vol. 3, no. 7

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JULY, 1938 No. 7

WARRANT OUT FOR DOYLE

Red-Baiter Charged With ASSAULT and BATTERY

On the complaint of Ernest Besig, local director of the A.C.L.U., a battery warrant for the arrest of Stanley M. (Larry) Doyle was signed by Municipal Judge Frank W. Dunn of San Francisco on June 17. The complaint was based on Doyle’s seizure of Besig’s motion picture camera at an anti-Nazi demonstration before the German Consulate in San Francisco on April 23rd. Service of the warrant has not yet been procured and may take some time because of Doyle’s absence in Oregon and our ignorance of his San Francisco address. Knowledge of Doyle’s address is important because the police protect themselves against possible charges of false arrest by requiring the complainant “to point out’’ the accused before serving a warrant.

Issuance of the warrant followed hearings on a citation requiring Doyle to appear before the District Attorney to show cause why it should not issue. As previously re- ported, the Warrant and Bond Department of the District Attorney’s office had refused the warrant on the ground that Besig had violated Doyle’s right to privacy in taking motion pictures of him as he pointed out demonstrators to police officers, and he was, therefore, entitled to use reasonable force to defend that right. Because the District Attorney was dissatisfied with his deputy’s decision, a new citation, returnable before Chief Deputy District Attorniey Joseph T. O’Connor, ‘was issued.

Doyle Denies Charges

At the first hearing on June 3rd, Mr. Doyle denied that he took Mr. Besig’s camera, placing the blame upon his unidentified companion. It will be recalled that Mr. Doyle had previously denied that he destroyed the film until he was confronted with a picture which shows him extracting the film from the camera. Doyle also denied that he threatened to ‘get’ Besig, and protested that one of the witnesses against him was a Communist. At his request, Doyle was granted a continuance until June 7, in order to bring in witnesses. :

At the appointed time, however, Doyle again appeared without his witnesses. In requesting a further continuance, he stated that he had four witnesses, two of whom were Federal Bureau of Investigation men who were suddenly called to Washington by Edgar Hoover in order to work on the Cash kidnapping case. He insisted they should have an opportunity to confer with District Attorney Brady and Mr. O’Connor before any final action was taken in the case. In arguing for the continuance, Doyle claimed that Besig’s ‘sudden activity’ was due to the fact that “That Communist Fred West, of the NEWS put the heat on.” Doyle was referring to Mr. George West, editorial writer of the San Francisco News. The matter was finally continued until June 15, with the understanding, however, that no further continuances would be asked for or granted.

Doyle Disappears

But Doyle sought unsuccessfully for still further delays. The day before the sched- uled hearing Mr. O’Connor informed us that a lady called his office to advise him that Mr. Dovle would be unable to attend the continued hearing because he had left for Oregon. The lady wasn’t certain when Doyle would return, but she expected it would be within ten days. Mr. O’Connor cancelled the scheduled hearing, and, thereafter, held that Mr. Besig had made a sufficient showing and authorized the warrant to issue.

TAMPA FLOGGING CASES END IN ACQUITTALS

After dragging on in the courts for three years, the last of the indictments against assailants of Joseph Shoemaker, Eugene Poulnot and Samuel J. Rogers in Tampa came to an end with the acquittal by a criminal court jury of five former Tampa policemen charged with kidnapping Poulnot. The jury was evidently not satisfied with the identifications of the policemen. It was the third trial for the defendants in connection with the flogging of 1935, and their second trial in the Poulnot case. The men were also acquitted on the charge of second-degree murder of Shoemaker, who died a few days after his flogging.

Shoemaker, Poulnot and Rogers, members of the ‘Modern Democrats,’”? were taken to police headquarters for questioning about their activities. Leaving the station, they were seized by Klansmen, flogged, tarred and feathered.

Acquittal was due largely to the weakness of the prosecution, hampered by the court’s bar on much of the vital and most damaging evidence. Former prosecuting attorneys appeared for the defense.

“Fascists Need No Defense”

Editor: —-Enclosed find $5.00 toward A.C.L.U. funds.

I do not agree with your attitude on Mr. Lage of the San Francisco “Bund.” These fascists need no “‘defense”’ at your hands. In my opinion you are entitled to all the support every good citizen can give anyway.—A. H. 8.

