vol. 3, no. 6

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JUNE, 1938 No. 6

RED-BAITER FACES ARREST

Stanley M. Doyle Cited ‘To Appear Before S. F. District Attorney

Stanley M. Doyle, professional red-baiter, must appear be fore Joseph O’Connor, Chief Deputy District Attorney of San Francisco, to show cause why a warrant for his arrest should not be issued on the complaint of Ernest Besig, Northern California Director of the A.C.L.U. Mr Doyle is accused of seizing Mr. Besig’s motion picture camera, destroying the films, and attacking a San Francisco News cameraman at a demonstration before the German Consulate on April 28. Since Mr. Doyle’s present whereabouts are unknown, the citation has been placed in the hands of the police for service.

The present citation was issued after Dep-. uty District Attorney Paul Madden refused to issue a warrant of arrest following a hearing on a similar citation. It was refused on the ground that “an individual has certain rights of privacy and can use reason- able force to defend these rights.” Since the incident occurred on‘a public street while Mr. Doyle was watching a public demonstration, Mr. Madden’s decision came in for serious criticism, particularly from the San Francisco News. “If Mr. Brady wishes to encourage this sort of thing in San Francisco,’ said the News, “he has, through his assistant, gone about it the right way.”

The original citation was served upon Mr. Doyle when he’appeared at the office

PROFESSIONAL RED-BAITER Stanley M. (Larry) Doyle

of the A.C.L.U. in order to purchase five copies of the May issue of the News. Mr. Besig not only sold the papers, but served the citation as well.

On the return day, May 18, Mr. Doyle again made threats against a private cameraman who was present in the Bond and -Warrant Clerk’s office on a picture-taking mission. Sidling up to the photographer he whispered, ‘‘What are your instructions if someone wrecks your camera?’ The latter responded, “I have no instructions; but no one is going to wreck my camera.” Ob-. serving a Legion button on the photographer’s lapel, Mr. Doyle fished out a Legion membership card from a stack of cards in his pocket and showed it to the cameraman. Uning.ressed and undeterred, the photogra“puer Still wanted lo lake tie picture, but Doyle warned, “I wouldn’t if I were you. I wrecked a camera last week.’’ Nevertheless, as Mr. Doyle left the Bond and Warrant Clerk’s office, the photographer took a flashlight picture and sped away unharmed, despite a lookout that had been posted by Doyle.

At the hearing, Mr. Doyle explained his camera shyness by charging that there have been efforts to “‘get’’ him ever since he was special prosecutor in a Communist trial in Portland in 1935. He claims he is fearful that if his picture is circulated a Communist or Bridges’ beef squad will attack him. At first, he denied touching Mr. Besig’s cam- era and placed the blame on an unidentified companion, but changed his mind after he was shown a picture in which he is seen extracting the film from the camera. Moreover, a witness testified she had seen Doyle take the camera from Mr. Besig.

News of the Mooney Case

A House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on May 17 voted to report favorably to the full committee the Murray -O’Connell Resolution memorializing Governor Merriam to pardon Tom Mooney and calling upon President Roosevelt to use his good offices in obtaining Mooney a pardon. A Senate Judiciary Subcommittee reported favorably on the same resolution some time ago, with action expected from the full committee in the near future. In the meantime, Senator Hiram Johnson has failed to deny charges that he has four times stalled the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of the — Mooney Resolution by requesting to be heard and then failing to appear. On the Supreme Court front, the Mooney supporters expect any day now a decision whether or not the court will hear an appeal.

Who Is Stanley M. (Larry) Doyle?

Stanley M. Doyle, usually called “Larry’’ Doyle, professional red-baiter, is a resi- dent of Oregon and an attorney at law. He claims service in the air corps during the last war, at the age of nineteen, and was wounded in action.

Mr. Doyle was a Portland, Oregon, member of the Communist Party, as a stoolpigeon, in 1934.

