No More 'Soap Bubbles' Questions for Mississippi Negro Voters

    NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FYND, INC. 
107 Wes 3 Street New York ks 

L 

Thurgood Marshall, Director and Counsel 

FOR RELEASE: February 20, 1953 

NO MORE 'SOAP BUBBLES' QUESTIONS 
FOR MISSISSIPPI NEGRO VOTERS February 20, 1953 

NEW YORK, Feb. 20.-- "How many bubbles to a bar of soap?" 

"What is the due process of law?" 

These and similar questions would be asked of a Negro who tried 

to register to vote in Forrest County, Mississippi. 

But the Department of Justice has said there will be no more such 

questions asked of Negroes or anybody else hereafter, 

That is, the Justice Department has advised the NAACP that the 

election officials of Hattiesburg, Forrest County, Miss., have agreed 

to abide by the law of the land and not ask such questions again. 

In a letter to Thurgood Marshall, NAACP special counsel, in answer 

to a complaint filed by the NAACP in behalf of nine qualified voters 

who were refused registration privileges, Warren Olney, III, Assistant 

Attorney General replied: 

"Following the completion of our investigation in the matter, we 

have been assured by the Registrar of Voters that he will henceforth 

follow the law in considering applications for voting registration. 

Under the circumstances, therefore, we shall withhold further action 

uniess complaints are received indicating that the alleged discriminatory 

practice is being maintained. If you should receive any such complaints, 

we should appreciate your advising us of them," 

The complaints were filed with James M, McInerney, then Assistant 

Attorney General, April 30, 1952, after the nine persons, 3 women and 

6 men, had been refused the right to register to vote on April ll. They 

asserted that they "possessed all the qualifications as prescribed by 

the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, have tried to register 

from time to time” and have been asked such questions as "How many 

bubbles in a bar of soap?" and "What is the due process of law?" 

The complainants also charged that they were denied registration 

rights by two white women, employees of the Registrar of Voters and 

reported to be deputy Registrars, who told the nine they were not 

authorized to register them. The Negroes would have to return when the 

Registrar of the county was there. However, the two ladies continued to 

register white voters. 

In the complaints to Assistant Attorney General McInerney, Marshall 



Press Releases--February 20 ~2- pina, fegal Defense and Educational 

pointed out that the action of the registrar and his deputies was in 

violation of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi and the 14th 

and 15th Amendments of the United States. The NAACP special counsel 

then asked for an immediate investigation "of these complaints and the 

necessary definitive action to insure the protection of the right of 

qualified Negro electors to register and vote." 

NAVY STEWARDSMAN CASE GOES 
TO JUDGE ADVOCATE OF NAVY February 20, 1953 

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 20.-- A new trial for Paul Willis Crosslin, a 

Navy stewardsman now serving a ten-year term for the alleged rape of a 

Navy nurse in 1951, was asked in a petition filed with Judge Advocate 

General of the Navy this week by NAACP lawyers. 

The petition charged that the court which convicted Crosslin was 

not properly authorized and was completely without jurisdiction. 

The NAACP attorneys contend that the two orders which supposedly 

authorized the appointment of the counsel for Crosslin, the trial 

counsel and a member of the court-martial, were not signed by an "offi- 

cial empowered" to appoint them. 

Crosslin, a stewardsman on a hospital ship in service in the Korean 

area, was arrested September 22, 1951, after a Navy nurse accused him of 

raping her in her bunk aboard the ship. He was tried November 5-7, 

1951, found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentence was 

subsequently reduced to ten years at hard labor, dishonorable discharge 

and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The conviction was confirmed 

by a Board of Review on May 5, 1952. 

The NAACP entered the case at the request of the attorney who 

defended Crosslin at the court-martial proceeding, Joseph B. Williams, 

one of the few Negroes who has served in a legal capacity in the Navy. 

Mr. Williams is now practicing in Brooklyn, N.Y. 

Upon his retirement from the Navy, Williams filed a petition with 

the U.S, Court of Military Appeals asking for a review of the case. 

This petition and a later request for reconsideration were both denied. 

While a general court-martial was authorized August 2, 1951, to 

convene at the U.S. Fleet Activities, in Yokosuka, Japan, by Vice 

Admiral C.T. Joy, Commander of Naval Forces in the Far East, the two 

orders which called for the appointment of the trial counsel, the 

defense counsel and a member of the court-martial were signed by 

subordinate officers having no authority to convene a general court- 

martial or change its members. 



Press Releases--February 19 -3- Legal Defense and Educational 
Fund, Inc. 

According to Navy regulations, the NAACP attorneys pointed out, the 

order should have been signed by either Admiral Joy or a senior officer 

in line of succession had there been a devolution in command due to 

the absence of Joy. However, since Joy was in command from the time 

the arrest was made until Crosslin was convicted, the two orders should 

have been signed by him as the only person empowered with authority, 

incapable of delegation, to convene a general court-martial. 

The irregularities in the orders were not called to the attention 

of the court-martial, the NAACP's brief pointed out, and "this was a 

gross disregard of the duty imposed upon the trial counsel." 

Navy regulations state that any "apparent illegalities or 

irregularities in its action or in the proceedings should be called to 

its attention." 

This "dereliction in the duty" can only constitute a fraud on the 

court, the brief charged, inasmuch "as the trial counsel is also 

charged with a pre-trial duty to examine the file and report to the 

convening attorhey any substantial irregularity." 

There can be little contention that no substantial irregularity 

transpired here, the NAACP lawyers claimed, because one of the 

"indispensable requisites" upon which the jurisdiction of a court- 

martial is conditioned is that the court be appointed by an official 

empowered to appoint it. 

By filing this petition with the Judge Advocate General, NAACP 

lawyers, Robert L. Carter, assistant special counsel, and Elwood H, 

Chisolm, both of New York, along with Atty. Williams hope Crosslin 

will be granted a new trial. 

Crosslin is presently/at thevNaval Retrhining’tommand;, Mare Island, 

California,