The ''Minute Men" Are Here

Do you want to become one of the “Minute Men’’—at one dollar a year? Do you want to subscribe to “Americanism,” a quarterly magazine “For the preservation of American ideals and American institutions”—at three dollars a year? If so, send your money to Charles S. Rosener of San Francisco. Or. if you want to become an agent, Mr. Rosener promises you twenty cents on each subscription.

But before you do anything, may we suggest that you acquaint yourself with Mr. Rosener’s brand of Americanism. Here’s what it includes:“The immediate deportation of alien agitators, as a blight on the dignity of labor, and a menace to all the people. The immediate deportation of all aliens advocating the destruction of oures tablished ‘American’ form of government.”

Mr. Rosener’s 32-page publication, printed on expensive book paper, drapes itself with red, white and blue stripes, carries a portrait of Abraham Lincoln on the cover of its last issue numbered Vol. 1, No. 2 (dated February, 1938), and, despite his concern for the dignity of labor, bears no Union label. The first number was copyrighted in 1936.

Information About A Red-Baiter

During the course of the Santa Rosa tar and feather party prosecutions in 1936, Stanley Morton (Larry) Doyle, professional red-baiter, testified for the vigilantes as an expert on Communism. Besides stating that he had been a stoolpigeon member of the Communist Party for two months, he declared he was 88 years of age and was admitted to practice law in the courts of South Dakota, Illinois, Montana; Iowa and the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal for the 2nd and 9th circuits. Doyle’s memory is apparently bad in two respects, for at another time he stated he was born on February 4, 1894, in Revere, Minn., and, hence, is 44 years of age; while the Clerk of the Iowa Supreme Court asserts that “he took the bar examination twice but failed to pass, and so is not a member” of the Iowa bar.

Doyle also claims he was a District Attorney in the State of Montana. We wonder whether he doesn’t mean that he was a City Attorney, because a very reliable legal directory lists an S. M. Doyle as City Attorney of Glendive, Montana, during the years 1924 to 1927.. Incidentally, the population of Glendive at that time was 3816.

Recently, in a letter to the San Francisco News, Doyle charged that the San Francisco School of Social Studies is a “red incubator.” The letter was signed by Doyle as Past National Commander, 40 et 8 of the American Legion. .

Let Freedom Ring

A Man of Property

For the past five years the red-baiters have been calling Ernest Besig an agitator, a red» a pink, a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. At the same time, he has been ¢alled a social fascist, a company agent, a stoolpigeon attorney, or a confused liberal. In recent months, the common question has been, ‘‘Have you heard that Ernest Besig is a Trotskyite?” And still another question is whether it is true that the local. branch of the A.C.L.U. does not handle Communist cases?

The latest rumor has it from an unimpeachable source that Mr. Besig is really a man of property and consequently in a class with agents of the Industrial Association. It takes the form of one of those casual, sotto voce confidences: ‘‘Have you heard that Mr. Besig has an interest in a lumber mill in Eureka?’”’ Mr. Besig hadn’t heard, but maybe it’s one of those inheritances from a rich aunt or a grateful client for which he’s secretly yearning. In any event, he’s willing to sell all of his right, title and interest thereto for the sum of six cents. All interested will please take notice that the property will be sold to the highest | bidder. Address all offers to ‘“‘Ye Editor.”

Chief Witch Hunter

Art Caylor of the San Francisco News reports that our old friend, Col. Henry Roble Sanborn, alias Mr. Winters, publisher of the defunct red-baiting sheet the American. Citizen, and self-styled co-ordinator of law enforcement agencies during the Salinas lettuce strike of 1936, may be appointed . Chief Witch Hunter for the Dies Con- gressional Committee which will investigate un-American activities. The Colonel’s meal ticket is not yet assured, however, as there are many more redbaiters eager for the job. Incidentally, Chairman Dies has announced that the Committee’s first hearing is scheduled for Los Angeles early in August. The next stop will be San Francisco.....

Mooney Mass Meeting The San Francisco Bay Area A.F.L.

Red-Hunting

The above cartoon by John Groth is reprinted with the kind permission of the editors of The New Republic.

Committee for the Freedom of Mooney and Billings announces that on Sunday afternoon, August 14th at 2:00 o’clock, at the Civic Auditorium, it “will hold a great public meeting protesting the twentysecond Anniversary of the unjust conviction and imprisonment of Labor’s martyrs, Tom Mooney and Warren K. Billings.”” The Committee requests all persons to save the date for the protest rally.