Claiming to represent the American — Legion, Doyle served as special prosecutor, without pay, in the Dirk DeJonge criminal syndicalism case, in Portland, Oregon, in 1934. The conviction was reversed by the U.S Supreme Court in Jannary, 1937. Two dissenting judges in the State Supreme Court had this to say concerning Mr. Doyle: “Appellant also complains about the alleged misconduct of counsel for the state in his final argument to the jury .... the following portion of the argument is noted. ‘I will tell you the type of man this DeJonge is. And, I will tell you further than that, each and every one of this jury, if these were war times, there wouldn’t be a trial here at all; I wouldn’t be able to hold down the sentiment that has accumulated as a result of this man’s dangerous activities.’ Such argument was highly improper and prejudicial to the rights of the defendant. It was an appeal to passion and prejudice. Any reference to what a mob might do in dealing with the defendant, under any circumstances, is beyond the pale of legitimate argument, even making due allowance for the zeal of counsel.”’

In 1936 Mr. Doyle was one of the defense attorneys in the prosecution against the Santa Rosa tar and feather party vigilantes. Mr. Doyle was compelled to withdraw as counsel when the court discovered he was not a member of the California bar.

Mr. Doyle is credited with planting a dictaphone in Harry Bridges’ hotel room in Portland, Oregon, in June, 1937.

Doyle claims he is admitted to practice law in several states, and that he at one time resided in Butte, Montana and Chicago, Illinois.

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS

If you have made a monthly pledge, please accept this notice that another | installment is due. IF YOU EXPECT TO BE ABSENT DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS, won’t you please help us to negotiate that difficult period by paying your pledge in advance.

Page 2

A.C. L. U. Bill To Curb “Private Armies” Introduced In Congress

Curbing of foreign and native ‘‘fascist activities’ in the United States which may lead to violence is sought in a bill sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union and introduced in the House by Rep. Hamilton Fish of New York on May 6. The measure would prohibit formation of ‘‘private military forces other than official veteran and similar organizations.

Broad in scope, the bill defines ‘“‘private military forces” as five or more persons “‘organized as in a camp, club, company, society or any other fashion for the purpose of drill or parade with firearms or other dangerous weapons or imitations ... or for the purpose of military training.” Penalties for violation of the act would be a maximum fine of $500 and six months imprisonment.

As stated in the bill, the legislation is predicated on the fact that “the formation of private military forces in the United States leads to violence or the preparation for violence between such forces and persons or groups holding different opinions or with the civil authorities, or to interference with the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution; and the existence of such private military forces has the necessary effect of infringing upon the exclusive control by Congress over the armed forces of the United States.”

The Civil Liberties Union prepared the legislation following a survey last January of restraints upon fascist activities in European democracies. The Union, at the time, — dismissed. as ‘‘indefensible”’ all proposals for restraining fascist activities —other than that of curbing “private armies’’—which have been adopted abroad. “To go further,”’ the Union contended, ‘“‘would endanger the civil liberties of others.”

Letters in support of the bill should be sent promptly to the author, Hon. Hamilton Fish, House Office Building, Washington, and to the Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, Hon. Andrew J. May, House Office Building, Washington.

Extra! Los Angeles Gives Birth To “Anti-Alien League of Americans”

Los Angeles has given birth to an “Anti. Alien League of Americans.’ Leo V. Young- worth, Los Angeles attorney and one-time candidate for United States Senator, filed the organization’s incorporation papers with the Secretary of State on May 4.

The “League” stands upon a fourteenpoint anti-alien program. In the long run, it seeks the enactment of a Constitutional amendment forbidding aliens to engage in “any business activities whatsoever,’’ and the “curtailment of all immigration into this country of ours.” In the meantime, however, it is satisfied ‘‘to demand immediate deportation of all undesirable aliens’ and the elimination ‘‘from our midst of some four million aliens, more or less, by the year 1940” by requiring ‘‘that citizenship be made mandatory within two years of cnr into America.”’

