New Library Exhibit: "Law and the Struggle for Racial Justice"

The Law Library is pleased to announce a new exhibit now open in the Riesenfeld Rare Books Research Center:  

"Law and the Struggle for Racial Justice: Selected Materials from the Riesenfeld Rare Books Center"

Despite founding ideals of freedom and common civil rights, the United States has a long history of systemic racial disenfranchisement. Many forms of exclusion and control based on race have been enforced by American law, deeply affecting the lived experience of minority communities. The unequal treatment of diverse racial and ethnic populations endures today, continuing to challenge us to critically examine our practices and beliefs and to recommit ourselves to a more fair and equal society.

"Law and the Struggle for Racial Justice" highlights material in the Center's collections related in particular to the Black American struggle for equal rights, as seen in historical cases, legislation, and the evolving aims and achievements of civil rights movements. The exhibit calls attention to historical exclusion, to moments of progress, and to ongoing obstacles faced by communities of color as they have sought racial justice. It is hoped that historical perspectives will stimulate further reflection on the scope of these challenges and help us to envision a future in which rights are fully and equally protected for all.

The exhibit is open by appointment, and a digital version of the exhibit will be released this fall.  For more on particular items in the exhibit, see several recent blog posts (here and here).  For more information, please contact Ryan Greenwood (rgreenwo@umn.edu; 612-625-7323).

   - Ryan Greenwood, Curator of Rare Books and Special Collections 

Upcoming Exhibit: Commission on the Harlem Riot, 1935

In our upcoming fall exhibit, "Law and the Struggle for Racial Justice," several items are reports and petitions that reflect on the causes and remedies of social injustice. All of these, including a subcommittee report written in the wake of the Harlem riot in 1935, offer recommendations for reform that still resonate today.   

The Harlem riot of 1935 has been called by several scholars the first modern race riot. A Black Puerto Rican youth, Lino Rivera, was apprehended by a Harlem, New York, shop employee for stealing a penknife. The boy bit the employee but was later released by police. A false rumor that Rivera had been beaten to death in the shop led to a riot the same night, during which more than one hundred were injured and arrested, and three African Americans were killed. Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia set up a biracial commission of noted figures to investigate the causes of the riot, likely at the recommendation of Walter White, then secretary of the NAACP.

The commission included Eunice Hunton Carter, the first African-American woman prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's office; Morris Ernst, co-general counsel of the ACLU; A. Philip Randolph, the prominent labor and civil rights leader; and Countee Cullen, the poet and novelist, among others.    

The commission set up several subcommittees, tasked with reports in areas including Crime and Police, Housing, Education and Employment Discrimination. More than 150 witnesses testified at a series of public and private hearings before the commission. 

Published a year later, the resulting report was more than 100 pages. It outlined the events of March 19th that led to the riot and recommended reforms by the City government in Harlem in relation to housing, health care, education and policing. 
  

The subcommittee report displayed in the upcoming exhibit is a separate typescript addressed to Mayor LaGuardia by Arthur Garfield Hays, a noted lawyer and the subcommittee chair. One other copy of the report is recorded, held at the New York Public Library. The report discusses the events of the riot and subsequent incidents involving police. Just as the overall report acknowledged the professionalism of many officers involved in the events, the subcommittee report thanks the police chief and several officers for cooperating with the investigative commission. 

Nevertheless, the report addresses the incidence of police brutality during and after the riot, citing particular officers for avoidable and unnecessary deaths and other instances of violent misconduct. Among remedies, the subcommittee recommends that police be better trained on the limits of their authority to use force and on due process rights; that rapport with the community should be fostered rather than antagonism; and that greater accountability was necessary. Regarding the last, the report recommends the creation of a biracial committee in Harlem to receive and evaluate complaints of police misconduct, then to report them directly to the office of the Commissioner of Police. The subcommittee advises that resulting criminal misconduct cases be punished not only internally but turned over to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution. The report concludes by arguing, as the general report would examine in greater detail, that in Harlem the wider social inequalities faced by the Black community in relation to housing and rent, employment and schools also had to be addressed in order to restore social order. 

