This page is referenced by:

• 1 2021-09-16T19:29:44+00:00 Arrests for looting (60) 78 plain 2024-02-12T19:45:36+00:00 Details of the circumstances in which police made arrests for looting can be found for twenty-seven of the sixty people taken into custody. Police officers most often had seen crowds in front of stores or heard glass breaking, resulting in twelve arrests. Less often they saw individuals reaching into windows or coming out of stores, making six arrests. Officers had to come from some distance to make an arrest — from cars patrolling the streets, from positions on intersections, or from guarding stores across the street. As a result, officers often fired guns at suspected looters — both the individuals police killed, Lloyd Hobbs and James Thompson, allegedly had been seen looting — and did not get to the scene in time to arrest all those involved before they ran off. On only two of the twelve occasions police saw crowds taking goods from stores was there evidence that they arrested several people at the same time, three men at the A & P grocery store at 510 Lenox Avenue and two men at 1916 7th Avenue. A man and a woman were also arrested at the same time at 340 Lenox Avenue, but there were no details of the circumstances of those arrests. There are two other police officers that the Magistrates Court docket book recorded as each having arrested three men at the same address, the Romanoff Drug Store at 375 Lenox Avenue and the Butler Food Market at 1974 7th Avenue, likely indicating they were arrested at the same time, but no sources provide details of those arrests. More than one person was arrested for looting four other stores, at 372 Lenox Avenue, 374 Lenox Avenue, 400 Lenox Avenue, and 200 West 128th Street, but those arrests came at different times. Police also made nine arrests away from the business the men had allegedly looted. There was no information on the circumstances of the remaining thirty-one arrests for looting.
  
  Several of those police did arrest, at least, denied they had been involved in looting (details are not available for all those arrested). Arthur Merritt and Hezekiah Wright said they had been part of a crowd drawn to the scene as police had been. Others admitted having done only some of what police alleged: Arnold Ford and Horace Fowler said that they had taken merchandise but not broken windows to gain access to a business; Charles Saunders and Edward Larry said that they had not gone into a store but had picked up merchandise off the street (which Arnold Ford later told his probation officer that he had done); and Carl Jones and Thomas Jackson said that they had broken windows but not taken merchandise. Others may have offered similar statements in the police line-up the morning after the disorder; a reporter for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle wrote “Many in the lineup still carried things they admitted picking up in the street, but denied reaching into broken shop windows to secure" [sic?]. Cigarettes were the favorite item "found." A story in the New York Sun included a similar claim, that “Many admitted thefts from stores damaged during the riot, stealing everything from toothbrushes to shirts and groceries, but all denied breaking the store windows, insisting that they had picked up the articles from the street after others had thrown them out of stores.” In court such admissions warranted lesser charges than burglary. More broadly, they distinguished those who made them from looters, from those who attacked stores and created disorder, and associated them instead with onlookers and passersby whose behavior was less out of the ordinary.
  
  Merchandise that police allegedly found in an individual’s possession provided the basis for officers to make arrests, and was central to the arrests of the nine individuals police did not allegedly witness taking goods from stores. This was the case often enough that police estimated “that the plunder recovered so far today will fill a ton truck,” according to the New York Sun. Photographs showed individuals arrested for looting carrying the merchandise they had allegedly stolen. The image below published in the New York Evening Journal shows a man in the foreground carrying a full shopping bag labeled as coming from Rex Food Market at 348 Lenox Avenue, as well as what appears to be an alarm clock and at least one other item. Behind him a second man carries three metal boxes in his left hand, and in his right hand, just visible in the background, a full shopping bag of the same design as the first man. The Afro-American incorporated the details of the photograph, which it did not publish, into a story: to illustrate the claim that "Police arrested pillagers wherever they could," the reporter added "One man was arrested carrying three new steel cash boxes taken from a stationary store. Another had a shopping bag full of loot." (The New York Herald Tribune published an Associated Press image of the same scene taken a second earlier or later, showing the man in the foreground with his head turned slightly more toward the police officer behind him, and that officer with his nightstick raised slightly higher, in front of his face.)
  Embed from Getty Images
  
  
  A third man arrested for looting photographed by the New York Evening Journal was carrying even larger items, a tall bin containing at least four or five pots of various sizes, with perhaps more merchandise not sticking out the top. The police officer following him is carrying two wooden poles, perhaps brooms or mops also found in the man's possession — although it's not clear he could have carried any more than he did in the photograph. The man in the images may be James Williams. Among those arrested for looting for which there was information on goods allegedly found in their possession, only he was charged with taking hardware.
  