The “League” intends “‘to protect and defend the lives and homes of all loyal Ameri- can citizens from alien enemies and. their “encroachments;’’ against any subversive alien activities or infringement whatsoever ;”’ aliens, first, by establishing “research activities whereby to catalog aliens,” and,. second, by inaugurating a “civilian intelligence corps.’

Withal, the ‘‘League’’ would “protect and defend American labor... from unwarranted competition with alien labor,’ and “oppose all and sundry forms of dictatorship and/or oppression.”

We are sure that with such a program the ‘‘League’’ will receive the hearty endorse- ment of every Fascist organization in the United States and to keep a close check on all.

Justice, Law And Order im Nevada County

Five CIO miners are now on trial in Nevada County, charged with ‘rioting’ at the Murchie Mine on January 20. The men, Henry Yuen, Pete Zederich, Jim Vassion, Ed Circle and Roy Staten are being tried in an atmosphere of prejudice and pre-determined guilt. The among the CIO miners who struck the Murchie on January 13, after months of anti-union activity and discriminatory discharges of CIO men by the mine operators The miners maintained a successful picket line until January 20, when the Sheriff of Nevada County, some thirty of his armed deputies, and about twenty State Highway patrolmen, using tear gas, riot guns, and billies, escorted strikebreakers through the picket line.

Defendants Active On Picket Line

Having been beaten and gassed by the forces of “law and order,” the five miners listed above were picked out for arrest and prosecution, because they had been particularly active on the picket line. The case came on for trial on May 17. In the meantime, a reign of vigilante terror swept Nevada County, sponsored by the mine operators who enlisted the sheriff, police forces of Nevada County, imported strikebreakers and thugs, and a ‘‘citizen’s’ movement, to drive the CIO from the county. On April 4, deputies tore down the picket tent. On April 5, a gang of 400 vigilantes attacked the picket line of 70 men. Using clubs, and possessing various other weapons, the vigilantes attacked and clubbed the pickets and dispersed them. Deputies stood by and watched, and later aided in.the hunt to drive union men out of the county.

Lawless Police

The night of April 5, the union halkwas raided and ransacked and furniture, records and equipment destroyed. The following morning, deputies fired tear gas into the hall and forced about 15 union men to come out into the street and marched them to the county jail, where the union men were booked. No warrants were issued for the arrest of the men; no charges were levied against them; no bail fixed; they were not taken before a committing magistrate; they were denied counsel, and held incommunicado for twenty hours. That afternoon a mob of 400 men surrounded the county jail yelling for the blood of the strikers inside... That night the sheriff and highway patrolmen “‘es- corted”’ the union men out of the county. During the following week, a systematic campaign continued to drive all CIO members and sympathizers from the county. Only when the unionists got to Sacramento and enlisted the aid of the Labor’s NonPartisan League, the CIO Council, the International Labor Defense and other organizations did the situation improve. Governor Merriam was finally forced to appoint a five-man commission which found that “law and order had broken down in Nevada County.”

‘Change of Venue Denied

It is in this locality of undenied animosity toward the CIO, that the five men are trying to get a fair trial. Twice Judge Ragland Tuttle has denied the motions of Defense Counsel George R. Andersen and Herbert Resner for a change of venue, even though it is apparent that the defendants have no chance for a fair trial in the county.

More than two hundred jurors were examined before a jury was obtained. More than half of the prospective jurors admitted they had such bias and opinion that evidence would not remove it The jury finally obtained contains people with opinions who claim they can “set these opinions aside.” Judge Tuttle is acting as prosecutor as well as judge, “taking away the witnesses” from defense counsel when prosecution witnesses have been pressed into embarrassing positions.

defendants were —

Thus far, the prosecution has put on a case which is contradictory in many parts, and the evidence of “riot” against the defendants is ridiculous. No fair court would have permitted the trial to proceed this far. But justice in Nevada County is only a word. The case should continue two weeks more from the time this is written, and California seems well on its way toward having another of the labor frameups for which it is notorious. (The above story was written by one of the participants in the trial.)