Phillips Doesn’t Like Radicals

The Communist Party of San Francisco, on June 17, asked the courts for declaratory relief against Joseph J. Phillips, Custodian of Property. Phillips doesn’t like radicals and refuses to rent the Civic Auditorium to them. The court, in due time, will decide whether Mr. Phillips must set aside his personal prejudices and rent the auditorium to the Communists.

Picketing In Berkeley

The Fels case, testing the validity of Berkeley’s anti-picketing ordinance pro- hibiting peaceful picketing, was argued in the First District Court of Appeal on June 27. The hearing was on an appeal by the City of Berkeley from a lower court decision holding the ordinance unconstitutional. The A.C.L.U. joined with the International Juridical Association in filing an amici curiae brief. ;

ANOTHER REMINDER

If you have made a pledge, won’t you please assist us in getting by the difficult summer months by sending your check NOW.

Los Angeles Police Records Ruled Open For Inspection

Refusing to be bound by legal precedents that “‘state records’? may be kept secret on the ground that they are ‘‘confidential,”’ Superior Judge Robert W. Kenny of Los Angeles has ruled that police records may be made available for inspection. The decision was handed down in the case of Neville Wilson, Screen Actors Guildsman, against Chief of Police Davis and other members of the Los Angeles police, in a suit for false imprisonment sponsored by the Southern California branch of the Civil Liberties Union.

The police, in the course of a deposition in which they were required to account for their conduct in connection with the arrest and imprisonment of Wilson, refused to produce records concerning the arrest. Wilson, arrested on “suspicion,” was held by police, in accordance with their common practice, for more than four days, although the law fixes an imprisonment of forty-eight hours.

Judge Kenny’s ruling opens the way for further vigorous prosecution of A.C.L.U. cases pending in Los Angeles Superior Court involving false arrests by Chief Davis and his subordinates. Attorney A. L. Wirin of the Civil Liberties Union represented Wilson at the trial.

Flag Case Victory In Pennsylvania

Jehovah’s Witnesses scored a victory for religious freedom in Pennsylvania on June ' 18 when United States District Judge Albert B. Maris, after trial, granted an in- junction enjoining the school authorities of Minersville Public Schools from excluding Lillian and William Gobitis as students because of their refusal to salute the flag on religious grounds. The opinion, which will be submitted to the California Supreme Court now considering the Sacramento S flag salute case, states, in part, as follows:

‘No one who heard the testimony of the plaintiffs and observed their demeanor on the witness stand could have failed to be impréssed with the earnestness and sincerity of their. convictions. While the salute to our national flag has no religious signifi- cance to me and while I find it difficult to understand the plaintiffs’ point of view, I am nevertheless entirely satisfied that they ‘sincerely believe that the act does have a deep religious meaning and is an act of worship which they can conscientiously render to God alone. Under these circumstances it is not for this court to say that since the act has no religious significance to us it can have no such significance to them.

“I think it is also clear from the evidence that the refusal of these two earnest Christian children to salute the flag cannot even remotely prejudice or imperil the safety, health, morals, property or personal rights of their fellows. While I cannot agree with them I nevertheless cannot but admit that they exhibit sincerity of conviction and devotion to principle in the face of opposition of a piece with that which brought our pioneer ancestors across the sea to seek liberty of conscience in a new land. Upon such a foundation of religious freedom our Commonwealth and Nation were built... Our country’s.safety surely does not depend upon the totalitarian idea of forcing all citizens into one common mold of thinking and acting or requiring them to render a lip service of loyalty in a manner which conflicts with their sincere religious convictions. Such a doctrine seems to me utterly alien to the genius and spirit of our nation and destructive of that personal liberty of which our flag itself is the symbol.”

Lutgens Side-Steps — Brutality Charges

The State Director of Institutions, Harry Lutgens, has very: neatly evaded a com- plaint registered against the brutal beating of a boy who escaped from the Sonoma State Home at Eldridge. Disclosure of the incident came from an eye-witness, Mr. R. O. Dierx of San Francisco, who called it to the attention of the San Francisco News.