   - Ryan Greenwood, Curator of Rare Books and Special Collections

Upcoming Fall Exhibit: Racial Justice and the Law

This fall, the Riesenfeld Center will open a new exhibit on racial justice and the law, continuing a number of ongoing conversations at the Law School regarding race and criminal and civil law in American society. The exhibit will consider the struggle for equal rights through legal cases and events that saw those rights denied, limited, or advanced, amidst determined and continuing movements for equality.

The Center's rare book collection holds an important set of titles related to 19th-century anti-slavery movements, and to civil rights movements in the late 19th and 20th centuries. As leaders like W. E. B. Du Bois remarked in the early 20th century, while Reconstruction had real but limited effects, civil rights movements suffered a grave setback with the end of Reconstruction in 1877. 

At the same time, organizations dedicated to the achievement of equal civil rights emerged. The Afro-American League, led by Timothy Thomas Fortune, and the Afro-American Council - the latter of which held its annual meeting in 1902 in St. Paul - were eventually succeeded by the NAACP, founded in 1909 by W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells, Mary White Ovington, and Moorfield Storey, among others. These and other organizations arose in response to segregation enforced by law, and lawless violence, including lynching, faced by African Americans. In the late 19th century, many states passed segregationist Jim Crow laws, and with the moral blindness of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) segregation was ruled a constitutionally-protected principle.   

The NAACP initiated lawsuits targeting segregation and discriminatory laws, and made progress in some cases. It pursued anti-lynching laws, and lawsuits following race riots, which eventually resulted in some expansion of federal jurisdiction over states' criminal justice systems. A prominent case with strong NAACP support was that of Dr. Ossian Sweet, which features in our collection and reflects on the history of segregation in America. The following description is based on the excellent, detailed account of the Sweet trials by Mike Hannon for our Clarence Darrow Digital Collection. 

In 1925, Dr. Sweet, an African American medical doctor, moved with his family into a segregated white neighborhood in Detroit. Throughout America, segregation was maintained informally and formally. Often racial covenants prevented African Americans from owning houses in white neighborhoods (the practice flourished in Minneapolis, for example). The 1920s were a time of nation-leading demographic growth in Detroit, which saw an influx of African American and white workers looking for jobs and housing. The Ku Klux Klan also had a presence in the city and local political clout. In the case of Sweet, as in other cases, white neighbors resorted to tactics of intimidation and violence to drive African Americans from their homes. 

In September 1925, just after moving into a house on Garland Street, the Sweet family faced a mob massing outside their home. Family members and friends were called to help while the crowd began to hit the house with rocks and yelled epithets. Shots rang out from the house and struck two people, one of whom was killed. In the subsequent trials of Dr. Sweet, his family and friends, only Henry Sweet, Ossian's brother, would admit firing into the crowd.

The defense of Sweet, his family and friends was organized by the NAACP, which recruited the services of the nationally-renowned trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow. (Darrow's storied career is preserved in our library, which holds the largest collection of his letters, and material from his life and cases. Darrow was friends with founders of the NAACP and served as a member of its general committee.) At the first trial, for murder and conspiracy, Darrow and the defense team consistently argued that the Sweet family acted in self-defense while in direct fear of their lives. 

One aspect of Darrow's argument was that the 'reasonable man' standard, applied to gauge the fear of the defendants, had to be that of a black man in a similar situation of violence and threatened violence. The arguments at the first trial were bolstered by the testimony of several other African Americans, who had been chased from their Detroit homes by fear of violence and threats; and others who testified that between 400 and 500 people were present outside the Sweet home on the fateful day. 

In a long closing argument, Darrow argued that suffering due to race and deep inequality were at the heart of the case, appealing to a white jury to see past their own racial prejudice. In his jury instructions, Judge Frank Murphy noted that a black man's home was his castle in the same way as that of a white man: there was no right to invade or assail it (familiar as the 'castle doctrine,' with its long provenance). The jury deliberated for 46 hours and came back deadlocked; the judge declared a mistrial.  

