ustxtxb_obs_1970_06_12_50_00009-00000_000.pdf

Page 9

by

LES MRS 4 Asidetealk ale In Auflit alma 24 klatut audiaeatat gfteagade Gen, atige,94eadet4 24a & Sac Attaido Ideated 7’adt es de zegitt ?mad Meutet ideute 472-2746 TEXAS, WHERE Spanishsurnamed residents amount to just under 15% of the population, did not fare luss THE TEXAS OBSERVER $7.30 \(in-; I city state \( Check enclosed [ 1 To be billed meememeleimemeimemeelo mmoomonie 504 West 24th Street Austin, Texas 78705 I Enter a 1-year subscription, at street Austin The Mexican Americans have known it for a long time, but last month it became official. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, created in 1957, proclaimed that cops, courts, and chicanos are not always a salubrious mixture. In its report entitled Mexican Americans and the Administration of Justice in the Southwest, the commission came to the following conclusion: “This report paints a bleak picture of the relationship between Mexican Americans in the Southwest and the agencies which administer justice in those states. The attitude of Mexican Americans toward the institutions responsible for the administration of justice the police, the courts, and related agencies is distrustful, fearful, and hostile.” The report says, in effect, that La Raza in the Southwest faces more police oppression and unfair judicial processes than it ought, that it is afforded scant opportunity to participate in the administration of justice on the administering end, and that the vehicles for a proper redress of its grievances are weak and inadequate. In addition to the threat of reprisals against those who raise their voices to protest unfair treatment, there are the difficulty of getting attorneys to handle “controversial” cases based on racial injustice, the slim chance of winning such cases anyway, and, the report shows, the near impossibility of getting grand juries to indict police officers or other law enforcement officials who appear to be guilty of illegal acts against Mexican Americans. The commission conducted a thorough enough investigation and did its homework. Hearings were held in various parts of the Southwest, and many personal interviews were conducted with the oppressed and with the alleged oppressers. Here in Texas, most of the “regulars” had a chance to speak out. The report cites Bexar County Cmsr. Albert Pella, Attorney Pete Tijerina of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and attorney Matt Garcia of San Antonio. \(Conspicuously absent was testimony from Cong. Henry B. the Valley, Commission staff talked to the men usually referred to as “prominent Mexican American leaders,” including Attorney Robert P. Sanchez, Dr. Ramiro Casso, and members of the organizations which have become active in Starr and Hidalgo counties in the aftermath of the 1966-67 melon strike. Assisted by an advisory committee in each of the five states, the commission ‘staff seemed to cover the ground methodically, carefully, and with a fervent desire to give the muck a thorough raking. Cong. Gonzalez has been critical of the hearings held by the commission in San Antonio in December of 1968, calling them a “hand-picked and pre-directed affair.” Last week he issued what he apparently hoped would be a bombshell, a statement to the effect that some of the witnesses and consultants who participated in the hearing and its preparation were paid for their efforts. Among those reported to have received compensation were Del Rio attorney Mike Gonsalez, recently acquitted on apparently trumped up charges of smuggling; the Rev. Ed Krueger of Pharr, who figured prominently in charges that Captain A. Y. Allee’s boys acted illegally to break the melon strike in Starr County three years ago; the Rev. Ralph Ruiz of San Antonio, a bitter critic of the FBI; and Erasmo Andrade of San Antonio, a chicano who tried unsuccessfully to unseat Democratic State Sen. Wayne Connally of Floresville in the May 2 primary. The Hon. Henry B. was later quoted as saying “there is, of course, nothing wrong with hiring consultants and expert witnesses, but it seems a startling oversight that these persons were not identified as paid experts at the hearings.” Be that as it may, the Commission did rake plenty of muck, even if it was from the same old swamp. Considerable evidence was presented to show that Mexican Americans do not expect justice from the American judicial process, and that they have considerable experience to justify that lack of expectation. particularly well in the Civil Rights Commission’s assessments, and the southern part of the state, where the chicano population is most heavily concentrated, was singled out for special attention: “In southern Texas, the attitudes of the Mexican Americans toward the enforcement officials were more intensely hostile and fearful than in any other area. These feelings were most acute with respect to the Texas Rangers, the 62-man State police organization.” Of course there are those who would say that the Valley was singled out only because of publicity received there during June 12, 1970 9 Discrimination against La Raza Now it’s official