vol. 3, no. 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL, 1938 No. 4

MENACE OF FASCISM IN U.S.

May Bill Establishes War-Time Dictatorship

The United States faces the menace of war-time dictatorship under the terms of the May Bill (HR 9604) which has been reported favorably out of the House Committee on Military Affairs. It is expected to come shortly to a vote in the House. If this measure is passed, the Bill of Rights will become a dead letter in war time. F reedom of speech, press, assembly and the rights of labor would be completely under dictatorial control. Publication of newspapers, pamphlets and books, the production of motion pictures and programs on the air would all come under the heavy hand of government censors. The country would be plunged into a dictatorship from which it might not escape without strife and bloodshed.

Immediate Protests Necessary

Immediate action is needed to defeat this dangerous proposal. We urge every reader to protest against passage of the May Bill to his Congressman and to Hon. John J. O’Connor, Chairman of the House Committee on Rules, now considering the measure. Send copies of telegrams and letters to your local newspapers and ask for editorial comment.

The May Bill springs from the demand of the American Legion for legislation to take the profits out of war. But it does nothing of the kind. Instead, it masquerades under that pious title while imposing upon the country the chauvinistic plans of the War and Navy Departments to compel citizens to do involuntarily vastly more than they did voluntarily in the last war. The May Bill supplants the equally vicious Sheppard-Hill bill which was pushed by the Generals and Admirals at the last session of Congress.

An Analysis of the Bill

A section by section examination of the bill is enlightening as to its exact purpose. Section 1 permits the President to fix prices, rents, rates, commissions, compensations or rewards, on everything. Section 2 permits the President to adjust such prices, upward or downward. Section 3 permits him to take over control of any business activity or pub- lic service. Section 4 gives the President the power to draft into military service all persons between the ages of 21 to 31. Section 5 permits the President to register and control all civilians in any or all industrial establishments. Section 6 allows the President to compel business, public services, etc. to operate only under LICENSES which he may grant or withhold. This section specifically exempts “the publication or distribution of newspapers, periodicals or books” without, however, upholding freedom of the press, Since newspapers are bound by other provisions such as registration and might oe denied newsprint, electric power or ether necessary materials. Further, Section 7 authorizes the President to determine the priority in which any owner, manufacturer, dealer or public service shall fill orders or transport goods or furnish power. More- over, no provision whatsoever is made for leaflets, the radio or moving pictures. Sec- tion 8 provides that the Act shall operate between the declaration of war by Congress and the passage of a resolution that | such war has terminated, however long that may take. Section 9 gives the President power to create agencies, boards and commissions to augment or supplant existing government agencies estublisned py Congress, and to expend the national income as he sees fit. Section 10 provides penalties of $100,000 or 1 year in prison or both for each violation of the Act; and the final section, 11, recommends the passage by the next Congress and succeeding ones of tax laws calculated by the Secretary of the Treasury to “Absorb all profits above a fair, normal return.” It should be noted that this last section is merely a recommendation. The Act itself contains not a single provision to take the profits out of war.

In brief, the May Bill, as summed up by (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

Gigantic Suit Develops —

Into a Racketeering RedBaiting Stunt During the past month, printed copies of the ridiculous $5,100,000 complaint filed in San Francisco by Ivan Francis Cox, charging that he lost his job as SecretaryTreasurer of the I. L. W. U. No. 1-10, be-— cause of a colossal, stupendous, gigantic red plot engaged in by more than 5000 defendants, have been circulated among “substantial citizens.’”” The pamphlet, consisting of 40 pages, does not reveal the publisher or printer. According to reliable reports, 5000 copies have been circulated, and the recipients have been solicited for funds to prosecute the case. Moreover, two familiar red-baiters are reported as prominent in the red-baiting stunt: Stanley J. Doyle, one-time Communist Party stool pigeon, professional red-baiter and one of the defense attorneys in the Santa Rosa tar and feather party prosecutions in October, 1986; and, Harper Knowles, San Francisco Legionnaire and head of the Subversive Activities Committee of the Legion. Incidental- ly, none of the five thousand defendants, the parties in interest, have been served with copies of the complaint which have. been so freely distributed to the general public.