Jury in the Henry Sweet trial

The prosecution vigorously pursued a retrial, and Darrow filed for the defendants to be tried separately. The first tried was Henry Sweet. The trial followed similar lines of argument; Darrow now had more success in hounding prosecution witnesses. In part, he pressed for admissions that a neighborhood homeowners association was organized to keep African American owners away and would use violence to do so. During the closing argument, attended by hundreds inside a packed courthouse, Darrow asked the all-white jurors again to set their prejudices aside and put themselves in the shoes of the Sweet family. He attacked the prosecution's case for eight hours, asking jurors to understand the defendant's plight and the history behind it. After jury instructions of more than two hours, the jury came back with a verdict of not guilty in three hours; no further cases were tried.

The case was a notable victory for the family, the NAACP and Darrow, and reflected on issues of race and justice in 1925 that are still with us today. Racial covenants were not struck down until 1948, and de facto segregated communities have left their legacy across urban and suburban American landscapes. Self-defense doctrines have come back into the spotlight more recently in broader debates over lethal force used by police and private citizens, particularly when victims are minorities. In all of these, the problems of racial injustice that we still struggle with, and must continue to struggle with for a more equitable future, have come directly back to the foreground.

   - Ryan Greenwood, Curator of Rare Books and Special Collections  

Announcement: Morris L. Cohen Student Essay Competition

The Legal History and Rare Books Section (LHRB) of the American Association of Law Libraries, in cooperation with Gale Cengage Learning, announces the annual Morris L. Cohen Student Essay Competition. The competition is named in honor of Morris L. Cohen, late Professor Emeritus of Law at Yale Law School. Professor Cohen’s scholarly work was in the fields of legal research, rare books, and historical bibliography.

The purpose of the competition is to encourage scholarship in the areas of legal history, rare law books, and legal archives, and to acquaint students with the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) and law librarianship. Essays may be on any topic related to legal history, rare law books, or legal archives. The competition is open to students currently enrolled in accredited graduate programs in library science, law, history, and related fields. Both full- and part-time students are eligible. Membership in AALL is not required.

The winner will receive a $500 prize from Cengage Learning and will present the essay at an LH&RB sponsored webinar. The winner and runner-up will have the opportunity to publish their essays in LH&RB’s online scholarly journal Unbound: A Review of Legal History and Rare Books.

For more information and deadlines, please see the announcement, full rules, and application.

The deadline for application is July 31, 2020.

From Our Spring Exhibits: Law in Times of Crisis, II

Our current spring exhibits feature several works that were born in moments of crisis (see an earlier post for two of these).  Lawmaking at these moments often calls forth extraordinary legislation and sometimes emergency procedures to enact that legislation.  Sometimes convening in one place can also be difficult.  In the face of the current pandemic, the Supreme Court recently opted to hear arguments remotely and livestreamed them for the benefit of the public.  In the Senate, in-person meetings have continued, while the House has recently moved to allow remote voting.

The earliest national Congresses were no stranger to the problem of convening lawmakers in one place, though due to armed conflict rather than a virus.  The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1774 to discuss grievances over unpopular British laws and to prepare the colonial American response, which was agreed first to take written form.  The Second Continental Congress convened to conduct national policy amidst the Revolutionary War, a circumstance that forced it to relocate several times in the face of an advancing British army.  Meeting in Philadelphia, Congress was forced to move to Baltimore in 1776 and to flee again in September 1777 as the British prepared to take Philadelphia.  As a result, it met in Lancaster and subsequently in York, Pennsylvania.  The drafting of the Articles of Confederation was completed in York, but its early and most important printing was by Francis Bailey, who quickly printed 300 copies in Lancaster in 1777.  The copy of the Articles in our collection, also from 1777, is the Boston reprint of Bailey's first edition.

In July 1778, Congress moved back to Philadelphia, after the British had abandoned it.  It was here that two brothers of the Lee family of Virginia, Richard Lightfoot Lee and Richard Henry Lee, both signers of the Declaration of Independence, met with the other delegates.  It may be that during this time they also purchased a work from the notable Robert Bell, a Scottish-born printer who set up shop not far from Independence Hall.  Our copy of Cesare Beccaria's famous Essay on Crimes and Punishments, in its first true American printing by Bell in 1778 (we also hold a false Philadelphia imprint of the work from 1766), shows the name of Francis L. Lee on its title page, which may be Francis Lightfoot Lee himself, or his brother Richard Henry Lee's son. Richard Henry Lee and another brother, Arthur Lee, quoted from Beccaria's work and perhaps from this family copy. 