Mr. Lutgens ‘“‘investigated” the case and concluded that the boy was Fernando San- tiago. He reported that the capture had been effected by an attendant and “a fairly bright boy;” that Santiago, in his flight, threw a clod at the boy who retaliated by by hitting Santiago “several times.’’ A medical examination showed ‘No. visible scratches or bruises of any kind.”

Mr. Lutgens made no effort to interview the witnesses and his report conflicts in many details with their account. Mr. Dierx claims there were three captors — all between the ages of 27 and 30 years; that they drove a state car bearing license E 27-85; that they beat the boy after he " was cornered, and again beat and kicked him after he was handcuffed. Moreover, he was bleeding from the mouth when he was placed in the car.

The A.C.L.U. has requested Mr. Lutgens to reopen his investigation, but thus far there has been no response to our request.

‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’’

OPEN FORUM

A Noxious Duty

» Editor:—While sympathizing with you in your rather noxious but plain American duty in protesting the discharge of the Nazi carpenter by the Franklin Hospital, I do feel that there is another civil liberty involved which we must not forget. > The Franklin Hospital was at one time known as the German Hospital. It is, of course still the German Hospital 1 in spite of the change in its name. ' Unfortunately for the Franklin: Hospital and for other sane institutions in America operated by people of German descent, they are apt to be condemned under the head that ‘‘a man is known by the company he keeps.”

From this I feel we should consider that the Franklin Hospital has a distinct civil liberty in not wishing to have itself forced into identification with the Bund and in making every effort to clean itself of this type of offensiveness; and that therefore it is not a question of: The Franklin Hospital discharges Mr. Lage because he is a Nazi Bund official, but of: The Franklin Hospital does not desire to be identified with the Nazi Bund and incidentally finds that the dismissal of Mr. Lage contributes toward that object.—J. T.

Ye Editor Agrees

Editor’s Response :—I am grateful to you for your kind letter concerning the Lage case. There is no question in my mind, and I agree with you fully, that the purpose behind the discharge of Mr. Lage was to show the German-Americans in the community that the hospital is not a Nazi institution.

In the absence of contract, a private employer has the undoubted right to hire whom he pleases. The law has not yet adopted the notion that a worker has a property right in his job and that he can be dismissed only for cause. If the employee i is discharged because of his political opinions or for any other reason, the issue becomes one of morals and not of law. Consequently the bank exercised a recognized property right in dismissing Mr. Lage.

Tf the bank had done that and stopped, there would have been no public issue, and the Union would have remained silent. Instead, the bank’s agents in effect declared publicly that the discharge was in the interest of Americanism. Now, when a private body seeks to define Americanism for a community, the Union becomes interested, especially when the definition endorses discrimination against persons because of their political opinions. Our interest in the Lage ‘ease began and ended there. Certainly, the A.C.L.U. would not have a Mr. Lage in its employ, and it is equally understandable that, under the circumstances, the continued employment of Mr. Lage was inimieal to the economic interests of a GermanAmerican hospital.

In other words, the bank’s agents would have saved me an unpleasant duty and con- siderable trouble if they had not made the particular public statement. If instead they had stated that we must discharge Mr. Lage because his affiliation with the Bund will cause us financial loss, the A.C.L.U. itself would have one public statement less to its credit.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

on the November 8 ballot. can’t be accomplished, Mr. Robinson prom|

State Anti-Picketing Law

The red-baiting Associated Farmers, sometimes referred to as the ‘“‘Market Street Farmers,” are sponsoring an initiative measure to curtail labor’s fundamental lib- erties in California. On June 7, the Attorney General’s office titled a proposal sub- mitted by Harold H. Angier of Lodi and Burton A. Swartz of Clarksburg, leaders in the Associated Farmers. A week later, Robinson and Co. of San Francisco, which gets a fancy price for circulating petitions, sent its circulators throughout the principal counties of the state in order to gather the signatures of 186,378 voters. That’s a big job, especially when the petitions must be filed with the various County Clerks by July 20, if the measure is to find a place But if that ises that the requisite number of signatures will be filed and the issue placed before the voters at some subsequent election.

False Front

We said that the petition is being sponsored by the Associated Farmers, but the average voter who signs it knows nothing about that. He’s told that the California Committee for Peace in Employment Relations, a public spirited body, is circulating the petition. He’s not told, of course, that concealed behind the innocent name is the red-baiting Associated Farmers who have been carrying on a constant fight against the organization of labor.