Tom Mooney Asks Your Help

We urge our readers to respond to the following appeal for help received from Tom Mooney:

Through the energetic, consistent support of our many friends throughout the country and in Congress, a Sub-committee of the Judiciary in the House of Representatives has finally been appointed to conduct hearinbs on and consider the Murray-O’Connell Resolution. (Memorializes the Governor of California to pardon Tom Mooney.

May I once more indulge upon your good

nature and your sincere and expressed interest in our cause, and request you to write to the Congressman from your State who is on this Sub-committee? (Hon. JohnH. Tolan, House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C.). Please request them to conduct the hearings at once. Ask them to call me to Washington as a witness to testify in my own. behalf.

Last week, in an unprecedented, historymaking action, I was called to Sacramento and there [I told the story of the frame-up to the California Assembly, which later voted 41 to 39 to grant me an immediate legislative pardon, which Resolution, however, was tabled by the reactionary Senate. If this could be done in California, where I have been kept prisoner for twenty-two years and where the forces against me are strong and organized, it certainly can be done in the United States Congress, where we have a host of friends.

Please do everything in your power to have me called to Washington. Tell your Representative that I am ready to answer any and all questions and to prove my un- questioned innocence. Ask them for their reply, so that they will not equivocate on this matter. Ask them for immediate favorable action on the Murray-O’Connell Resolution.

Our fight is growing in strength with each passing day. It is very encouraging. For the first time in all these years, we see our struggle finally reaching the point of victory, and we must give that last final — push to secure our freedom and vindication.

Please write these letters at once, and get as many others as you can to do likewise. Send telegrams, if possible. Please advise our Committee of your action.

TOM MOONEY—31921.

C.C.C. DIRECTOR REFUSES TO RELAX FINGERPRINT RULE

Robert Fechner, director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, has refused to reinstate enrollee John W. Burke, discharged for refusing to give his fingerprints. “I see no reason for changing the requirement,” stated Mr. Fechner in response to a protest signed by Ernest Besig. Appeals in Mr. Burke’s behalf will now be directed to various Con gressmen.

Page 2

Let Freedom Ring

Tom Mooney Gets A Surprise

The only thing left unsaid about Mooney’s appearance before the California Assembly on March 10.is that Mooney himself was taken by surprise. Generally, Mooney knows every move that is taken or contemplated in his case. In this instance, however, Assemblyman Richie suddenly got the idea of having Mooney. subpoened, submitted it to Assemblyman Jack Tenney and this writer, and, within a few hours, the Assembly, also taken by surprise, granted its consent. Only then was Tom Mooney notified.

Mooney-Billings Buttons

Buttons carrying the inscription, ‘Free Mooney and Billings, Labor’s Martyrs,” and bearing the pictures of Mooney and Billings, may be secured at 10c each from the Tom Mooney Molders’ Defense Commit tee, P. O. Box 1475, San Francisco.

Communists Picket Nazi Consulate

Braving a drizzling rain, more than two hundred persons picketed the Nazi consu- late on Sansome St., San Francisco, on March 19, in. protest against the Nazi invasion of Austria. Picketing was under the auspices of the Communist Party. Police in uniform and plain clothes merely stood by as the endless chain of pickets, a block long, marched by the office building where the consulate is located.

The Picketers Picketed

The picketers were picketed on March 10 when four Trotskyites demonstrated in front of the Soviet consulate in San Francisco against the latest Moscow treason trials. Everything was peaceful, including the police.

Heil Hitler

The district delegates of the Sixth District of the American Legion, comprising Yolo, Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada and Placer counties, on February 28 adopted a resolution requesting the State Legion to appoint a committee to draft legislation making flag saluting compulsory in public schools.

