) The Home News, New York Herald Tribune, and New York Evening Journal simply had police notified, then appearing and clearing the store.
  
  The second ambulance that arrived at the store, to attend Clara Crowder, was mentioned only in the Daily News. That story somewhat vaguely claimed that the appearance of the ambulance inflamed rumors that Rivera had been killed. The New York Herald Tribune also mentioned Crowder was attended by an ambulance, but mistakenly identified it as the same one that had come to attend Hurley and Urban. That ambulance had returned to Harlem Hospital two hours earlier. Similarly, the Home News and La Prensa reported Margaret Mitchell as being arrested in Kress’ store, but identified her as having intervened when Rivera was grabbed. The Afro-American, New York Amsterdam News, and New York Evening Journal (and New York Times on March 24) reported Mitchell was arrested having run screaming into 125th Street immediately after Rivera had been grabbed. Only the New York Sun’s story allowed for Mitchell’s arrest to be later, as the store was being closed: “The woman whose cries that the boy had been murdered, rekindled the vandalism after the police had succeeded in quenching it earlier in the evening, is Margaret Mitchell, 18, of 283 West 150th street. Her cry was taken up and passed to the milling crowd outside the store.” The next day, in reporting Mitchell’s arraignment in the Harlem Magistrate’s Court, the Home News combined its description of her trying to intervene when Rivera was grabbed with the later events mentioned in Di Martini’s report. While reiterating that she “attempted to take the Rivera boy from the department store detectives and cried out that the guards were beating the youth,” the story added that after Rivera had been taken to the basement, she was “urging other colored people in the store to demand the release of the boy, started throwing merchandise to the floor and upset many of the counter displays.”
  
  The historians who have described these events have not identified the leading role played by women in protests inside Kress’ store, even as the MCCH report noted that the shoppers in the store were women. Mark Naison, Thomas Kessner, and Marilynn Johnson summarized events in the store, adding details about merchandise being thrown on the floor from newspaper stories to the narrative in the MCCH report. Cheryl Greenberg simply described the crowd as having dispersed, discounting protests in the store. So too did Lorrin Thomas, who attributed that response to the arrest of a woman for “inciting the disturbance,” implicitly making that arrest occur soon after Rivera was released, not later when police cleared the store. (No other narratives mention that arrest). Naison identified those involved as "black shoppers," while Kessner identified two Black women as crying out, but not who else was in the crowd. The other historians simply referred to crowds. Jonathan Gill and Nicole Watson include no details of events inside the store in their descriptions of the events at the beginning of the disorder. That the shoppers in Kress' store were women is unsurprising given the gendered nature of consumption in the 1930s. However, the role of those women in the early stages of the disorder is more unexpected given historians' attention to men's role in initial outbreaks of violence. As Marilynn Johnson has pointed out, women's experiences in the racial disorders of the first half of the twentieth century extended beyond that looting with which they were associated in the 1960s to include not just being victims of violence but also protectors. Where Johnson's examples of women acting in that role were trying to protect family or loved ones from white violence, in 1935 Black women sought to protect a boy unrelated to them. While, as Johnson notes, those actions were within societal expectations of women's roles, they did represent a broader scope, echoing the extension of women's role in consumption to include the political act of picketing white businesses the previous year. In Kress' store, Black women once again stood up to white businessmen.
   
• 1 2022-07-14T17:08:18+00:00 12:00 AM to 12:30 AM 28 plain 2023-10-24T02:32:24+00:00 Around midnight, gunshots rang out more frequently as the violence of the police response to the disorder intensified. Some of that shooting came as police encountered and tried to disperse the crowds in the two areas where disorder was concentrated at this time, Lenox Avenue north of 125th Street and 7th Avenue south of 125th Street.
  
  
  
  On Lenox Avenue around 132nd Street, the staff in William Feinstein’s liquor store who had been watching the violence for an hour heard an increase in police gunfire that made them decide it was no longer safe to remain. David Schmoockler, the manager, and an unnamed Black employee locked the doors, closed the iron gates that protected the storefront, and left Harlem. Lawyers for the city would later criticize the men for not first moving the merchandise in the window to the rear of the store. The judge in that trial saw the men’s situation differently, accepting that they had been too scared by the escalating violence to spend any longer in the store.
  