ACLU. Protests ‘Patriotic’ Ouster of Bund President

SAN FRANCISCO, May 30.—The American Civil Liberties Union today challenged the statement of ‘‘officials’ of the Franklin Hospital that in discharging Henry Lage, local President of the ‘““Bund,”’ it was acting in the interests of Americanism. In an open letter to the President of the San Francisco | Bank, which controls the hospital, Ernest Sesig, Northern California Director of the Union declared the “discharge is not only contrary to the traditional concept of Americanism but is typical of the very Nazism the bank and its agents oppose.”’ The letter follows:

According to press reports, Henry Lage, President of the local German-American Bund, was dismissed from his job as carpenter at the Franklin Hospital solely because of his affiliation with the Bund. We understand that there was no dissatisfaction with, the character of his work or his conduct on the job It was merely a question of Mr. Lage quitting the Bund or his job. He chose the latter course, whereupon ‘‘officials” of the hospital were quoted in the press as saying that “the hospital is an American organ| ization, and we can’t tolerate such affiliation.” That statement has not been denied.

We do not question the right of the bank as a private institution to employ whomever it pleases. But we do challenge the public declaration of its agents that it is acting in the interests of Americanism in discharging Mr. Lage. To our mind, his discharge is not only contrary to the traditional concept of Americanism but is typical of the very Naz- ism the bank and its agents oppose.

We would remind you that since Hitler came to power in Germany thousands of | Jews have lost their public and private em| ployment solely because they were Jews. There is no difference in principle between your own acts and those of the Nazis in Germany. In Germany, a man’s livelihood is taken away from him because he is a Jew, while in this country Mr. Lage loses his job because he is a member of the Bund.

We hold no brief for the Bund and we share the general revulsion of feeling against its appeals to bigotry and intolerance. We do contend for the freedom of opinion and association guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The liberties granted under the Constitution may be enjoyed by ALL persons, even the most hated minorities in our midst. If you would preserve and defend the heritage of a democratic people, it is incumbent upon you to tolerate the opinions and associations of the Mr. Lages in the community. That is Americanism.

VICTIMS OF CHICAGO MEMORIAL DAY MASSACRE SUE POLICE

Four suits against the Republic Steel Corporation totaling $260,000 for injuries suf- fered in the Chicago police massacre last Memorial Day have been filed in Common Pleas Court, and 24 additional suits will be brought, bringing total damages sought to $800,000.

The Chicago Civil Liberties Committee is filing two suits against the City of Chicago in behalf of Raymond Hardin and Clyde Paschen, wounded by police in the steel strike riot.

State Supreme Court Hears Flag Salute Appeal

Arguments on the appeal taken by the Sacramento School Board in the “Gabrielli Flag Salute Case’? were heard by the California Supreme Court on May 5 and the matter taken under submission. Under the law, the court must render its decision no later than June 30.

In all liklihood, any decision will be by a divided court. This was indicated by the questions of the Justices. For example, Justice Edmonds asked, ““‘What has the saluting of our flag got to do with re-. ligion?’”’ For the benefit of our readers, we might say that the best answer ‘we know to that question is contained in the opinion of U. S. District Judge Albert B. Maris in a similar case in Pennsylvania, where he declared that ‘‘... the individual concerned must be the judge of the validity of his own religious beliefs. Liberty of conscience means liberty for each individual to decide for himself what is to him religious. If an individual sincerely bases his acts or refusals to act on religious grounds they must be accepted as such and may only be interfered with if it becomes necessary to do so in connection with the exercise of the police power, that is, if it appears that the public safety, health or morals or property or personal rights will be prejudiced. by them. To permit public officers to determine whether the views of individuals sincerely held and their acts sincerely undertaken on religious grounds are in fact based on convictions religious in character would be to sound the death knell of religious liberty.”

Justice Seawell indicated by his questions that as far as he is concerned saluting the flag might well be construed to be a religious act. ‘Suppose,’ said he, ‘ had to kneel when saluting the flag? The District Attorney agreed that that might be objectionable.