A Red Republican

The month’s outstanding “red” is Dr. Glenn Frank, Chairman of the Republican Party’s committee on program. Pamphlets attacking Dr. Frank as a dangerous red were distributed at a recent Republican rally at the University of Nebraska at which he was the chief speaker. The pamphlet quoted from Elizabeth Dilling’s, ‘‘The Red Network.” Mrs. Dilling’s complaints against Glenn Frank are that he is a supporter of Tom Mooney, permitted free speech at the University of Wisconsin, bestowed an honorary degree on Harry F. Ward, Chairman of the Board of the A. C. L. U., and had a book on Russia by Maurice Hindus dedicated to him.

Harry Bridges

Hearings in the much-publicized deportation proceedings against Harry Bridges are scheduled for Monday, April 25, at the Customs House Bldg., San Francisco.

San Francisco Civie Auditorium

Denied To Communist Party

San Francisco, like Boston, now has an official censor. Joseph J. Phillips, Director of Property, appointed himself to the office on February 238 when he denied the appli- cation of the Communist Party to use Polk or Larkin Hall in the Civic Auditorium for an election campaign meeting. Mr. Phillips’ flat refusal to allow the Communist Party to use public property for a public meeting apparently goes farther than this specific application, for in his letter to Frank Spector, County Organizer of the Communist Party, he pontifically concluded, “You are ... advised that neither Polk or Larkin or the main hall are available for your organization.”’

The basis advanced for reversing previous policy and excluding Communist meetings from the Civic Auditorium from now on is Mr. Phillips’ opinion of the Communist Party resulting from his recent reading of the record in the Sacramento Criminal Syndicalism case. Quoting extracts from literature introduced in that trial, in which, incidentally, the verdict was afterward upset by the State Supreme Court, the letter states, ‘Leaving aside the fact that persons not in sympathy with your statements as reported by our District Court of Appeal might use unauthorized force to prevent the meeting, and thereby do damage to municipal property under my control, I am of the opinion that any party or association who subscribes to the principles set forth in these statements should not be permitted to make use of Governmental property for the purpose of spreading those principles or of building up the organization which attempts to do so.”’

Violates Freedom of Speech and Assembly

The A.C.L.U. charged Mr. Phillips with direct violation of freedom of speech and assembly in the following letter directed to his office:

“... Under our Federal and State Constitutions freedom of speech and assembly may not be abridged. If those rights are abused, the ABUSES may be dealt with, but the RIGHTS may not be disturbed.

“In the recent De Jonge case (de Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353), the United States

Supreme Court made complete answer to the very reasons which you advance for denying the applicants the use of public property. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Hughes stated:

‘If the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, if they have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violation of valid laws.

‘But it is a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the basis for a criminal charge,’”’ or, in this case, as the basis for denying a group equal use of public property.

“We believe your duty is plain. The applicants should be permitted the use of the public property which they have had heretofore. If any of their utterances or acts violate the law, you may file a complaint with the District Attorney or Grand jury.

“The City Charter does not establish you as a censor, and we strongly protest as- sumption of such dictatorial power by you. We call upon you to revoke your previous decision and to grant the applicants the use of the Civic Auditorium without further delay.”

Court Action Taken On March 12, the Communist Party, having failed to secure a reversal of Mr. Phillips’ order, filed suit in the Superior Court for a writ of mandate ordering Mr. Phillips to lease the Civic Auditorium to the Communist Party for Sunday, March 27. Arguments on the application for the writ were heard by Superior Judge C. J. Goodell on March 24 and the case taken under submission.

A new case may be filed in the near future in order to secure a final determina— tion of the issue. In the instant case, no final determination can be obtained because the issue will be academic by the time it reaches an appellate court or is heard on the merits.

Revolution?