  Schmoockler and his coworker were not the only people observing the disorder who perceived an increase in police violence and use of guns around midnight. So too did several white journalists. Gunfire that had been episodic in the preceding hours became more constant. White journalists variously attributed police shooting to the increased violence of participants in the disorder, the need to protect white men and women from attack, and the outbreak of widespread looting, while the Afro-American’s correspondent portrayed it as a response to the increasing number of police being injured. Only more widespread looting was actually evident on Lenox Avenue at the time. It took little for police to feel justified in shooting at Harlem’s residents, so individuals taking items rather than simply damaging businesses was enough to increase the shooting. In the context of looting, police officers also became more willing to use their guns in efforts to disperse crowds on the street. Increasingly indiscriminate shooting made it more likely that bystanders would be hit by bullets, a situation all too familiar to Harlem residents.
  
  The spread of looting reflected the variety of circumstances in which it had begun to take place. By midnight, sustained attacks on businesses had done enough damage to make merchandise in the window displays accessible to those who were on the streets. More often than earlier in the disorder, windows were broken so items could be taken immediately. As window displays were emptied of merchandise, those seeking items they needed ventured inside businesses. Individuals climbed through smashed windows to access merchandise on shelves inside or, less often, broke down doors and walked in. Doing so required more willingness to break the law and involved more risk of arrest as it took more time and offered little chance to escape if police arrived. In some cases, those who went inside threw merchandise out on to the street, making it available for others to take more easily and with less risk than reaching into windows.
  
  As participants in the disorder moved out of range of police guns and more of the neighborhood’s most desperate residents came to the street from their homes to the east, it was perhaps around this time that attacks on businesses and looting began to spread north of this area, into blocks in the heart of Black Harlem around 135th Street. A branch of the Wohlmuth clothing store chain at 475 Lenox Avenue near West 134th Street, a chain grocery store near 135th Street, and Philip Jaross’ tailor’s shop between 136th and 137th Streets would all be looted. However, the violence around 135th Street was less extensive than in the blocks below 130th Street. Police estimated that only eighty-five broken windows in total were damaged north of 130th Street on 8th, 7th, Lenox, and 5th Avenues combined. All those businesses reported to have been looted contained items of which many of Harlem's residents were in need: food and clothing.
  
  Some of the violence seen around 131st Street now manifested further south. A fire was started in Harry Lash’s 5c & 10c store on the corner of 130th Street around midnight. Display windows were smashed the length of the store that faced West 130th Street, as well as on the Lenox Avenue side, and much of their contents taken. Arnold Ford, a nineteen-year-old Black man, joined others entering the store and "helping himself to some merchandise." Untroubled by police, he took "soap, garters, thread and notions" with a value of $1.15. Although Lash would ultimately put the value of the merchandise taken from the store at $1,000, photographs taken the next day showed large quantities of items still on shelves inside the store. The fire was on the West 130th Street side of the building, and firefighters extinguished it before it did much damage. Nonetheless, photographers and newsreel cameras all arrived in time to capture images of the flames. Police would also have converged to respond to the fire and manage the crowds drawn by it and the presence of the firefighters. They likely also arrested the only person charged with taking merchandise from the store, Milton Ackerman, a twenty-four-year-old Black man. He lived nearby on West 130th Street, midway down the block east of the store, so probably was among the residents who had come to Lenox Avenue in response to noise and rumors. Officer Brown must have claimed to have seen him in the store as he charged Ackerman with burglary for taking two rolls of paper and some napkins worth 13 cents in total. While a grand jury did indict him for that offense, indicating that police presented some evidence, a judge later dismissed the indictment, raising the possibility that Ackerman had not actually been a participant in the attacks on the store. Instead, he may have been among those on the street near the store, arrested either by mistake or as part of efforts to clear the streets, as had happened on earlier on 7th and 8th Avenues.
  