In such times of crisis, the law must still be made (and published), and it's little surprise that lawmakers should need material for reflection, particularly on issues as important as criminal law reform.

   - Ryan Greenwood, Curator of Rare Books and Special Collections

Answers to Our Virtual Rare Books Quiz

Below are the answers to our first virtual rare books quiz.  Thanks to everyone for participating, and congratulations to the winners!

---

1.  At first we were looking for Diderot or Montesquieu (the picture is supposed to be Diderot); but we also accepted the wigless Gracchus Babeuf.  It's not for us to argue a likeness!   

Babeuf is the subject of a beautifully illustrated collection item in our current spring exhibit.  He was a radical firebrand journalist and could be considered generally a philosophe.  Perhaps figures like Rousseau, Voltaire, d'Alembert - even Jefferson and Franklin - should not be so exclusive!

2.  This incunable was published on January 8, 1498 in Venice.  (Venice was probably the most famous early center of printing.  The most famous Venetian printer, Aldus Manutius, also has the most famous printer's device, a dolphin entwined with an anchor.  It relates to his motto: "make haste slowly."  The Latin original, festina lente, might be a good motto during our current moment.)

3.  The answer is "D.  Answers A and B only."  Richard Tottel (or variously Tottill, Tothill, Tottle, etc.) had an exclusive royal patent to publish English common law books from 1553.  Some early legislation on unlicensed printing is in acts of 1637, 1649, 1662 and the famous Statute of Anne (copyright).  Roman type is a big thing in the history of typography.

4. Justice O'Conner grew up on Lazy B cattle ranch in Arizona (incidentally, the cow's head also bobbles).  See her great book on growing up (and Majesty of the Law if you have not read it). 

Justice Breyer's five sheep (and a cow, on the bike's other side) are a reference to his opinion in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt: "[T]he Department would issue a permit measuring grazing privileges in terms of 'animal unit months' (AUMs), i.e., the right to obtain the forage needed to sustain one cow (or five sheep) for one month.... [R]egulations in effect from 1938 to the present day made clear that the Department retained the power to modify, fail to renew, or cancel a permit or lease for various reasons." Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728, 735 (2000).

Our First Virtual Rare Books Quiz!

Welcome to our first virtual rare books quiz!  Take a break from studies (and incessant news) - allow yourselves a diversion! 

Take a few moments to answer the questions below, and be entered to win prizes from the UMN bookstore (when it reopens).  

The two most correct entries win, drawing in case of (more than two) ties, prizes $25 each.  The prizes are the usual: hats, mugs, keychains, t-shirts, or some combination.  UMN Law School students only are eligible.


1.  Which noted French Enlightenment philosophe is this an image of?  (Several answers accepted; note the figure is wigless!)

The great etching, by artist Thomas Cornell, is from this book, in our current exhibits. 












   

2.  The design at bottom here is the printer's device of Baptista de Tortis.  These were common in early printed books, and offered quick recognition and a proud authenticity.  What year, month, day, and city was this book published in?

This volume of Roman law in the collection is an incunable, printed before 1501. (That's a hint, at least.)


















 



3.  What is significant about the book below? (All that apply.)

A.  It is a copy of the first printed edition of Bracton's De Legibus, considered the greatest treatise on (medieval) English law.
B.  It is an early example of the use of Roman type in English law books.
C.  It is a pirated copy, printed without license.
D.  Answers A and B only.
E.  Answers A, B, and C.

Fun fact: the printer of the book, Richard Tottel, spelled his name about a dozen different ways in his works (thanks to my colleague Mike Widener for this observation)! 











4.  A last one, from our Supreme Court Bobblehead collection.  Why is there a cow at the feet of Justice O'Connor, and why are there sheep at the feet of Justice Breyer?  (Short answer will do.)