The red-baiting Associated Farmers, who forever rant against the force and violence allegedly advocated by “Communists,” have themselves come out in favor of that abhorrent doctrine. A dispatch from Phoenix, Arizona, states that the Associated Farmers of Maricopa County pledged themselves 1000 strong to “take up arms, if necessary,” to aid the city and county in “suppressing a labor war of terror and possible bloodshed.’”? Communists would not have to say anything as violent as that to be charged with criminal syndicalism.

“LABOR ON THE MARCH” RADIO PROGRAM CENSORED BY STATION

San Francisco’s censorship radio station is busy again at its self-appointed task. On March 4, Station KGGC rejected the script presented by “Labor on the March,” a program of news sponsored by two I. L. W. U. unions and heard from Monday to Friday every week at 6:30 o’clock in the evening. The proposed program was an interview with A. F. Gaynor, State Chairman of Labor’s Non-Partisan League, concerning the purposes of that organization. The management first objected on the ground that the program was political, but that excuse fell flat because the Station accepts other political programs, and, under the law it may not discriminate against any other political programs. Then, the management discovered that for some reason the program was unacceptable in the form submitted, but finally decided that the program constituted an attempt to assign radio time. Censorship always does have a difficult time justifying itself when exposed to public view.

EMBASSY NO-PICKETING BILL SIGNED BY PRESIDENT

Over-riding vigorous opposition from the Civil Liberties Union and other liberal groups, President Roosevelt late last week quietly signed the Pittman-McReynolds bill banning demonstrations before foreign embassies in Washington. The bill, spon sored by the State Department at the re‘quest of diplomats of Fascist countries, prohibits picketing without a police permit within five hundred feet of all embassies,

thus ending all effective public protests to foreign ministers. The bill was passed by the House when the liberal bloc was absent conferring with the President.

A memorandum, prepared by Arthur Garfield Hays, Union counsel, in cooperation with the International Juridical Association, charged that the bill violates the First Amendment in infringing upon freedom of speech and assembly and of the Fifth Amendment, in denying due process of law. “Such legislation typifies dictatorships,” the Union contended.

A.C.L.U. REQUESTS INVESTIGATION OF POLICE BRUTALITY CHARGE

The A.C.L.U. has requested the San Francisco Police Commission to investigate charges of police brutality against motorcycle officer Roy Lloyd. On February 25, Officer Lloyd arrested one George Jordan, a drunk, who had alleged stolen property in his possession. According to the testimony of eye-witnesses, Jordan did not resist arrest, but the officer nevertheless clubbed him. The Police Commission has referred the matter to the Chief of Police for “‘a thorough investigation and report.”

Page 3

Statement On the Case of Fred E. Beal

When Fred E. Beal and his associates in the National Textile Workers Union, which led the Gastonia strike of 1929, were convicted of murder of the Chief of Police of Gastonia, the Civil Liberties Union offered to carry their appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. It did so on the ground that the convictions were based not upon any evidence of conspiracy to commit murder, but upon the political views and working class activities of the defendants. The Civil Liberties Union engaged former United States Senator Thomas W. Hardwick of Georgia to argue the appeal in the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Union took full and sole responsibility for the presentation of the case.

While the appeal was pending, the defendants jumped bail and went to the Soviet Union. The Civil Liberties Union condemned the bail jumping. It made unsuccessful efforts to get the defendants back before bail was sacrificed. The money lost by bail jumping did not come from the funds of the American Civil Liberties Union, but from the American Fund for Public Service, which had guaranteed the bail bonds.

One of the defendants, K. Y. Hendricks, returned to the United States some time later, was apprehended in New York, and taken to North Carolina where he served the minimum portion of his term, and was released on parole. The Union made efforts through North Carolina friends to secure his parole.

