I think the organization was called "Young Democrats Marching for Roosevelt." He and his friends circulated an election petition in Jersey City which was deposited with the county clerk of Hudson after they had obtained the necessary number of signatures. The machinery of the Hague organization moved in. The county clerk's lieutenants, the prosecutor's staff, the county lawyers and police captains scoured the town in a search for the signers of this petition andaccording to charges made to G-men-intimidated great numbers of them into repudiating their signatures. From a panel Each of these Hague leaders Longo was arrested on a charge of filing a fraudulent petition. of about 200 prospective jurors the jury was drawn to hear his case. 200 so the G-men were informed-was interviewed by various and told, "We want you to send that Guinea b- to jail." Longo was convicted and appealed the case. He asked for bailSenator HATCH (interposing). In what court was the Longo case heard? Mr. MCMANUS. The New Jersey courts. Mr. MCMANUS (reading): He asked for bail, which was denied him, a practice which is resorted to in ordinary American courts only in dealing with exceptional criminals, such as murderers. The fight spread to Trenton, and the assembly passed a bill admitting Longo to bail but the Senate, in a Hague-Republican coalition, defeated the bill. Longo's appeal was not heard until he had served his full jail sentence of 8 months. And then it goes on and says: Meanwhile the Honorable Frank Murphy had been appointed Attorney General of the United States. He made it clear at the outset that his administration of this office was to be that of a crusader, and he set up within the Department of Justice an unprecedented new bureau which was to investigate and prosecute violations of civil liberties. I have here the statement-well, it is in here. Attorney General Murphy went on the radio one night on a Nation-wide hook-up to rally the citizens behind him in his fight. Here is what he said about the Longo case: "A young man who actively opposed the boss of the local political machine was indicted on a false charge. He was tried and convicted by a jury consisting entirely of persons connected politically with the leader of the machine. He was denied bail on appeal. After several postponements the case came to the appellate court, but not until after the defendant had served his term." At Mr. Murphy's order G-men John Malone and Lee Madigan moved into Jersey City. For 5 months they questioned witnesses, consulted documents, and built up a case. Their job was finished last September. A short while after they had returned to Washington the New York World-Telegram published this article: New York, Monday, October 9, 1939. and there is a Newark date line LONGO WITNESSES SILENCED BY FEAR OF HAGUE, G-MEN SAY. DECLARE THEY THEY COULD SEEK 45 INDICTMENTS IF 130 THEY QUIZZED WOULD TALK OPENLY The Federal Bureau of Investigation, completing its 5-month investigation of the John R. Longo civil-liberty case in Jersey City, today was reported to have evidence enough to seek at least 45 indictments-if the witnesses would repeat in open court the sensational stories they told the G-men in secret. It was learned, however, that fear of reprisals by Mayor Frank Hague, of Jersey City, has caused virtually all of the 130 witnesses to refuse to repeat in court the stories they told of the alleged frame-up of Longo, foe of Mayor Hague. John Malone and Lee Madigan, the agents who made the investigation, refused to comment on the case, but a high Department of Justice official in Washington 60020-41-4 said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's difficulty was finding witnesses who were not "in fear of Hague and who are willing to testify." The Washington official said that the investigation had convinced him that Longo's conviction in May 1938 on a charge of violating the Jersey election laws, was a frame-up and added: "The job of the investigators now is to go out and convince these people that the Government has a case it definitely can win if they will testify." It was learned that the witnesses who talked freely to the G-men included Hudson County freeholders and political lieutenants of Hague. Senator O'MAHONEY. The story is either badly written, or the type must be bad. Mr. McMANUs. It is a composing-room bust, I guess. One of the freeholders, after exacting a promise that he would not be called to testify, was quoted as saying that the panel of 200 veniremen for the Longo trial was handpicked by the ward leaders in Jersey City and by the freeholders. He was quoted as saying that the veniremen were summoned then to the homes of the leaders and freeholders and there given instructions that if they were selected for the jury they were to convict Longo. It was learned that a clerk on this panel-he wasn't selected for the jurysubsequently was made a State trooper and that he told a friend the Freeholders had instructed his group of talesmen that they were to "get Longo because Hague was out to get Longo.' The trooper was being sought as a witness today, it was learned. It was learned that eight of the jury which convicted Longo were questioned by the G-men and that all denied that on any occasion any Hague leader had told them to convict Longo. Some of these jurors were quoted as saying that on other occasions Hague leaders had told them what verdict to return if they were selected on a jury and that they were surprised no instructions were given concerning their verdict in the Longo case. After his conviction on a charge of filing a petition bearing false names in support of an anti-Hague ticket in the Democratic primary in Jersey City, in 1937, Longo was sentenced to 9 months in the county