Changes

{{cquote|The Costigan-Wagner Bill provides for a Federal penalty of five years imprisonment or $5,000 fine, or both, to be placed upon any state officer who fails to protect a person in his charge from mob assaults. If he encourages a lynching, he will be subject to imprisonment for from five years to life. Any county in which a person is seized or put to death by a mob must forfeit $1,000 for the use of the victim's family. or if there is none, for the Federal government; this will bring pressure on the taxpayers who will thus be liable.|||''Vassar Miscellany News'', May 1, 1935, p. 1}}

{{cquote|The Costigan-Wagner Bill provides for a Federal penalty of five years imprisonment or $5,000 fine, or both, to be placed upon any state officer who fails to protect a person in his charge from mob assaults. If he encourages a lynching, he will be subject to imprisonment for from five years to life. Any county in which a person is seized or put to death by a mob must forfeit $1,000 for the use of the victim's family. or if there is none, for the Federal government; this will bring pressure on the taxpayers who will thus be liable.|||''Vassar Miscellany News'', May 1, 1935, p. 1}}

The aim and scope of the Costigan–Wagner Act was considerably weaker than that of the preceding Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill of 1922. It lacked a provision to directly prosecute members of lynch mobs, and prosecution of local police officers from a federal level for the failure to prevent lynchings could only materialize under the Act if individual states failed to prosecute such officers within thirty days.<ref>Ness, Immanuel (2004). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_American_Social_Movement/6vwvCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=costigan-wagner+act&pg=PA134&printsec=frontcover ''Encyclopedia of American Social Movements''], p. 134. ''Google Books''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref> The bill therefore made compromises to the traditional Jeffersonian adherence of the Democratic Party, though ultimately was opposed by anti–civil rights forces, who nonetheless viewed it as a purported infringement of "states' rights."

The aim and scope of the Costigan–Wagner Act was, according to some sources, weaker than that of the preceding Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill of 1922. It would authorize prosecution of local police officers from a federal level for the failure to prevent lynchings could only materialize under the Act if individual states failed to prosecute such officers within thirty days,<ref>Ness, Immanuel (2004). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_American_Social_Movement/6vwvCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=costigan-wagner+act&pg=PA134&printsec=frontcover ''Encyclopedia of American Social Movements''], p. 134. ''Google Books''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref> though also would impose fines on communities, where lynchings occurred, that would be given to dependents of victims.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/> The bill therefore made compromises to the traditional Jeffersonian adherence of the Democratic Party, though ultimately was opposed by anti–civil rights forces, who nonetheless viewed it as a purported infringement of "states' rights."

The reasoning behind the Act's provisions rested on the premise that the occurrence of lynchings was attributable to local police officers either directly colluding with or intentionally neglecting lynch mobs, in addition to the perception that such terrorism incidents could be prevented by community leaders if the matter was prioritized sufficiently.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/>

The reasoning behind the Act's provisions rested on the premise that the occurrence of lynchings was attributable to local police officers either directly colluding with or intentionally neglecting lynch mobs, in addition to the perception that such terrorism incidents could be prevented by community leaders if the matter was prioritized sufficiently.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/>