The purpose of the petition is virtually buried in its own language. To discover it, Mr. Voter will need enough patience to wade through more than 5,500 words of.

dry, stuffy, technical reading. If he reads and understands it all (and he’d better if he expects to cast an intelligent vote), he’ll discover just another proposed ANTI- PICKETING LAW, only on a state-wide basis, going much further than the usual anti-picketing proposal and really striking at the continued existence of labor unions. In addition, a few inducements are thrown in to conceal the real object of the pro- posal.

Picketing Limited to ‘‘Primary Strikes”

The effect of the Act is to make peaceful picketing unlawful except in what is called a “primary strike” occurring at a place of business where there is cessation of work, and then only if written demands have been submitted in a dispute over wages, hours or physical conditions of the place of employment, tools, equipment or materials. Thus, an employer with ten plants who has one plant struck may counter the strike by transferring his work to the other nine and thereby escape picketing. Picketing as a secondary boycott, or for organizing purposes would be unlawful, as would picketing to secure a demand for preferential hiring or the closed shop.

Stringent Rules for Picketing

And, where. picketing is allowed in a “primary strike,’ its exercise is hedged around with emasculating rules and regulations. Only “‘bona-fide employees” of the struck plant may picket, and they must be designated as such, in writing, by a majority of the. striking employees. Each picket must carry this written designation to be shown to police officers upon request. Furthermore, the number of pickets ‘“‘shall not at any time exceed one for each entrance,’ except that a minimum of two pickets is allowed at any struck place of business. What is more, the activities of such pickets are limited to ‘“‘patroling on foot... in front of or about such place of business.” to wearing an arm band withthe name or initials of the organization represented by the pickets and the word “‘picket,” and “to wearing or carrying a banner, not exceeding two feet by three feet,” bearing the name or initials of the union, the word “‘picket,’’. the statement that a strike is in progress,’’ and “‘any statement with respect to such strike which is true and not misleading.” Finally, no two pickets ‘“‘shall be within less than twentyfive feet of each other, unless only two employees are picketing.”

The two cardinal rules in ballyhooing proposed anti-picketing laws are first, to have the proposal come from a phoney ““Citizen’s Committee,” referred to above, and second, to make it seem that the object is to prohibit some dastardly, vicious and wicked invasion of the ‘‘public’s’ rights. Therefore, the sponsors invariably proclaim righteously that they are seeking to end violence and prevent coercion and intimidation.

What Is Coercion?

. Now, the meaning of the word “coercion” is just as indefinite in the public mind as the term “red.” My dictionary defines “coercion” as “moral or physical compulThe public generally condemns coercion that contains the element of physical compulsion, but there is no general: agreement as to what constitutes unjustifiable acts of “moral compulsion.”

Every word or deed carries a coercive power which varies with the person coerced. Some coercion may be good, and others may be bad. What coerces one person may not coerce another. The law hasa coercive power, yet it is not necessarily bad. Likewise the preacher’s sermon, the admonitions of parent to child, and the business man’s advertisement exert a “moral compulsion” or coercion that may be good or bad depending upon the point of view.

All picketing contains the element of ‘moral compulsion,” but neither the general public nor the law now regard such coercion as unjustifiable or illegal. The sponsors of the proposed law, however, have included in it a definition of coercion which makes illegal acts of moral suasion and coercion which the public heretofore has accepted as perfectly legitimate. They have forbidden conduct which is not in itself bad but merely bad because it is forbidden. .

‘How ‘Coercive’ Picketing Works

Thus, if a picket told a scab that he’d better join the strike because the boss will eventually cut his wages or fire him, that would be unlawful coercion. It is coercion because the proposed law declares a threat, direct or indirect, ‘‘of loss of em- ployment or reduction of wages or salary”’ to be coercion. Moreover, illegal coercion in picketing is also defined to include a threat, direct or indirect, ‘‘of any monetary loss, injury to business or reduction in earnings or profits,’ which, we suppose, might express itself in a simple statement to the boss that after the strike his wife won’t be able to indulge herself in fur coats. A final catch-all definition of illegal coercion is, a threat, direct or indirect, ‘‘of the exercise of power possessed, or supposed to exist or to be possessed, by the party coercing over or with respect to the party coerced.” The net effect of these provisions is that whatever a picket does, except in the case of a “primary strike,’’ can readily be interpreted as coercion.