Fred E. Beal, who has just been apprehended in Massachusetts and has entered prison in North Carolina, is in precisely the same position as Hendricks, and the Union will lend its assistance to effect his release. The Union did not participate in the attempt to resist extradition from Massachusetts, believing that no issue of civil liberties was involved in that proceeding. The convictions of all the men were wholly unjustified; they involved issues of political opinion and labor activities; they therefore challenged the intervention of the Civil Liberties Union. No consideration of bail jumping or of subsequent conduct of the defendants affects the primary issue of their innocence of the charge of murder.

A special defense committee has been formed to aid Beal and for that reason the Civil Liberties Union will not take the initiative in organizing the movement for his release. The Union has offered its services to the attorneys for that committee.

PENDING LEGISLATION AVERTED LYNCHINGS THIS YEAR, SAYS WAGNER

That not a single lynching has occurred thus far this year may be attributed to the drive for anti-lynching legislation, Senator Robert F. Wagner of New York has pointed out in a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union assuring supporters of the Wag- ner-Van Nuys bill that it will be pushed for a vote at this session of Congress. “Although the anti-lynching bill has been displaced for the time being,” Senator Wag- ner wrote, “‘you can be assured that I intend to continue to exert every effort until this bill has been enacted into law at this session of Congress. In the meantime, we may rejoice in the fact that not a single lynching has occurred thus far this year, and several have been averted because of the mere pendency of the anti-lynching bill.”

It is with regret that we record the death of Asa Allan Clark, member of the Execu- tive Committee of the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U. since 1934. Mr. Clark passed away on March 9 after having been confined to his bed with heart trouble for the previous seven months. In 1936, Allan Clark was Director of the Workers Summer School at the University of California, and for the past fifteen years he had been interested and active in promoting workers and adult education, and in the growth of consumers cooperatives.

Thumbs Down On Fingerprinting By Motor Vehicle Department

Responding to pressure from the Civil Liberties Union, labor unions and other groups, Ray Ingels, director of the State Motor Vehicle Department, has posted printed signs in branch offices notifying applicants for drivers’ and chauffeurs’ licenses that thumb prints are voluntary.

Since “voluntary” thumb printing is often compulsory or a prelude to compulsory fingerprinting, the A.C.L.U. sponsored a resolution, introduced by Assemblyman . Cecil King at the special session of the State Legislature, condemning “the procedure by the Department of Motor Vehicles of taking thumb prints of applicants for drivers’ and chauffeurs’ licenses,” and requesting the Governor and Ray Ingels to abate the practice. The resolution was not brought to a vote.

Vandeleur Opposes Labor

The San Francisco Labor Council as well as the C.LO. councils in San Francisco and . Los Angeles, not to speak of numerous unions, had previously gone on record against such fingerprinting. Repudiating this action, dictatorial Edward D. Vandeleur, Sec- retary of the State Federation of Labor, played the game of the reactionaries by al- lowing his picture to appear in the Sacramento Union during the special session having his thumb print recorded. Coincidently he announced that, “The federation last year opposed compulsory fingerprinting but has no objections whatever to voluntary fingerprinting being taken by the Department of Motor Vehicles. I was glad to have my thumb print recorded and asked it be taken when I applied for a renewal of my driving license.’’

The distinction between voluntary and compulsory fingerprinting made by Mr. Vandeleur is not very clear in practice. ““Voluntary fingerprinting,’ says the A.C.L.U. in a recent pamphlet against fingerprinting, “is a deceptive phrase. Pressure for fingerprinting may be subtle, but when an employer requests fingerprints, most employees feel it wiser to acquiesce. When sufficient numbers have been fingerprinted on a ‘voluntary’ basis, laws will be passed compelling the entire populace to be registered.”

