[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
San,—Your readers will perhaps be interested to see the enclosed quotation from the Minneapolis Sentinel of March 9th, commenting upon the article on Dr. Woodrow Wilson, which
appeared in your issue of March 8th.—I am, Sir, Sze., Z.
"The usually accurate London Spectator thinks that President Wilson's paramount duty is to put down lynching. The Spectator should couple its appeal on that point with a citation of the line or section of the Constitution that relieves the States of this duty and responsibility and gives it to the Federal Executive. Is the interstate commerce clause elastic enough to cover that too? Seriously, that duty belongs to the State Executives and juries of the vicinage. Primarily the fault lies with the sporadic local sentiment that commits lynching and then shields the crime because witnesses will not testify and juries will not indict or convict. For example, it was the sanctified 'common people' of Coatesville who did that hideous job that would have shamed a parcel of Hottentots, and then practically endorsed it by referen- dum. President Wilson has no more power in the matter than King George ha.s to erempt 171ster from the Home Rule Bill."
[If the writer in the Sentinel had taken the trouble to read
the article in the Spectator which he criticizes, he would find that we did not make the blunder he attributes to us. We, of course, knew as well as he does that the Constitution gives no power to the President or to Congress to apply our pro- posals to districts -where lynchings have taken place. Therefore we suggested that the President should take the lead in inaugurating legislation, including, of course, the necessary amendment of the Constitution. We shall, of course, be told that such an "amendmeat is absolutely hopeless. To which we reply—not if the people of the United States are in earnest in the desire to stop burning negroes alive. When in earnest they can and do change the Constitution— witness the existing amendments.—En. Spectator.]