Something To Soft-Pedal

While the proponents of the measure . will, no doubt, lay great stress upon the elimination of ‘“‘coercion” from industrial disputes, we are sure they will soft-pedal the provisions which prohibit peaceful picketing. Specifically, the Act prohibits picketing “to induce or influence any person to refrain from entering,’ working for, or engaging in business with any place of business. Such acts of peaceful picketing eat ‘are prohibited in all cases except where a “orimary strike” is in progress.

Freedom of speech is directly limited in a paragraph which prohibits “any person to utter to or within the hearing of any (Continued on Page 4, Col.:2)

American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly at 216 Pine St., San Fran- ‘cisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union.

Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVIES..... ASSOCIate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

Free Speech For Employers

Application for leave to present arguments to the National Labor Relations Board for clarification of a section of the order against the Ford Motor Company dealing with the ‘“employer’s rights of free speech’’ has been made by the Civil Liberties Union in a letter to J. Warren Madden, chairman, signed by Arthur Garfield Hays, A.C.L.U. general counsel. The Union’s request is based on a section of the order pending in the Circuit Court of Appeals at Covington, Ky., which the Board is seeking to withdraw for reconsideration.

The Union, in a memorandum on the Ford order adopted by its Board of Directors, voices concern that employers’ rights to express anti-union opinions are not clearly enough protected by “sharply distinguishing between threats and coercion and mere expressions of opinions.’ The section requiring clarification, according to the Union, orders the Ford Motor Company to desist “from circulating, distributing or otherwise disseminating among its employees statements or propaganda disparaging or criticizing labor organizations.” The Union expresses general approval of the judgment against the Ford Company on the ground that ‘sufficient evidence of illegal interference justified the finding that the company is guilty of unfair labor practices.”

In the memorandum Meeented to the Board with the request for leave to present arguments, Mr. Hays on behalf of the Union said:

“The prohibition of coercive acts id prevent organization of employees does not violate civil liberties. In this case there was clear evidence of acts of coercion. Such acts can readily be separated from expression of opinion.

“We take the position that employers as well as others are free to speak, write or publish their sentiments in opposition to trade unions. In our opinion, there should be no limitation on the expression of views.

“The National Labor Relations Act does not violate rights of civil liberties in pro- viding that interference with trade-union organization is an unfair labor practice, unless the law i Is sO interpreted as to prohibit the expression of opinion which criticizes or disparages labor organization. When, however, a statement of an em- ployer is not an expression of view, but a threat of discharge, or reprisal, it consti- tutes interference with free organization and is no longer an expression of opinion.

“In the event that any Labor Relations Board or the courts attempt to restrict free- dom of speech of employers, when the same constitutes an expression of opinion which does not amount to a direct threat or an act of coercion, the Union will be alert to come to the defense of such employers.”

In making public the Union’s request to the Board, Mr. Hays pointed out that “the section of the Ford order standing by itself does not make clear the distinction be- tween expressions of opinion to employees and language coercive in effect. If the Ford Company should abandon all attempts to coerce its employees, it might still under this order be restrained from expressing anti-union views.”’

The Union’s request, Mr. Hays added, was not to be understood as “in any way critical of the Board’s findings in this or’ other cases, but solely for the purpose of clarifying what we assume the Board intends. No order of the Board has infringed the rights of employers to express their views publicly in any form they desire. The sole question is the line to be drawn in addressing their employees.’

American Farmers Sponsor Anti-Picketing Law

(Continued from Page 8, Col. 3)

other person or persons any .. . words or language ...in a manner calculated or with the intent to .. . induce or influence any person to refrain from entering, occupying or leaving, any place of business or place of residence,” from working there, or transacting any business. Furthermore, it would become unlawful even to “induce or influence” a person to become a member of a labor organization.