  Other arrests of residents in the vicinity of damaged and looted businesses with apparently little regard to whether they participated in the violence were occurring in the blocks south of Lash’s store. Police efforts to control the violence there, as around West 132nd Street, appeared to only temporarily disperse groups who quickly reformed nearby and shifted their attention to different targets. Those participants in the violence were emerging from and returning to the groups of spectators on the street, at least some of whom followed groups moving up and down the avenue rather than remaining in one place as Samuel Pitts and Marshall Pfifer did on 7th Avenue, adding to the disorder on the streets. Businesses in the area like consequently suffered episodic attacks, accruing damage and losing merchandise across a period of several hours. At least some officers responded as their colleagues had earlier by somewhat indiscriminately arresting those in the vicinity of damaged and looted businesses. That is what happened around this time at the Romanoff drug store at 375 Lenox Avenue, on the corner of West 129th Street a block south of Lash’s store. An unidentified police officer arrested three men, Oscar Austin, a twenty-nine-year-old Black man, and two twenty-four-year-old Black men, Jacob Bonaparte and Sam Nicholas, and charged them with attempted burglary. That charge fit circumstances in which he had seen the men reaching into the store windows or inside the store but had not found any merchandise in their possession. However, that was not what the men had been doing, as the charge was changed to disorderly conduct when they appeared in court and was then rejected outright by the magistrate who acquitted them. Austin, Bonaparte, and Nicholas were spectators, not participants in the disorder, residents of West 128th Street and West 124th Street who had remained close to home as they followed events on Lenox Avenue.
  
  Even as police intervened to stop the attacks on some businesses, other groups attacked and looted nearby stores without any impediment. Anthony Avitable saw crowds "just breaking into my store" at 381 Lenox Avenue on the block north of the Romanoff drug store as he drove over the 138th Street bridge. He had heard about the disorder in Harlem around midnight and was on his way from his home in the Bronx. Seeing no police near his store, he drove on to the 28th Precinct Station on West 123rd Street and at 12:30 AM report the looting. Officers there said they "couldn't do anything for me," and that he should contact police headquarters. When Avitable called, "a police officer at headquarters told him over the phone: "I'll have men there in two minutes." It would be forty-five minutes before they arrived. Avitable would be one of the white business owners who later sued the city for damages for failing to protect them from the disorder.
  
  Further south in the block between 125th and 126th Streets, police made multiple arrests that suggested there were more officers there around midnight than elsewhere on Lenox Avenue. Officer Anthony Barbaro, at least, was standing on the southeast corner of West 126th Street just after midnight. Undeterred by his presence, a group of people gathered in front of the Rex Drug store across 126th Street at 318 Lenox Avenue. Barbaro then claimed he heard two men call out, "Com[e] on gang, here's two more windows, let's break them." After throwing stones that shattered glass in the windows, the group ran north up Lenox Avenue. Barbaro gave chase. He was almost certainly joined by some other officers, as he alone would not have been able to apprehend the two alleged members of the group arrested two buildings north of the drug store, Leon Mauraine, a twenty-two-year-old Black window washer, and David Smith, a twenty-two-year-old Black clerk. Around ten minutes later, when a group of about thirty people gathered across the street in front of the Temple Grill & Restaurant at 317 Lenox Avenue, another patrolman, Alfred Tait, was nearby. After he allegedly heard Bernard Smith, a thirty-nine-year-old Black interior decorator shout to the group, "We will get these two windows here," throw two stones that broke the restaurant’s windows, and then call, "You fellows get the others," Tait moved to intervene. While his arrest of Smith halted this group’s attacks on the restaurant, it did not prevent them from moving on to break windows in nearby businesses.
  
  Among the businesses that continued to be attacked notwithstanding the arrests were George’s Lunch and Piskin’s laundry on West 126th Street on the opposite of Lenox Avenue to where Officer Barbaro had been standing. Police struggling with attacks around the intersection would have begun to fire their guns more indiscriminately, so it was likely around this time that a stray bullet went through the laundry window. At that point, Piskin decided to seek help from the police. While he had heard “plenty” of pistol shots before then without feeling the need to leave the laundry, a bullet actually hitting the window evidently represented an escalation in violence that made it too dangerous to remain. Next door, the white staff member in George’s Lunch remained locked in the washroom. Over the next hour or so, people made their way inside both businesses; over time, the machinery in the laundry was broken and the furniture in the restaurant was demolished in attacks against white property that went beyond looting. Piskin’s efforts to get police protection against those attacks was to no avail. He did find an officer a block away at the intersection of West 125th Street and Lenox Avenue: "Report it — I can't leave my post," was the patrolman’s response. So Piskin then went to the 28th Precinct on West 123rd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues. He received no more help than Anthony Avitable had. "Oh we know all about it," was the response there. When Piskin complained about the lack of police protection, another officer told him, "My life is more important to me than your business is to you." Unsurprisingly, the laundry owner would join with Avitable in suing the city for damages.
  