Congressional Probe Of “Un-American” Activities Assailed

Opposition to a resolution in the House introduced by Rep. Martin Dies of Texas providing for a special committee to investigate “unAmerican propaganda activities” in the United States, was urged upon progressive members of Congress recently by the Civil Liberties Union. The measure (H. ‘R. 282) was approved by the House Rules . Committee without a public hearing and may be called up at any time.

A letter to liberal members of the House signed by Harry F. Ward, Union chairman, and Arthur Garfield Hays, counsel, held that the investigation is ‘“‘wholly unnecessary.”

“The best evidence to that effect,” the Union wrote, “is the futility of the two simi- lar investigations conducted by a House Committee. They did not reveal any facts not generally known. The legislation proposed was so impractical that it was never adopted. The statutes are already entirely sufficient to meet any threat to our form of government. Such additional legislation as may be necessary is already before the Congress —the bill introduced by Hon. Hamilton Fish, H. R. 10553, prohibiting private military training, and the bill for the protection of civil rights, H. R. 2889, intro- duced by Hon. Maury Maverick.”

The bill forbidding private military training was introduced recently under the spon- sorship of the Civil Liberties Union. It would outlaw groups of five or more persons “‘organized as in a camp, club, company, society or any other fashion for the purpose of drill or parade with firearms or other dangerous weapons... or for the purpose of military training.”’

NOTE: The Dies esc lution. creating a seven-member committee, was adopted by the House on May 26, after “two hours of wild debate.”

‘you,

‘Page 3°

“Women Of The Pacific” Stoop To Conquer.....

Last month we called attention to the “‘Labor Relations Act,’’ an initiative proposal filed with the Attorney General’s office by the “Women of the Pacific’? on April 14. The Act would drastically restrict the right to strike and picket, compel incorporation of labor unions, etc. Who are the sponsors of this measure which seriously threatens the fundamental rights of labor?

The answer to this question comes from Seattle, Washington, where on October 9, 1936, Mrs. Edwin Selvin, wife of the publisher of the Seattle ‘‘Business Chronicle,” and Mrs. Paul Henry, prominent member of Pro-America, organized the ‘‘Women of Washington. According to the ‘Business Chronicle,” and Mrs. Selvin’s husband ought to know, “‘This unorganized organization (that term best describes it) is wholly spontaneous, non-partisan and non-sectarian.’ Shortly after its “spontaneous” birth, a group of Seattle members of the organization, in what they characterized as a “Housewives March on Olympia,’ petitioned Governor: Martin to “suppress” the Seattle “Post Intelligencer” strike. On this excursion they carried placards to give the idea that they came from various. counties throughout the state.

“Women” Propose Initiative Unsuccessful in an effort to have the Legislature adopt a law emasculating labor unions, the ““‘Women” proposed an initiative measure patterned after their legislative proposal “requiring all labor organizations to incorporate and holding union officials to strict accountability, financially and criminally, for their actions. Under this proposed law no labor organization could legally exist in Washington unless incorporated by the State. All would have to open books and records to the membership; submit t6 periodic audits by certified public accountants, and furnish each member with a sworn statement of all funds received and from what sources and who got the money and why; control of unions would be taken out of hands of exploiting ‘labor leaders’ and restored to the rank and file with actual majority rule as to calling and settling strikes and all other organizational activities; these, along with a score of other provisions, to protect workers in their rights and to assure a proper observance of the public interest, convenience and necessity.” The proposal is similar to the one just advanced by the ‘““‘Women”’ in California. An- other initiative proposal, Initiative No. 130, would circumscribe the calling of strikes. Significantly, The Associated Farmers of Washington, Inc., are revealed as co-sponsors of the measure.