“Voluntary” Fingerprinting Is Compulsory

The compulsory nature of “voluntary” fingerprinting is illustrated by a recent oc- currence in San Francisco. The Civil Service Commission requested the Police De- partment to co-operate in fingerprinting future municipal employees. Opposition by the San Francisco Labor Council, however, resulted in the fingerprinting being made “voluntary.” In answer to objections by Supervisor George R. Reilly, Asst. Secy. Wm. L. Henderson explained that “persons certified to permanent positions shall be given the opportunity to submit voluntarily to fingerprinting. A person whose record is clear will not object to such procedure. A person who objects to such procedure must have some reason for his objections.” And, as Commissioner Milton S. Maxwell stated, ‘‘That’s when we’ll start investigating.’’ In other words, voluntary fingerprinting is compulsory. In the meantime, the Commission has written to J. Edgar Hoover asking his blessing on the fingerprinting scheme.

Fingerprinting of students is also making

some progress in California. On March 10 the Sacramento Union reported that the student body president of the high school had named a committee to handle fingerprinting “to be done in the near future.’ Familiar Arguments Answered Answering familiar arguments raised in favor of universal fingerprinting, the A.C.L.U. pamphlet contends that the practice will not decrease crime, pointing out that “the rate of criminality in England and France is far below that of the United States, although these countries have no universal system of fingerprinting.” The “amnesia gag’’ is disposed of with the statement that ‘‘the number of real amnesia sufferers is far too tiny to interest the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the National | Manufacturers’ Association.” Admitting that fingerprinting has a certain value in identifying the dead, it is shown that the total number of unidentified dead is infinitesimal and “certainly does not. justify a measure so portentous as the regimenting of 130,000,000 Americans.”

The Evils of Fingerprinting

On the other hand, the arguments against : fingerprinting are numerous:

It provides the basis for a labor blacklist. It offers employers an easy means of con- trol over and intimidation of their employees, It would curb severely the free movement of citizens—a right in which Americans have always taken justifiable pride. It would introduce a passport-registration system such as has been used with disastrous effects on freedom in several European and South American countries. It is intended as a whip for the persecu tion of aliens. It subjects the whole populace to police surveillance. It places minority movements too clogsely under the supervision of local authorities. Repressive measures would be more easily enforced. It constitutes a direct violation of the freedom of the individual’s anonymity, places all his activities under central’ scrutiny. It opens unlimited possibilities for frameup and blackmail. It opens the way for search without warrant, and denial of habeas corpus.

Legitimate Fingerprinting

There is no objection to fingerprinting when restricted to its legitimate uses— namely, in the cases of persons convicted | of crimes whose records the police may ‘properly keep; and those whose fingerprints are an essential means of identifica- tion in occupations licensed by public authorities.

The Status of Mooney’s Case Before the Supreme Court

'Tom Mooney’s brief in support of a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed with the United States Supreme Court on March 15, and the State of California now has until April 15 in which to file a reply brief. All the high-sounding writ of certiorari would do is to bring the record of the entire proceedings on Mooney’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court. Once the State’s brief is filed, the Court will decide whether the voluminous record, which is in typewritten form, must -be printed at a cost of thousands of dollars which Tom Mooney does not have. After — that hurdle is cleared, the Court will decide whether there should be oral arguments, and finally whether the writ of certiorari will issue. If the writ is denied, the case is ended. If the writ is granted, the Court will then consider the case on its merits and a final decision, according to the Mooney Committee, should be forthcoming before it adjourns on June 6th.

Police Brutality

Charges of brutality filed against Chris E. Maze, operator of a private detective agency in Pittsburg, will be heard by the State Board of Prison Directors on April 22nd at 2 P. M., in Room 9, Ferry Bldg., San Francisco. Workers in Pittsburg have made repeated complaints that Maze “has without provocation, attacked with his club citizens of Pittsburg and members of the steel workers union.” The Board has power to revoke Maze’s license. The A. C. L. U. is appearing on behalf of the complainants.

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly. at 216 Pine St, San Francisco, Calif., byF the Northern California Branch . of The American Civil Liberties Union.