  Not only Piskin went without aid as police struggled to contain the violence around West 126th Street. So too did August Miller, a fifty-six-year-old white handyman, who collapsed near the intersection of 126th Street and Lenox Avenue sometime soon after Smith’s arrest. Miller had emerged from the subway station at 125th Street not long before, having traveled from the building in the Bronx where he lived and worked. It was a taxi-driver rather than police who went to his aid, transporting the unconscious man to the Joint Diseases Hospital, which was closer than Harlem Hospital. Miller died three days later without regaining consciousness long enough to describe what had happened to him. While the physician who examined Miller diagnosed a possible skull fracture, an injury the more sensational white press was quick to attribute to a beating by “rioters,” the medical examiner who later conducted an autopsy concluded that he had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, “a natural cause [of death], nothing suspicious.” If violence was not directly responsible for Miller’s death, it does seem likely that the stress of being in the midst of the noise and crowds of the disorder contributed to some degree to him suffering a stroke at that time. Given those circumstances, August Miller is counted among those who died during the disorder.
  
  A block west, a woman was attacked, likely in a continuation of the violence some groups of residents targeted at white individuals they encountered on Harlem’s streets. Twenty-six-year-old Emma Brockson’s race was not identified in the hospital record of her treatment for injuries to her left hand "received when assaulted by some unknown person or persons." However, she lived on West 126th Street just west of St Nicholas Avenue, on the boundary of an area largely populated by white residents. At the heart of the commercial district on 125th Street, the intersection with 7th Avenue was heavily trafficked by white shoppers and theater patrons, and consequently the site of recurring violence against white men and women before and after Brockson was assaulted. As elsewhere in Harlem, the presence of police in the area guarding damaged businesses and keeping crowds away from the Kress store did not prevent violence nor did it enable officers to intervene and make arrests when it broke out.
  
  As well as pedestrians, the groups looking to direct violence at white men and women on 7th Avenue targeted the vehicles traveling on the street, a variant of the disorder not seen in other areas of Harlem. At the same intersection with 118th Street where a group had attacked Mario Pravia’s candy store around 11:30 PM, a rock or bottle thrown at a passing car shattered one of its windows, sending glass flying into the face of a passenger, Patricia O’Rourke, a thirty-year-old white woman. She was on her way home to the West Bronx with her two sisters. Harlem was not the destination of most of those driving on 7th Avenue. As the major artery in and out of the city, it brought white individuals into the disorder and delivered them to those looking for targets for violence. The cuts on O’Rourke’s eyes, forehead, and cheeks caused the driver of the car to divert to Harlem Hospital. When she emerged from the hospital sometime later with a bandaged head and a fur coat over her shoulders, O’Rourke attracted the attention of a Daily News photographer. When her image appeared on the front page it was captioned “A Girl Victim.” On 8th Avenue, where there was likely less traffic traveling under the elevated railway line, it was passing police vehicles that had objects thrown at them. Patrolman Harry Whittington, a thirty-five-year-old white member of Emergency Squad 9 was hit by a rock as the emergency truck passed West 123rd Street. While the identity of passengers in cars and buses would not always have been known to those who threw objects at them, that was not the case with police vehicles. Moreover, Whittington was likely riding on the outside of the truck as most of the crew did. He would certainly have been the intended target of the rock that hit his leg, providing a reminder that even as looting became widespread there were Harlem residents whose violence remained directed at police and the white authorities with power over life in Harlem.
  
  Objects being thrown at passing cars were not the only incidents of violence on 7th Avenue around West 118th Street. Around midnight, Charles Saunders, a twenty-four-year-old Black unemployed elevator operator left the room at 1967 7th Avenue that he shared with his wife, Anna Gregory, to buy cigarettes. When he reached the street, Saunders saw the crowd gathered around Ralph Sirico’s shoe repair store to the north just past 119th Street. Going to investigate, he saw shoes and hats being thrown out of the broken windows on to the street. Saunders joined others outside the store in picking up some of that merchandise, in his case a pair of shoes, and then turned back towards his home. However, the crowd around the store had also attracted the attention of Detective Jeremiah Juross, one of the police officers patrolling the avenue in radio cars. As he pulled over, the crowd in front to the store scattered. Juross claimed he saw Saunders jump out of the store window and flee down the street. The detective caught up with him and arrested Saunders for looting. Despite what Juross claimed to have seen, C. T. Berkeley, who was part of the crowd around the store, insisted that Saunders was not one of the two men who had been inside.
  