jail. His attorney Incidentally, that was the same election which was protested and which the Jersey courts refused to investigate. No convictions were made or any action taken. Senator O'MAHONEY. Did you write the story? Mr. McMANUs. It is in the World-Telegram-no; I did not write it. Senator O'MAHONEY. Who wrote it? Mr. MCMANUS. I know, but it is confidential and I cannot reveal it. Senator O'MAHONEY. That is why it is filled with phrases that "he said" and "it was reported," and so forth. Mr. MCMANUS. I do not understand you. Senator O'MAHONEY. I have listended to you read the story, and the jurors were quoted by somebody unknown and unnamed, and "it was reported that such and such was the fact," but by whom it was reported or to whom it was reported is not stated. The story, in other words, is the ordinary newspaper dope story, is it not? Mr. MCMANUS. Well-yes. Senator O'MAHONEY. You are sure of it, but now you are bringing to us a dope story. Mr. MCMANUS. Well, that is Senator HUGHES. Well, it is newspaper gossip. Mr. MCMANUS. Well, Senator, if you were a newspaper man- Mr. MCMANUS. Was it your experience that a story like this in the World-Telegram Senator O'MAHONEY. I know the World-Telegram is a fine newspaper and we like the reporters of the World-Telegram and the United Press and Associated Press around here, but actually we would not always accept their stories. Senator HATCH. In fact, we would not accept them at all as evidence. Mr. MCMANUS. I understand that, I was presenting the committee with matters which they might investigate. Senator HATCH. Do you have any facts, Mr. McManus, bearing on the question? I know what Senator O'Mahoney was getting at, and Senator Hughes. You have just been taking up our time by reading a lot of material which is not evidence and would not be considered in any place as such. Mr. MCMANUS. Would the committee consider inquiring into the source of the story in order to determine the outcome. Senator HATCH. Do you have any knowledge of your own that you want to present? If so, we will be glad to hear from you concerning it. Mr. McMANUs. All right, I will proceed, but that did have a bearing, I think. A few weeks after this statement was made, a vacancy was created on the United States Supreme Court. Senator O'MAHONEY. What are you reading from? Mr. MCMANUS. The same article, the one I wrote. Mr. MCMANUS. Yes. The name of Attorney General Murphy was mentioned for the place. Washington correspondents reported that he was very reluctant to relinquish his post in the Justice Department until he had finished his crusade in Jersey City, Chicago, and elsewhere. Is the committee interested in quotations? Senator O'MAHONEY. We are not interested in what Attorney General Murphy may have done; he is already on the Supreme Court and has been confirmed and that is past history. Mr. McMANUS. All right; sir. I am using that in bringing up the question. Meanwhile, things were happening on the political front. Mayor Hague became a frequent White House visitor. He declared for a third term for President Roosevelt, and stories were printed to the effect that he would be floor manager for the Roosevelt forces at the Democratic National Convention. Solicitor General Jackson made a speech in Cleveland advocating Mr. Roosevelt's reelection and setting forth figures to show that only with him could the Democrats win. Attorney General Murphy was appointed Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and Solicitor Jackson was appointed to succeed him. The question was raised as to what had become of his crusade. Before taking his seat on the Supreme Court bench Mr. Murphy made a public statement attacking "insinuations and implications to the effect that as Attorney General I have for political purposes suppressed possible proceedings against Mayor Kelly of Chicago, Mayor Hague of Jersey City, and other political leaders, and that my successor in office, Robert H. Jackson, is expected to continue the same policy of suppression and inaction to serve alleged political purposes of the administration. Such stories and misstatements are not true," he said. He declared that he had no evidence against Mayor Hague. Later it was announced that the report of the investigation of Jersey City had just been turned over to the new Attorney General, Mr. Jackson. This was 5 months after the investigation was supposed to have been completed and several weeks after Mr. Murphy had stated that he had no evidence against Mayor Hague. It was on the basis of this sequence of events that the New Jersey Voter asked Attorney General Jackson for a statement which would clear the Department of Justice of all suspicion. "We do not believe," said the New Jersey Voter in its letter, "that the New Deal, which has been a champion of civil liberties, would devour its own young by such a betrayal as this. The fact remains, however, that a large section of public opinion suspects the existence of a conspiracy." Mr. Jackson's reply is printed above. As this issue of the New Jersey Voter goes to press, we have asked him for additional information as follows: "(1) What conditions or abuses were so widespread as to call for the original establishment of a special Civil Liberties Division in the United States Department of Justice? (2) To what specific civil liberties may the Federal Government extend its protection under what you describe as 'the very limited scope of Federal power under the Constitution'?", That telegram from Attorney General Robert H. Jackson is, as has been said, printed above, and I will read it: WASHINGTON, D. C., December 17, 1940. ROBERT CRUISE MCMANUS, Newark, N. J. Investigative reports re alleged violations civil liberties New Jersey are being studied to determine whether any Federal offense has been committed. You know of course we have no jurisdiction or power to prosecute cases which do not fall within the very limited scope of Federal power under the Constitution. Beyond this citizens of each community must look to the State authorities. There has been no determination yet as to whether any offense has been committed within the Federal jurisdiction.-Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General. Senator HATCH. Mr. McManus, you know that that is a correct statement of the law, do you not? Mr. MCMANUS. I assume so. I am not a lawyer, Senator. [Continuing reading:] In our letter we stated that we were "asking these questions in order to discover why Department of Justice officials inquired into the Longo case at all. Were they empowered to protect a citizen who was exercising the right to run for office and who was denied that right by coercion and imprisonment? If the Department of Justice is empowered to protect such a citizen, does not the question boil down to a mere matter of guilt or innocence? In other words, did these offenses of coercion and illegal imprisonment actually occur, or did John Long spend 9 months in jail because he himself had violated the law?" Now, I got a reply from Mr. Rogge sent to me at 11 Commerce Street, dated February 24, 1940, which is as follows: (The letter referred to is as follows:) Inasmuch as Mr. Rogge referred to section 51 of the civil rights statute of reconstruction days, now found in sections 51 and 52 of title 18 of the United States Code, I will read what he says in that case: Section 51, the section which makes it a Federal crime for two or more individuals to conspire to deprive any citizen of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, on its face purports to deal with individual action. Further Section 51, however, although it extends protection only to citizens, rather than to the more general class of inhabitants mentioned in section 52, is on its face applicable to a wider class of interference with civil rights more to the point is the Mosely case, emphasizing the fact that section 51 can be made to do most of the work of section 52 by treating a State official as accountable under section 51, even in colorably official action, and so forth. Now, I will get to the Attorney General, what he said when he set up the Division. This is a release dated February 3, 1939. Attorney General Murphy announced today the establishment of a separate unit in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice to be known as the Civil Liberties Unit. The order creating the unit describes the functions as follows: 66* * * To make a study of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress relating to civil rights with reference to present conditions, to make appropriate recommendations in respect thereto, and to direct, supervise, and conduct prosecutions of violations of the provisions of the Constitution or acts of Congress guaranteeing civil rights to individuals." In making the announcement concerning the new unit, the Attorney General said: "In a democracy, an important function of the law-enforcement branch of government is the aggressive protection of the fundamental rights inherent in a free people. In America these guaranties are contained in express provisions of the Constitution and in acts of Congress. It is the purpose of the Department of Justice to pursue a program of vigilant action in the prosecution of infringements of these rights. * * * "The function and purpose of this unit will be to make a study of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress relating to civil rights with reference to present conditions, to make appropriate recommendations in respect thereto, and to direct, supervise and conduct prosecutions of violations of the provisions of the Constitution or acts of Congress guaranteeing civil rights to individuals." Pursuant to the order of the Attorney General nun bered 3204, dated February 3, 1939, establishing a Civil Liberties Unit within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Mr. Henry A. Schweinhaut, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, is hereby designated as chief of such unit. Subsequently, in view of what you said, Senator-subsequent to this there were several additional newspaper stories, the general tenor of which was that the Department of Justice was preparing to come into New Jersey at once. Do you want me to read some of those articles? Senator HATCH. No; not at all. We will take it for granted that those were newspaper stories published just like you say they were. What is the sum total of the whole matter? Mr. MCMANUS. May I finish, and I will indicate what the sum total is. We have no further communications with Mr. Jackson until--you recall that in this telegram I quoted, he was studying the investigations, or the reports of the investigation. Senator HATCH. Yes. Mr. MCMANUS. We had no further communication-that was in February until July, after-I am sorry to take so much time herewell in July, on July 29, the magazine Life printed a page picture taken at the Democratic National Convention, in which Senator HATCH. Well, Senator O'Mahoney was in it, Senator Hughes was in it, I think we were all in it, or all there. Mr. MCMANUS. Well, probably at the convention Senator O'MAHONEY. Well, I'll tell you frankly, I am not going to hold anybody on any photograph taken by a newspaper photographer. Senator HATCH. All right; go ahead and describe it. Mr. McMANUS. The picture was taken at a dinner, I think at the Blackstone Hotel, and those present were the Attorney General, Mayor Kelly of Chicago, Mayor Hague Senator HATCH. I had an invitation to that dinner-I remember it very well. |