Phone: BEXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG Kditor PAULINE W. DAVIBG................0..:-.....Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

War-Time Dictatorship

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

Elmer Davis in this month’s HARPERS, ‘“‘gives the President control of business, industry, finance, labor,—control far more drastic than we have ever known. He may fix -wages and prices, regulate production, take over private property ; censor the press (indirectly but effectively), suspend enumerated laws if he chooses. He can further draft as many men as he sees fit—leaving them at work in factories if they are more useful there, but sending them to the trenches if they strike or even complain, however justifiably.”

Complete Lack of Civil Liberties

This country, like dictator states, would be characterized by a complete lack of civil liberties. Under Section 1 giving the President the right to fix wages in violation of any collective bargaining agreement, strikes necessarily become illegal; unions to protect wages and working conditions are superfluous, and it may well be that if they did not ‘disappear the President, under Section 3 of the Act, might disband them under his power to control “industrial organizations.’”’ The indirect but effective abridgment of freedom of the press has already been mentioned. By one device or another the publication of newspapers, books, the production of motion pictures and radio programs would all be subject to heavy government censorship. All who protested would be silenced by the penalty provisions of the Act.

Clearly the May Bill, which has been promoted under the slogan “draft Capital as well as man-power,” not only does no such thing, but its enactment would lead directly to the creation of a totalitarian state. It does not ‘equalize the burdens of war; rather, it reduces American citizens to a slavery fitly represented by an impotent Congress which has surrendered its constitutional powers to a dictator.

A.C.L.U. Protests

Both the New York and the Northern California Civil Liberties Committees have urged the members of the House Military. Affairs Committee and the Rules Committee to use all their influence to secure the defeat of the May Bill. The New York office characterized the measure as “a deliberate affront both to American tradition and to the capacity of the American people to retain a large degree of their democracy even in war-time,” and pointed out that no such proposals for “the complete extinction of civil liberty’? had ever been made in advance of war. The letter of Ernest Besig, local Director, concluded “We appreciate that extraordinary powers must necessarily be vested in the President in time of war, but we protest ... the junking of the Bill of Rights and the freedom of labor and capital alike. Nothing like it has ever been tolerated in this country before, and no excuse is sufficient to justify it now. We are unalterably opposed to the May Bill and others patterned like it.”

N. J. SEEKS TO FINGERPRINT ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN

The Durand bill requiring the fingerprinting of all public school children in New Jersey, which recently passed the State Senate and is now before the State Assembly Committee on Miscellaneous Business, was attacked by the New Jersey Civil Liberties Committee this week as “a serious threat to democratic institutions” in a letter sent to members of the Assembly Committee. If enacted, the law would be the first of its kind in the country.

PICKETING ... A Form Of Free Speech

Picketing takes many forms, both in and out of the labor movement. A parish priest pickets a moving picture theatre at which a Mae West film is being shown. Housewives picket stores protesting the cost of milk. Tenants picket landlords, protesting higher rents. The American League for Peace and’ Democracy pickets a theatre advertising a Fascist film. Catholics picket the convention of the American League for Peace and Democracy as ‘‘Communist.”’ The League of Women Shoppers pickets a store selling Japanese silk. A city official pickets pickets as a protest against all picketing!

All of this picketing is conducted by persons walking up and down on sidewalks carrying placards or speaking to persons, py urging support of what the pickets stand

Nobody questions the right to advocate in speech or print such action as our examples suggest. But sharp questions are raised as to the right to occupy a place on a sidewalk to do so. The right to use the highways and sidewalks for travel is fundamental. Pickets peacefully walking up and down on a highway or sidewalk seem to interfere with this fundamental right. In the minds of laymen and courts alike this conception is common. So too is a conception that legal distinctions should be made on the basis of the objects of the picketing, particularly in labor cases.

As far as constitutional principles are concerned, there is no difference between picketing in labor and other cases. The sharp limitation put by some courts on the right to picket by allowing picketing only where strikes exist finds no warrant in con- stitutional law. Whether employes picket because of a strike, a lock-out, or because they desire to unionize a plant, does not alter the fundamental nature of picketing. It still remains a form of free speech.