  The arrests of three Black men for looting the branch of the Butler grocery store chain across the intersection from Sirico’s store might also have occurred around this time, perhaps after some of those crossed 7th Avenue to avoid the police arresting Saunders. Multiple arrests required several officers, notwithstanding Patrolman Redmond being recorded as having apprehended all three men. Thirty-two-year-old Nelson Brock and nineteen-year-old Reginald Mills lived nearby, while thirty-year-old William Grant lived some distance uptown. The combination of local residents and visitors pointed to the mix of people on 7th Avenue, some of whom were moving to take merchandise from businesses as the damage done to them increased.
  
  Violence was also reported for the first time on Lenox Avenue around the commercial district on West 116th Street. That was a very different neighborhood from the other sites of the disorder with a mix of mostly Puerto Rican, Spanish-speaking residents, white residents, and Black residents. Around 40% (75 of 194) of the businesses on West 116th Street between 8th Avenue and 5th Avenue had Hispanic owners when surveyed in the second half of 1935. There had been no violence in this area prior to 10:00 PM, when the businesses began to close. After midnight, a group of Black men and women took the trash cans in front of the San Antonio Market at 71 West 116th Street and threw them at the window on the right side of the store front, apparently watched by local residents who described the events to staff when the store reopened. After completely smashing the window, they took about $10 of groceries. Unlike in other areas, the store apparently did not suffer repeated attacks or looting over an extended time. Menswear stores in the two blocks to the south on Lenox Avenue that had windows broken may have been attacked around this time, perhaps by the same group. However, no clothing was taken from the window display of the southernmost of those businesses, Mario Gonzalez's Menswear Store at 86 Lenox Avenue. While local residents also described this attack to the store’s owners when they returned, there were no similar reports that established whether the menswear store at 112 Lenox Avenue had been looted or simply had windows broken.
  
  The racial politics of Harlem predisposed Hispanic observers to identify the group who attacked these businesses as made up of Black individuals. In keeping with their general stance, Puerto Rican leaders sought to distance their community from the violence and any hostility it generated in white New Yorkers rather than align themselves with the grievances and protests of their Black neighbors. That it was a Puerto Rican boy who was the subject of the rumors that spurred the disorder was not known until it was over. No accounts of the disorder identified Puerto Ricans among the groups attacking white men and women and white-owned businesses elsewhere in Harlem, but most were viewing the disorder through a racial lens that would not have registered their presence. (Charles Romney, who was a somewhat unreliable source given his repeated efforts to put himself at the center of the MCCH investigation, did describe people talking in Spanish among those at 125th Street and 7th Avenue around 7:30 PM saying that were "going to get into this because a boy was murdered by police.”) On the other hand, that groups who avoided looting Black-owned businesses chose to target those with Hispanic owners indicated the opposite side of those tensions. At least some of the Black participants in the violence targeted their Hispanic neighbors as they did white business owners whom they saw as exploiting and discriminating against them. The extent of the division and misunderstanding between the residents of this area was evident in the response of a Puerto Rican journalist to two Black-owned businesses who followed the practice of putting up signs identifying the race of their owners. Rather than recognizing those signs as a form of protection against attacks meant for white-owned businesses, the journalist read them as a refusal to serve white and Hispanic customers.
  