Husband Edwin Selvin

Behind Mrs. Selvin stands her alter ego, husband Edwin Selvin. Mr. Selvin, who re- cently suspended publication of the Seattle Business Chronicle, which has been crusad- ing against “davebeckism,”’ in an interview, admitted an interest in the ‘‘American Guard,” eastern anti-Semitic organization. He and Mrs. Selvin acted as lobbyists for an anti-Negro bill introduced at the last session of the Washington legislature. He stat- ed that he was in sympathy with the program of the Fascist ‘‘Silver Shirts,’’ and con- siders its Fuehrer, William Dudley Pelley, “intelligent, patriotic and sincere.”’ His publication carried advertisements of Elizabeth Dilling’s “The Roosevelt Red Record And Its Background,” which supplements her “Red Network,”’ declaring that ‘Among authorities quoted is Business Chronicle of Seattle.”

Searching for new fields to conquer, Mrs. Selvin naturally brought her ‘‘Women”’ to open-shop Los Angeles in June, 1937. According to her husband’s paper, she was in- vited ‘‘to come to Los Angeles to lay the groundwork for organizing “‘Women of California. Ultimate objective: amalgamating Women of Washington, Women of California and Women of Oregon into a coastwise organization to be called Women of the Pacific. Its purpose would be to obliterate the labor rackets by having all three states enact the Women of Washington’s proposed law to require incorporation of labor unions, etc...”

Blessed By Harry Chandler

‘““Women of the Pacific” now operates out of Los Angeles. As its nucleus, Mrs. Selvin drew upon the “Housewives Crusade,” a Los Angeles women’s group sponsored by open-shopper Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times, and committed Bow: perpetuate Los Angeles as the outstanding open shop city in the United States.” Ac- cording to her husband, Mrs. Selvin “has addressed hundreds of women’s organization in Southern California cities and towns and in Los Angeles alone approximately 25,000 women have heard her public speeches, which the daily newspapers have reported at length.” And, to top it off, this “outside agitator” has filed an initiative petition to throttle labor’s rights in California.

OUST HAGUE AS PARTY OFFICIAL, UNION URGES PRES. AND FARLEY

President Roosevelt and Postmaster General Farley, in their positions as leaders of the Democratic Party, were urged by the American Civil Liberties Union today to “consider the propriety” of retaining Mayor Frank Hague of Jersey City as Vice-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the light of his “flagrant opposition to the policies of the National Administration.”

Holding that the constant wholesale vio lations of constitutional rights of citizens could not be regarded as a “local affair,’ and that :the political responsibility | of Democratic leaders was not a ‘private matter,’’ the Union called upon the President and Mr. Farley to administer to Mayor Hague ‘at the very least.a word of — critical rebuke.”’ )

Letter To Farley

In a letter to Mr. Farley addressed to the Democratic National Committee in W ashington—a copy of which was sent to the President—the Union pointed out that as a wholly non-political organization it was taking an unusual step in dealing with a political group on a matter affecting civil liberties.

“Tt would seem to us wholly out of keeping with the proprieties,” wrote the Union, “for a man who so flagrantly. flouts the principles to which the National Ad- ministration is committed, to sit longer as an official of the political party support- ing that Administration. The President is quoted as regarding the invasion of civil rights in Jersey City as ‘a local affair,’ and the issue of Mayor Hague’s political connections as a matter for your consideration as Chairman of the Democratic Na- tional Committee. We cannot regard as a local affair the constant violations of citizens’ rights which the Federal Constitution is presumed to protect and which the President is pledged to uphold, nor can we regard as a private matter the political responsibility of those at the head of the Democratic organization for the public conduct of a man so prominent in the Party’s councils.”

Legal Action Pushed

Meanwhile, after vigorously denying reports of a “settlement,” the Civil Liberties Union and the C.I.0O. pushed forward the legal battle against Hague forces. Before Judge William Clark in Federal District Court at Newark this week hearings were held on an omnibus injunction suit seeking to restrain J ersey City authorities from interfering with meetings, picketing, distribution of literature, free access to the city’s streets, the hiring of halls and or-. ganizational activities of CI.O. unions.