  The arrested men in the photographs are carrying large amounts of merchandise that would have attracted the attention of police looking for looters. Three of those arrested away from looted stores allegedly had a similar quantity of goods in their possession. James Williams was carrying four pots of different sizes, two pans, a pitcher, two pails, a bread box and a cloth lamp. Edward Larry had a box containing eight shirts (although the police officer may not have been able to see them as Larry was in a taxi). Jean Jacquelin had two ladies’ suits and two pairs of trousers in his possession, at 5:40 AM. Police similarly alleged that some those arrested at looted locations carried bulky items: Lawrence Humphrey had a 50lb bag of rice; Thomas Babbitt had two cases of soap.
  
  However, police evidently also stopped four others they had not allegedly seen looting who had nothing obvious in their possession. Arnold Ford had a package that cannot have been large; it contained three cakes of soap, a can of shoe polish, two pairs of garters, six spools of thread, a jar of Vaseline, and three packets of tea, with a value of $1.15. John Henry and Oscar Leacock between them had $75 of jewelry. Patrolman William Clements stopped Edward Larry after observing him in a taxi without being able to see if he had anything in his possession. The relatively indiscriminate nature of police arrests for looting was also evident in a comment made during the line-up of those arrested before they were taken to court. “One Negro woman still had in her possession five milk bottles,” a reporter for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle wrote. “Police were doubtful that she drank as much milk as all that.” Storeowners claims to be able to identify the goods found in the possession of those arrested away from the scene as coming from their stores are more credible in the case of jewelry and clothing than more commonplace items such as pans or soap. Merchandise police claim to have found in the possession of several of those arrested at looted stores was even more unexceptional and unlikely to have been able to be identified by a storeowner — unless it was in a labeled shopping bag like those visible in the the New York Evening Journal photograph: Amie Taylor had eighteen packets of gum; Arthur Merritt had two cans of beans, a can of milk, and a can of tuna fish; Joseph Wade had several toy pistols; Milton Ackerman had two rolls of paper, worth five cents, and eight cents' worth of napkins; Raymond Easley had an unspecified number of cigars. Perhaps more noteworthy in the context of the disorder were the man’s suit and a lady’s coat carried by Horace Fowler and the bag of laundry in Lamter Jackson’s possession.
  
  On three occasions, police effectively, and in one case apparently literally, found goods when none were in the possession of an individual when an arrest was made. Officers claimed Hezekiel Wright and Thomas Jackson had dropped items before they got to the men. With merchandise thrown from stores spread over many sections of Harlem’s sidewalk, goods would likely have been nearby anyone police confronted. Police took until sometime in early April to mention the looted horn and socket set they claimed Lloyd Hobbs had in his possession when Officer McInerney shot him, after not recording them as evidence at the time of the shooting. After police witnesses produced the items during testimony before the MCCH in May, the New York Age, New York Amsterdam News, and the New York World-Telegram reported that police could not explain where that evidence had been before it was delivered to the District Attorney. Witnesses at the scene said Hobbs had not been carrying anything.
  
  While the newspaper reports of the police line-up suggest that many of those arrested still had the goods they had allegedly stolen in their possession as they were being taken to court, in three cases, police apparently could not produce allegedly stolen merchandise or convincing evidence that it existed, as prosecutors reduced the charge against those individuals from burglary or larceny to unlawful entry and disorderly conduct. (A lack of evidence of looting may also be why ten of those named in published lists of those arrested for looting did not appear in court.) Magistrates transferred an additional seven defendants to the Court of Special Sessions, indicating that prosecutors did not provide adequate evidence of at least one element of a burglary charge.