  Exactly where those who attacked the San Antonio Market came from, whether they were local residents or had come from 125th Street, is unknown in large part because police made no arrests in this area. Police would be on Lenox Avenue a few blocks to the north at West 118th Street, two hours later, and on 7th Avenue at its intersection with West 116th Street after that. However, there is no evidence that police patrolled West 116th Street. White and Black journalists also did not go to 116th Street; nor later did the members of the MCCH and their investigators. Their collective absences left the matter of how the presence of Hispanic residents and businesses complicated the racial violence of the disorder, and the full reach of the violence, addressed only in the Puerto Rican press.
• 1 2021-10-14T12:37:14+00:00 Billiard parlor windows broken 21 plain 2023-11-13T03:14:58+00:00 The billiard parlor at 151 Lenox Avenue, between West 117th Street and West 118th Street, is one of the businesses in a list of those with broken windows made by a reporter for La Prensa after he walked along West 116th Street, Lenox Avenue, and West 125th Street on the day after the disorder. The billiard parlor was one of at least six Black-owned businesses that responded to that damage by displaying signs identifying it as a "colored" business, according to another story published in La Prensa. (The MCCH business survey undertaken after the disorder also recorded the billiard parlor as having Black owners). Such signs were not an effort to establish a racial divide in the neighborhood, to segregate Black and white residents, as the author of that story claimed, but an attempt to protect stores from being the target of violence, according to stories in the Home News, New York Evening Journal, New York Times, New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and Afro-American. Those in the crowds on Harlem's streets appear to have largely avoided attacks on Black-owned businesses: only five appear in the sources as having windows broken. In the case of the billiard parlor, as happened with the Williams drug store, the signs may have stopped further damage and prevented looting. There were no Black-owned businesses among those identified as having been looted.
  
  
  
  Two other business just north of the billiard parlor appear in the La Prensa reporter's list of those that had broken windows, a branch of the Wohlmuth Tailors chain at 157 Lenox Avenue and the Castle Inn at 161 Lenox Avenue. Additional businesses in the area also likely had broken windows, as the La Prensa reporter concluded the list by noting that it did not include those that had only suffered minor damage ("y otras mas que por ser los danos ocasionados relativamente pequeños no creimus de interes catalogar entre los establecimientos ya mencionados").
  
  No one arrested during the disorder was identified as breaking the store's windows.
• 1 2021-10-14T12:36:57+00:00 Castle Inn saloon windows broken 10 plain 2023-11-15T02:56:32+00:00 The Castle Inn saloon at 161 Lenox Avenue, between West 117th Street and West 118th Street, is one of the businesses in a list of those with broken windows made by a reporter for La Prensa after he walked along West 116th Street, Lenox Avenue, and West 125th Street on the day after the disorder. The saloon was one of at least six businesses that responded to that damage by displaying signs identifying it as a "colored" business, according to another story published in La Prensa. Such signs were not an effort to establish a racial divide in the neighborhood, to segregate Black and white residents, as the author of that story claimed, but an attempt to protect stores from being the target of violence, according to stories in the Home News, New York Evening Journal, New York Times, New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and Afro-American. Those in the crowds on Harlem's streets appear to have largely avoided attacks on Black-owned businesses: only five appear in the sources as having windows broken. In the case of the saloon, as happened with the Williams drug store, the signs may have limited the damage and prevented looting. There are no Black-owned businesses among those identified as having been looted. However, it is possible that the Castle Inn was not a Black-owned business. The MCCH business survey undertaken after the disorder recorded the saloon as having white owners. A notice of a liquor license published in the New York Age in November 1934 identified the owner as John Diodato.
  
  
  
  Two other business just near the saloon appear in the La Prensa reporter's list of those that had broken windows, a branch of the Wohlmuth Tailors chain at 157 Lenox Avenue and a billiard parlor at 151 Lenox Avenue. Additional businesses in the area also likely had broken windows as the La Prensa reporter concluded the list by noting that it did not include those that had only suffered minor damage ("y otras mas que por ser los danos ocasionados relativamente pequeños no creimus de interes catalogar entre los establecimientos ya mencionados").
  