Page 4

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

Phone; EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BBSIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVIES. ... Associate Editor

Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy

Boy Brutally Beaten By Deputy Sheriffs

The Civil Liberties Union has joined in a request to Harry Lutgens, state director of institutions, to make a full investigation of the capture and brutal beating by three deputy sheriffs of a boy who escaped from Sonoma State Home at Eldridge. The incident was disclosed by the following letter from R. O. Dierx, 226 Irving St., San Francisco, which appeared in the San Francisco News on May 12:

On Saturday morning, May 7th, I was peacefully plowing my orchard at Vineberg, Sonoma County, when a young fellow approached me, asking if I needed any help.

I told him no but he lingered a while and insisted on helping me. So I cut loose the tractor and we rolled over the plow and installed three new plow shears.

As we were working on this plow three men drove up in a sedan. They chased this willing helper to the other end of the orchard, where he was cornered. The beating they administered to this young man was horrible.

After they had securely handcuffed him, these three men administered many more hard punches directly in his face and then proceeded to kick him savagely from three sides.

* * * * * * *

As we go to press, we are in receipt of a communication from Mr. Lutgens, enclosing the following report originally submitted to the San Francisco News.

Upon my return to Sacramento I further investigated the case of the boy who escaped from Sonoma State Home and whom you called me about. While you did not give me his name, I have compared the newspaper clippings from The News with the report I received from Dr. Butler and presume the youth’s name was Fernando Santiago.

In his escape Santiago got as far as a farmer’s ranch near Shellville, about eleven miles from the institution. One attendant, together with a fairly bright boy from the institution, was sent to pick up Fernando Santiago at the farmer’s ranch. When they arrived at the ranch the boy was standing with the farmer in a plowed field near the tractor. Santiago, on seeing the Attendant get out of the car and come toward him, started running across the plowed field. The boy with Attendant pursued Santiago across the plowed field. Santiago then picked up a clod, throwing it at the other boy and hitting him on the head. When the boy caught up with Santiago, he hit him several times in retaliation for throwing the clod. Santiago was then brought back to the institution.

Upon Santiago’s return to the institution, Dr, Butler requested a medical examination of him to see if there were any bruises or injuries of any kind. Dr. H. W. Hyatt made this examination and has given me the following report, dated May 12, 1988: “Examined Santiago stripped of clothing. No Visible scratches or bruises of any kind. No injury to arms or legs. Small bump on side of right jaw I consider achronic thing. No inflamatory reaction around same.”

Inasmuch as there were eleven or twelve boys in the escape, it is difficult for me to determine definitely whether or not Santiago was the boy that you received the let- ter about, but the facts seem to indicate that he was the one. None of the other boys were injured, although a couple of them were handled pretty roughly by the Deputy Sheriffs.

Petition Circulators Threatened

With “WRECKING CREW”

Evidence of a conspiracy to violate the right of petition now being exercised by the Tax Relief Association of California was recently presented to Attorney General Webb by Judge Jackson H. Ralston, General Chairman of the Association. The ‘Association is the sponsor of an initiative constitutional amendment relating to taxation.

The charges are based largely on the following letter written on the stationery of Robinson and Company, San Francisco advertising agents, and signed J. Robinson:

March 25, 1938. F. A. Marshall, Secretary, Contra Costa Real Estate Board, Walnut Creek, California.

Dear Mr. Marshall:

Our organization is conducting a Statewide campaign in every County in the State, educating the voters not to sign a ‘proposed initiative petition supposedly repealing the Sales Tax and substituting the “Single Tax.”

We have heard that an attempt will be made to secure signatures on this petition in your County. Will you be good enough to check with the various real estate firms in your City and see if offices have been rented by W. G. Stennett and Co. — they rent offices by the week.