  Arrests (128)

• 1 2022-11-11T17:12:58+00:00 The public hearing of the MCCH's subcommittee on crime (May 18) 27 plain 2024-05-31T19:09:40+00:00 Ten witnesses testified at the hearing in the Washington Heights Magistrates court on May 18; only four provided evidence about the events of the disorder. Jackson Smith, the manager of the Kress store, testified about events in the store and on 125th Street. The MCCH had been seeking his testimony for two months, but as the last witness to what happened in the store to appear, he had little new to add to what they had already heard. While he saw Rivera take the knife, as Hurley had testified, he had remained in his office so had not seen his staff struggle with the boy. Nor was he involved in Patrolman Donahue’s decision to take Rivera into the basement and release out the store’s rear exit. Smith did make the decision not to charge the boy, but made clear that it was Hurley’s decision about whether to charge him with assault that resulted in Donahue releasing him. The new information Smith provided concerned efforts to calm shoppers and his decisions to summon an increasing police presence and ultimately to have them clear the store once he decided to close. Again, he participated only in the initial efforts to convince shoppers and did not witness how police treated them. He then remained in the store throughout the disorder and witnessed the arrests of Daniel Miller and the three Young Liberators who picketed the store. While most newspaper stories mentioned Smith’s appearance, they did not treat his testimony as adding anything new. The New York Herald Tribune explicitly reported that "all of [the testimony about the events of March 19] had been gone over in previous meetings,” while the New York Sun described Smith as having “once more told” how Rivera had been apprehended. Even the MCCH members had limited interest in his testimony, with Oscar Villard suggesting that Charles Romney “was taking too much time by going over evidence already covered,” according to the New York Sun. More attention was paid to the Southern accent — the “Dixie drawl” — in which Smith delivered his testimony than its substance. The Home News, New York American, Daily News, New York Times, New York Sun, New York Post, and New York Age all referred to it. The New York World-Telegram mentioned only that Smith and several clerks had remained in the store throughout the disorder.
  
  The MCCH heard the testimony of three additional eyewitnesses to the killing of Lloyd Hobbs on May 18, as well as further information about the items the boy had allegedly stolen. Marshall Pfifer and Warren Wright testified at the hearing, while Clarence Wilson reported the testimony of John Bennett, who was too sick to attend the hearing. All three men told the same story as Malloy, Moore, and Pitts had in the earlier hearing: Hobbs was not carrying anything and McInerney had not called out for him to stop before shooting him. Pfifer had watched from the same corner as the earlier witnesses, whereas Wright and Bennett saw those events from different perspectives. Wright was at the entrance to the apartments above 2150 7th Avenue, south of the automobile supply store, while Bennett was in 201 West 128th Street, toward which Hobbs was running when McInerney shot him. While their testimony did not include any new information about the killing of Hobbs, it was new evidence that provided a basis for presenting the case to the grand jury again. Detective O’Brien testified for the second time, bringing with him the horn and socket set that police alleged Hobbs had taken from the automobile supply store but which none of the eyewitnesses had seen in his possession. O’Brien repeatedly denied knowledge of when the items were turned over to the property clerk, frustrating Hays’ efforts to elicit testimony that McInerney had them for nineteen days after he arrested Hobbs, which James Tartar, the MCCH investigator, had established. While that long interval gave the patrolman the opportunity to have obtained the items after he arrested the boy to justify the shooting, O’Brien also for the first time reported that McInerney had noted recovered items in the arrest record on March 20. (While that evidence apparently confirmed that the patrolman had not obtained the items later to help justify shooting Hobbs, Tartar would later claim that the record had been altered to add that information.) Black newspapers the New York Age and Afro-American again reported this testimony in more detail than the white press (this issue of the New York Amsterdam News has not survived), but only the New York World-Telegram mentioned all three eyewitnesses. Pfifer also appeared in the New York Age and New York Times, whereas the Home News and the New York Sun mentioned only Wright. Who had possession of the allegedly stolen items was discussed in both Black newspapers, the New York World-Telegram, New York Times, and Home News (without mentioning O’Brien in the Afro-American and New York World-Telegram). Only the New York World-Telegram dramatized that evidence, reporting, “One of the mysteries in the case is the appearance several days ago after Hobbs death of loot of which there had been no record at the time he was shot.” Which MCCH members heard this testimony was not entirely clear. MCCH records identified only Hays, Villard, Roberts, Robinson, and Randolph as being at this hearing, the smallest group to attend the subcommittee on crime’s hearings. An audience member was also recorded in the transcript as identifying Grimley as also present.
  