Much of the confusion in recognizing picketing for what it really is, is due to two factors not present in the ordinary free speech case. First, picketing often causes a direct injury to the person picketed; second, picketing involves the use of side- walks by pickets.

Courts have designated the injury to the person picketed as an injury which is not actionable at law. No legal rights are interfered with. The person picketed may employ whom he pleases or sell the products to which the pickets object. Patrons have the right to cease their patronage. The pickets merely inform patrons: of their view of conditions.

Neither the relative merits of the controversy nor the wisdom of picketing in any particular case should affect the fundamental right of expression. If, however, the signs or language used by pickets are fraudulent or libelous, the picketing is subject to control by law.

Picketing may further be properly controlled in the interest of the use of the highway for travel and for access to establishments. This is a problem of policing.

In regulating picketing the duty of the police and courts is not to banish pickets, but to create sufficient ‘passageway for travel. At some places twenty pickets may be too many, at others several hundred may not be excessive.

In support of these views on picketing, the United States Supreme Court has recently ruled in a labor case that there is nothing inherently objectionable in peaceful picketing, ‘provided it is done without intimidation or coercion and free from fraud, violence, or breach of the peace.

The Court significantly stated that: “There is nothing in the Federal Constitution which forbids unions from competing with non-union concerns for customers by means of picketing as freely as one merchant competes with another merchant by means of advertisements in the press, by circulars or by his window displays.”

The Court further intimated that picketing is a form of “free speech guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.”

In an exhaustive opinion on picketing in a non-labor case a Pennsylvania court has recently expressed itself in similar fashion. The Court said:

‘Moreover, it should be remembered that present in this case there is a question of free speech, a question ignored too often in the decision of picket cases. Essentially, picketing has become a publicity medium designed to advise the public of the existence of a controversy between those picketing and the one picketed.”

The American Civil Liberties Union supports the right to picket in any circum- stances, by any method, in any numbers, with the limitations only that such picketing shall not be accompanied by fraud, violence or actual obstruction of streets or highways.

(The above statement on the right of picketing was adopted by the Board of Directors of the A.C.L.U., February 14, 1938.)

GOV. LEHMAN URGED TO VETO RED-BAITING BILL

Patrioteer groups who have been demanding the removal of Simon W. Gerson, a Com- munist appointed by Manhattan borough President Stanley Isaacs as his chief examiner, successfully jammed through the McNaboe-Davany Bill in the adjournment rush of the New York State Legislature. The bill provides that no person shall occupy a classified State or City position, or be employed as a teacher in any school or college who advocates, advises or teaches, orally or in writing, the overthrow of the government, by force or violence... or by any unlawful means,”’ or who ‘‘justifies’”’ violence against any executive officer of the United States “or any civilized nation.” Under the last provision, advocacy of the forceful overthrow of Hitler, Mussolini, or General Trujillo by any civil service employee or teacher in the State of New York would constitute ‘criminal anarchy,’ — and grounds for dismissal from his job. The measure further defines both communism and criminal anarchy as “‘advocating overthrow of the government by force or violence,” and bars from positions those who “organize or help to organize or become members, or voluntarily assemble” with persons advocating “criminal anarchy or communism.”’

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS FREEDOM OF PRESS IN LEAFLET DISTRIBUTION CASE

Freedom of the press was upheld in a decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court on March 28. The case arose over the arrest of a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious society for distributing a religious pamphlet without a permit, as required by an ordinance of the city of Griffin, Georgia. Supporting the appeal, the A.C.L.U. appeared as amicus curiae, friend of the court, filing a brief signed by Francis Biddle of Philadelphia, Lloyd K. Garrison, Dean of the University of Wisconsin .Law School and Osmond K. Fraenkel.

In holding the ordinance ‘invalid on its face,” the Court held that “Legislation of the type of the ordinance in question would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form.

“The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It neces- sarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest.”