We would also thank you to check with the various newspapers and ascertain if an ad is placed for petition solicitors. If so, please telegraph us immediately and we will send our wrecking crew and move them out of town. Our plan of operation is to stop them from getting any signatures in your City and County on this particular petition. We would also thank you to contact the State Employment Office and any other employment agencies in your City ;where a request might be made for petition solicitors. Also, contact your County Clerk and ask him to be on the lookout should anyone come in requesting information regarding checking and precincting of such a petition.

The Real Estate Board here has advised you in previous correspondence regarding © this petition, and it may be that no attempt will be made in your County. However,, we are watching every County closely and would thank you to check upon receipt of this letter, and again check next week. Thanking you for your co-operation, we are, Very truly yours, ROBINSON and COMPANY. By J. ROBINSON.

Judge Ralston’s complaint also alleges that, ‘“‘Whenever Stennet and Company (em- ployed to take charge of the circulation of the petitions) established an office pickets were immediately stationed in front of it. This was the case in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Mateo, Sacramento, Stockton and other places. The purpose of these pickets was to watch for possible persons who might approach the office for the purpose of seeking employment. These were told that if they worked for Stennett they would not be paid (a falsehood), that they would not thereafter be able to get any PWA work, that they would get in bad with other persons who would employ solicitors, that if they turned the employment down they, would be employed by Robinson on another petition the circulation of which would be more profitable and other practical bribes and threats.

“In addition they were approached to see who had signed the petition with a view of frightening the signers into withdrawing their signatures.

“The circulators were in many instances followed as they went from door to door to discover the possible signers for like purpose.

“Furthermore county clerks were asked to give the names and residences of any so- licitors verifying petitions to the end that they might be seen at their homes and in- duced not to work further for Stennett and Company in the circulation of the petition.

“Notaries public have been urged and with some county clerks or their deputies, have consented to report the names and addresses of those verifying the petitions to the like end, this against the true obligations of their offices. One Kelly has acted as a general agent to carry out these methods and boasted in the public prints in San Jose that there he had succeeded in keepwe away some twenty possible solici

Bill Gagging Press Denounced By Union

“Plainly offensive to every conception of liberty of the press’’ was the Civil Liberties Union’s characterization of a bill introduced by Senator Minton of Indiana severely penalizing newspaper publishers who printed as fact material known to be false.

In a letter to Senator Burton K. Wheeler, chairman of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee, to which the bill was referred, the Union said:

“It is incredible to us that any such bill should be introduced in the Senate, much less considered by your Committee. The bill is too plainly offensive to every conception of the liberty of the press and so patently open to abuse, it hardly need be discussed.”’

~ Senator Minton has stated that he would not press for action on the bill.

Found Guilty

Governor Merriam’s commission to investigate charges of Nevada County vigilantism made the following report: “The commission’s conclusion is that during the week beginning April 4, 1938, law and order in Nevada County broke down and the members of CIO local 283 were not afforded. protection.” Governor Merriam suppressed the commission’s report until an exclusive San Francisco News story revealed the above finding.

VALIDITY OF CONNECTICUT ANTILEAFLET STATUTE TO BE TESTED

Challenging the constitutionality of a Connecticut “breach of peace” statute and its applicability to distribution of religious circulars, the Jehovah’s Witnesses applied for a temporary injunction against police interference before the Federal District Court at Hartford on May 26. The Civil Liberties Union is filing a brief as friend of the court in behalf of the religious sect.

The test case is based upon police action in Bristol where arrests of leaflet distribu- tors recently have been most numerous. A total of 180 Jehovah’s Witnesses have been arrested during the past few weeks in New Haven, New Britain, Bridgeport, Plainville, Bristol and other Connecticut cities for handing out the religious tracts.

Attorneys for the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that the statute, which deals with breach of the peace, intimidation and libel does not apply to “preaching the gospel”’ and represents violation of the freedom of the press, speech and religious conscience. The pamphlets distributed are alleged to contain references to the Catholic Church which are deemed ‘“‘offensive.”’

In a similar case taken by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Civil Liberties Union to the Supreme Court, a Griffin, Ga., antileaflet ordinance was declared unconstitutional last month.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”