  The effect of the audience interventions in this hearing are more difficult to determine than in the preceding hearings. The New York Age described the audience as creating “incessant confusion,” suggesting that its journalist no longer perceived the interventions as contributing to what the MCCH learned from the testimony. The New York Herald Tribune also saw less significance in the audience’s behavior, presenting it as just the latest example of the “turbulence at almost every session.” Other white newspapers reported the hearing as similar to those that preceded it without those judgments, “one of the most stormy” according to the New York Post and the “liveliest” in the assessment of the Home News. Charles Romney’s role in disrupting the hearing was also treated as less significant, by the New York Herald Tribune, as what he had done “on several previous occasions.” MCCH members had also heard enough from Romney. Villard’s suggestion that he was taking too much time going over Smith’s testimony about when Rivera was apprehended led to an outburst from Romney attacking the MCCH for protecting witnesses (which was not recorded in the transcript). After a recess, the MCCH members decided that Romney would no longer be allowed to question witnesses, holding to that position over objections from the audience. At the same time, Hays allowed other audience members to question Smith. Just who they were is not always recorded in the transcript or reported in the press, but Fannie Horowitz and Mrs. Burroughs were identified. Rev. Robinson also took up the issue of whether Rivera was the boy who had been in the store that audience members had introduced in the hearings on March 30 and April 6. He questioned Smith about his identification of Rivera for some time before Hays declared the issue resolved. Hays did however have James Tartar, the MCCH investigator, testify that no boy ten years old or younger had been treated for injuries at Harlem Hospital to further confirm the identification of Rivera.
  
  If Hays did not adopt the suspicion of Rivera promoted by audience members, he did take up the critical stance toward Lieutenant Battle that the audience had displayed at the previous hearing. His criticism of Battle for not stopping warrantless searches brought applause from the audience, reported by the Home News and New York Age. Hays also turned to the audience to confirm allegations that police stopped residents on the street and searched them for numbers, slips from the form of gambling prevalent in Harlem. Twenty-five people stood, dramatizing the claims about harassment. Hays challenged Inspector Di Martini and Captain Rothengast about those illegal practices. As a result, criticism of police was again the headline to stories in the New York Times, Home News, New York World-Telegram, Afro-American, and New York Age. Thanks to the reactions of the audience, the role of the police in the events of the disorder would have been at the front of Hays' mind when he turned to drafting the subcommittee’s report immediately after the hearing.
• 1 2023-06-24T20:58:39+00:00 MCCH Meeting (April 19, 1935) 15 plain 2024-01-28T17:12:16+00:00 The minutes are the only source on the MCCH meeting on April 19, with no newspaper stories reporting it. As Hays was again absent, the work of his subcommittee did not receive the same discussion as the other subcommittees. Oscar Villard reported on his behalf. In deciding the program for the hearing the next day, according to Villard, the subcommittee had decided to focus on only some of the cases of police brutality it had identified "as there were far too many" to hold public hearings on them all. Instead of hearings, the subcommittee "was planning to make some other investigations of these cases."
  
  Those investigations would soon be subject to an additional influence. At this meeting, Hubert Delany announced that he, Carter, and Roberts had selected E. Franklin Frazier, the Howard University sociologist, to conduct the MCCH survey of Harlem. Frazier would begin on May 1, 1935. No explanation for the decision was recorded in the minutes, but Ira Reid, the MCCH's initial choice, may have become entangled in concerns about the influence of the Rosenwald Fund, the white philanthropic organization best known for its support of Black schools in rural areas and fellowships for Black artists, writers, researchers, and intellectuals. The Rosenwald Fund had offered financial assistance to the MCCH, reported as $5,000 in the New York Amsterdam News. Reid had been the Fund's suggestion to lead the survey, according to that story. His previous work for the National Urban League, which had close ties to the Rosenwald Fund, likely contributed to his name being put forward. However, MCCH members decided at this meeting not to accept the fund's offer because, the minutes opaquely recorded, "certain facts were brought out in discussion." Just that week, an article by Loren Miller had appeared in New Masses questioning the influence over Black leaders exerted by the fund's white leadership, claiming that it amounted to the censoring of certain views. Radicals involved in the MCCH hearings saw the offer to the MCCH in those terms, as a bribe to make "an Uncle Tom Report," as the New York World Telegram reported "C. B. Jenkins, a Negro attorney" put it at a later hearing. Evidence that MCCH members had been concerned about that perception was provided by Roberts' answer when the New York Amsterdam News journalist questioned him about the decision to turn down the founding. "The commission does not wish to be subject in any way to any outside influence."