  No one arrested during the disorder was identified as having broken the store's windows.
• 1 2022-12-15T16:03:39+00:00 Lino Rivera grabbed & Charles Hurley and Steve Urban assaulted (Part 2) 6 plain 2023-11-07T18:45:33+00:00 Until police found Rivera, newspapers described the boy caught shoplifting as a younger Black child, in line with the rumors and leaflets circulating in Harlem. Louise Thompson heard from the women she spoke to in Kress' store that a "colored boy" aged ten to twelve years had been beaten. The signs carried by the Young Liberators who picketed the store an hour or so later referred to a "Negro child," while the leaflets their organization distributed another hour later later described a "12 year old Negro boy." The first newspaper stories repeated those descriptions. The New York American mentioned a "colored boy" and a "10-year-old Negro boy," the Daily News a 12-year-old "colored boy," the New York Evening Journal a 15-year-old "Negro boy," the Daily Mirror a "little colored boy," the Home News a "young colored boy," and the New York Sun a "Negro boy." Early stories in some Black newspapers featured similar descriptions, a "small Negro boy" in the Norfolk Journal and Guide and a 10-year-old "colored boy" in the Indianapolis Recorder on March 23, or simply referred to the boy's age, not his race, a 16-year-old boy in the Atlanta World on March 21, a 12-year-old boy in the New York Age, a 14-year-old boy in the Chicago Defender, and a 16-year-old boy in the Afro-American and Pittsburgh Courier on March 23. Newspapers published on March 20 after police found Rivera identified him as a 16-year-old Puerto Rican, in the New York Post, New York World-Telegram, and Brooklyn Daily Eagle or a "Puerto Rican youth" in the New York Herald Tribune, Times Union, and Brooklyn Citizen (although later in that story Rivera was referred to as a "Negro"). (The New York World-Telegram also pointed to the differences between Rivera and the boy of the rumors by putting Negro in quotation marks when reporting the rumors and the text of the Young Liberators leaflet.) By contrast, the New York Times referred to a 16-year-old "Negro boy" even after Rivera had been found, as did the New York Sun and New York Evening Journal. While the New York Times did eventually identify Rivera as Puerto Rican when he appeared in the Adolescents court after the disorder, the New York Evening Journal continued to describe Rivera as "Negro," while the New York Sun made no mention of his race. Those newspapers' persistent use of "Negro" may have been intended to convey that Rivera was dark-skinned; the New York American described him in those terms, as a "dark-skinned 16-year-old Porto Rican" in a story reporting an interview with the boy in his home, while the Brooklyn Daily Eagle described him as a "Negro born in Porto Rico." Editions of the other newspapers published after Rivera was found, including the Black newspapers, simply switched to identify him as Puerto Rican. (Historian Lorrin Thomas argued that the New York Amsterdam News "failed to identify Rivera as Puerto Rican, referring to him instead as a 'young Negro boy,'" but did not provide a citation. The March 23 issue of that newspaper is missing the news sections, but the March 30 issue identified Rivera as a "16-year-old Puerto Rican youth.")
  
  Stories in the New York Evening Journal, Home News, La Prensa, and Daily Worker misidentified Hurley and Urban as store detectives. None mentioned the store detective, Smith, perhaps because he was not bitten and therefore not identified in any official records. He may also have been confused with Jackson Smith, the store manager. Many stories gave the manager a larger role than he played, involved in grabbing Rivera and making the decision to release him with Rivera in this office. That expanded role came at the expense not only of the store detective but also the police. Only the Daily News, and a vague statement in the New York Post story of what Rivera said mentioned that officers were at the store. The Daily News included only Eldridge, misidentifying him as the officer who released Rivera. Rivera said “two policeman came in” after he bit the men, the New York Post reported. The New York Evening Journal, Daily News, Atlanta World, and Philadelphia Tribune stories quoting Rivera omitted that statement.
  
  Several newspaper stories included a Black woman interceding or screaming when the store staff grabbed Rivera, which some accounts claimed precipitated broader disorder. The statements of those on the scene suggest any outcry came when Donohue and Urban took Rivera into the basement. Rivera testified in the public hearing that a woman screamed “They’re going to take him down the cellar and beat him up!” While Hurley made no mention of that scream, L. F. Cole, a thirty-year-old Black clerk, did testify that when he saw Donohue and Urban taking Rivera to the basement “a woman made a statement that the boy had been struck.” Cole's choice not to describe the woman as screaming suggests the possibility that the woman simply called out, with the gendered language of the press rendering any shouting by a woman as a scream. "They're beating that boy! They're killing him!" were the “screams” reported by the New York Evening Journal. Speeding up events, the New York American, New York Post, and Atlanta World, and the New Republic, describe the woman as running into the street, screaming "Kress beat a colored boy! Kress Beat a colored boy!" according to the New York American. The New York Sun made this response collective: “Emotional Negro women shouted that the boy was being beaten and this information was quickly relayed to the curious crowds which had gathered in front of the store.” Rather than reacting, the woman intervened in the narrative presented in Home News and La Prensa, and was pushed aside by Hurley, after which she screamed.
  