More Prohibitions

Except for employees engaged in a “‘primary strike,” it would become an unlawful conspiracy to sponsor or engage in a boycott against any business where an “in- dustrial controversy” exists. Even employees engaged in a “primary strike’ may not urge a secondary boycott upon ‘employees of another employer,” but may merely induce them to act as other individuals. Furthermore, the Act designates it as “‘a just cause for dismissal’ to refuse to handle “hot cargo” and also declares it to be unlawful for any representative of a labor union ‘“‘to intimidate or coerce any other person in any manner calculated or with the intent to INDUCE OR INFLUENCE ANY SUCH OTHER PERSON” from joining or not joining a labor union, from entering a place of business or working there, “to strike or participate in any strike of employees against an employer.” or ‘‘to grant or refrain from granting any demand in connection with any industrial controversy.”

Under the foregoing provision it would not take much “calculation” to show that a “labor agitator” had used ‘coercive influence” to prevent a person from joining a company union or to induce him to strike or not to accept his employer’s demands. If this law is passed, labor organizers will henceforth engage in their work only at great peril.

Ten Commandments To Labor

Add to the above prohibitions one against blocking, impeding or obstructing any pub- lic place or entrance thereto, another against causing a driver of a vehicle to slow down in order to “induce or influence him from dealing with any place of business, or to join or resign from a labor organization,” another making sit-down strikes illegal, and a final one declaring it to be an illegal conspiracy for any two or more persons to combine to do most of the aforementioned illegal acts, and you have the Associated Farmers’ Ten Commandments to Labor. Penalties for violations run from ten days to two years in prison, and a fine of from ten dollars to five thousand dollarsor both. A civil remedy is also granted for damages resulting from violations of the act.

Picketing a Form of Free Speech

Under the Federal and State Constitutions any person has the right to express his opinions on any subject. Picketing is merely a form of free speech, by which any person or group expresses its views on a particular subject. The proposed Act would virtually limit that right in emasculated form to cases where a “primary strike” exists. Such restriction finds no warrant in constitutional law. Whether employees picket because off a strike, a lock-out, or because they desire to union— ize a plant, does not alter the fundamental nature of picketing. It still remains a form of free speech.

Picketing may properly he controlled in the interest of the use of the highway for travel and for access to establishments; that is a problem in policing. At some places twenty pickets may be too many, at others several hundred may not be excessive. But because picketing may offer problems in policing, is no justification for the with- drawal or modification of the fundamental right at the urging of a special interest group.

A.C.L.U. Policy On Picketing

The Union’s policy on picketing ques

Jack Warnick Deportation Defeated

We neglected to advise our readers that under date of April 26, James L. Houghteling, Commissioner of Immigration, notified the A.C.L.U. that the $1,000 bond on which Jack Warnick was released in the deportation proceedings filed against him on October 3, 1935, had been cancelled by the Immigration Department’s Board of Review. Cancellation followed refusal of the Canadian government to accept Warnick, because it was unable to establish his birth in that country. In consequence of the latest order, Warnick has his freedom, BUT he is subject to deportation at any time IF the Canadian government will accept him. In the meantime, since he is not a citizen of the United States and Canada likewise disowns him, Warnick remains a “man without a country.”

Warnick came to this country with his parents from Montreal, Canada, in 1909, when he was less than two years of age and has lived here ever since. He is a graduate of the University of Washington and has a year and a half of graduate work to his credit at the University of California. In 1935 he and his wife, Caroline Decker, who had both been active in organizing agricultural workers, were among the defendants in the famous Sacramento criminal syndicalism trial: Caroline Decker’s conviction was reversed on appeal, while Jack Warnick was acquitted by the jury. TheSAME EVIDENCE on which Warnick was acquitted in Sacramento constituted the government’s case in the deportation proceedings. In 1932 Warnick applied for United States citizenship, but the application was withdrawn because no RECORD of his birth could be found in Canada. That same fact today precludes his deportation to Canada.

Jack Warnick

tions, which applies to the instant case, was clearly stated by our Board of Directors © early this year, as follows:

“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 picket; ing shall not be accompanied by fraud, violence or actual obstruction of streets or highways.”

Because the proposed Act seriously impairs Labor’s right to freedom of speech, we shall oppose it, and we ask our members and friends not to sign the initiative petitions that are being circulated.

SACRAMENTO REFUSES PUBLIC MEETING PERMIT TO S. L. P.

As we go to press our attention has been called to the refusal of the City Manager of Sacramento to grant a permit to the: Socialist Labor Party to hold a street or park meeting. A new written request was mailed on June 28 which requests a permit for July 12th, at which time the speaker would be Carl H. Vetter, Socialist Labor Party candidate for Governor.