  Margaret Mitchell was identified as the woman who reacted to Rivera being grabbed in the New York Evening Journal, Home News, Philadelphia Tribune, and La Prensa (and later in stories about those arrested in the New York Amsterdam News, Afro-American, New York Post, and New York Times). Here journalists with a truncated timeline of events were assuming that as she was arrested in Kress’ store it must have been when Rivera was grabbed. However, Donahue told the public hearing he had not made an arrest, and none of the store staff mentioned an arrest at this time. The circumstances of Mitchell's arrest recorded by police, the testimony of Louise Thompson, and the New York Sun story suggest that it took place after the store was closed, as police tried to clear out the women who remained inside, with an officer named Johnson making the arrest. Similarly, in describing customers struggling with Hurley and Urban or attacking displays as Rivera was taken away, the narratives of the New York Sun, La Prensa, and the Home News collapsed together events that took place at different times. Testimony in the public hearings identified that struggle as coming later, when Kress’ manager decided to close the store and police cleared out those inside.
  
  Several newspapers also published statements by Rivera made either at the West 123rd Street station after Eldridge, awoken at 1:30 AM, had located him and brought him to a police station around 2:00 AM, or in his home the next day that provided more details of what happened before and when he was grabbed than the broad narratives. The New York Evening Journal, New York Herald Tribune, Daily News, New York Post, New York Sun, Atlanta World, and Philadelphia Tribune quoted Rivera at the police station describing biting the men and the threat to beat him that had precipitated that struggle. In an ANS agency photograph of Rivera standing with Lt. Battle taken at that time, journalists can be seen taking notes. It’s not clear if they questioned Rivera directly, or recorded answers he gave to police officers: the Daily News reported his statements as told to Deputy Chief Inspector Frances Kear, the New York Evening Journal and New York Sun reported he talked to Captain Richard Oliver, and the New York Herald Tribune quoted Eldridge rather than Rivera. The New York Evening Journal story also mentioned the reporter speaking with Rivera. The New York World-Telegram and New York Herald Tribune published stories quoting statements made by Rivera at this home later on March 20; a New York American story combined statements from the station and at his home. The information that before entering Kress', Rivera had gone to Brooklyn looking for work, having left high school six months earlier, that his mother needed help because his father was dead, was reported in the interviews published in the New York American and New York Herald Tribune. His father's death was also reported in La Prensa and the Brooklyn Citizen. Only the New York Herald Tribune, New York Evening Journal, and New York Sun reported that Rivera went to a show after returning from Brooklyn. Only La Prensa reported that Rivera had a job when he first left school. That interview with Rivera in his home focused on emphasizing his lack of responsibility for the disorder and willingness to try to pacify the crowds had he been asked, and contained no details of what had happened in the store as he did not want to talk about them. That focus was in line with La Prensa's concern to distance Puerto Rican residents from the disorder. Rivera gave an account of what happened in the store again when he appeared in the Adolescents Court on March 23 for inserting slugs in a subway turnstile before the disorder, in answer to questions from the magistrate.
  
  The MCCH public hearings elicited more details of the assault, with Rivera, the two police officers, and Hurley all testifying, together with Jackson Smith, the store manager. Provided in five separate hearings spread over nearly six weeks, that testimony described the roles of Officers Donahue and Eldridge, which were missing from the initial newspaper reports. Few newspapers included these new details in their stories about the hearings. The most extensively reported hearing was the first, on March 30, in which Donahue testified. A majority of newspapers highlighted Donahue’s decision to release Rivera through the rear of the store rather than in view of concerned customers as a mistake, with several reporting that Donahue had admitted that mistake. However, the hearing transcript did not include 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.” Eldridge and Hurley did not testify until three weeks later, and Jackson Smith until two weeks after that, when they were not given any attention in the briefer newspaper stories about those hearings.
  • Lino Rivera grabbed & Charles Hurley and Steve Urban assaulted in MCCH Reports
  • Lino Rivera grabbed & Charles Hurley and Steve Urban assaulted in secondary sources
  • Lino Rivera grabbed & Charles Hurley and Steve Urban assaulted (Part 1)