vol. 3, no. 9

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, SEPTEMBER, 1938 No. 9

THE STORY OF WESTWOOD

$5,100,000 SUIT FRAMED

Plaintiff Exposes Doyle As Author of Red-Baiting Case

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 30.—Ivan Francis Cox revealed to the A.C.L.U. today that Stanley M. (Larry) Doyle was responsible for the $5,100,000 ‘“‘red-plot” suit he filed in , the Superior Court last December. The suit charged many prominent people, including movie actor, Frederic March, Mrs. Alice M. Rosseter, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, educators, lawyers and 5000 Jane and John Does with being Communists and sharing in a vast conspiracy to subvert the government. Cox sought damages for himself as a victim of that “‘plot.”” He admits today that he was duped by Doyle, Attorney A. L. Crawford, and red-baiting Legionnaire Harper Knowles; that Doyle induced him to swear to things that he knows nothing about; and that he read only a rough draft of the complaint prepared by Doyle.

A Very Admirable Act

Cox verified the complaint in Attorney Crawford’s office, but was shown only the last page of the lengthy complaint. At the time, Crawford told him, “You are doing a very admirable act. You will be taken care of. You have the best sponsors in the world.”’

The sponsors did take care of Cox for a short time. Under the alias of John Francis, he was given a job as an organizer for the State Federation of Labor by Secretary Edward Vandeleur and sent to Fresno. Before he left he was given a check for $100.

Vandeleur, it seems, knew all about the suit before it was filed. He thought it was a “dandy,” although he disapproved the charges of moral transgressions against Bridges, because “‘it’s a common occurrence nowadays.” |

But Cox had been promised $400 a month, and a final lump sum payment of $25,000 on which he could retire. After futile demands for financial aid upon Crawford and Doyle, Cox revealed his story to the San Francisco News and the A.C.L.U.

“Big Boy’ Doyle

Doyle, who worked under the aliases of “B. B.” (Big Boy), C. E. Burke and Rex Fowler, told Cox he was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, and Crawford excused his failure to press the suit because, “You know, the funds have been cut off from the F.B.I. and that’s why we can’t go ahead with the case.” Doyle also carried credentials indicating that he was the authorized agent of Governor Martin of Oregon (at $400 a month), and carried some sort of a federal star as well. F.B.I. officials in San Francisco, however, deny he is their agent, although they have accepted reports from him as they would from any other person.

The first conference with Doyle occurred at Room 211 of the Veterans’ Building, San Francisco, with red-baiter Harper Knowles present. At the time, Doyle boasted that he had 40 good contacts in the Communist Party, and subsequently informed Cox that his agents had given him affidavits that he had been framed by the Communists so that his books as Secretary-Treasurer of the 1L.L.W.U. revealed a shortage. It was because of this statement that Cox was willing to bring a suit against the particular persons alleged to be responsible for the shortage, but Doyle insisted that the suit must be brought in the grand style in which it was subsequently filed.

Cox also revealed that he gave an affidavit to R. P. Bonham, Seattle District Di- rector of Immigration, charging Harry Bridges with sympathy towards the Communists in the LL.A. 38-79. The affidavit was prepared in a room on the 12th floor of (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

AN ECHO OF THE SALINAS VIGILANTE RAIDS OF 1934

When vigilantes destroyed a Filipino bunk house by fire in September, 1934, the striking workers lost their personal possessions. The County Board of Supervisors rejected the various claims for damages. Thereupon, instead of suing the County singly, 54 Filipinos who had suffered loss assigned their claims, 765.45, to Luis Agudo. The latter filed suit against the County under a statute imposing liability upon a county or municipality for damages to property caused by mobs.

The First District Council of Appeals recently ruled that the claims were not assign- able. Consequently, the statute of limitations having run, the Filipino boys cannot now sue individually. However, an appeal has been taken to the State Supreme Court.

LICENSE FEE FOR PAMPLET DISTRIBUTION RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL Prohibition of the sale of pamphlets on public streets in New York without a license fee was recently declared unconstitutional by Magistrate Morris Rothenberg in a case involving the sale of a pamphlet entitled.

“John L. Lewis Exposed.”’ The peddler was charged with violation of a section of the New York City Administrative Code.

Magistrate Rothenberg contended that the regulation was an infringement of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Applauding the decision, John L. Lewis, C.1.0. head, said:

“I hope the members of the C.I.O. may have as much freedom to distribute their handbills and sell their publications as the C.1.O. is willing to accord to its enemies.’ aggregating $7,

Tnductial Association Smears the A.C.L.U.

The August 16 issue of the Anti-Communist Bulletin, “Published by the Industrial Association of San Francisco... for the dissemination of information on subversive activities and objectives,” is devoted to “smearing”? the American Civil Liberties Union as a Communist organization. First of all, it quotes from the discredited Ham. Fish Committee report of 1931, which falsely stated that, ‘‘The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the Communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 per cent of its efforts are on behalf — of communists who have come into conflict with the law.” Then, by quoting four brief passages from the 96-page annual report of the A.C.L.U. for 1938, and two excerpts from a civil liberties leaflet, it seeks to establish that the A.C.L.U. today expends 90 per cent of its efforts on behalf of communists.

Nothing could be more false. By similar extracts from the national report and other A.C.L.U. literature it could be “proved” that the A.C.L.U. spends 90 per cent of its time defending the civil liberties of Negroes, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Nazis, or many other groups. In the course of its nonpartisan work, the A.C.L.U. defends the civil liberties of all individuals and groups, without regard to their economic or poli- tical complexion.

The annual report itself discloses that, “The freedom of action of the Communist Party has made such headway that only a few cases of interference with their civil liberties arose,” and “no proceeding against Communists for political activities took place in 1937-1938.”

The local director of the Union entered a protest with the Industrial Association against the misrepresentations made by the “Bulletin,” and requested an opportunity to make a reply therein. While the request was brushed aside by the Association spokesman, he did place an order for 1000 copies of the annual report which will be sent to their membership, if they can be supplied by our national office.

ALABAMA PARDON BOARD REJECTS SCOTTSBORO PLEAS

Applications for pardons for Clarence Norris and Haywood Patterson, two of the five Scottsboro boys still in jail, have been unanimously turned down by the Alabama Pardon Board.

On the ground that there was still time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the applications were therefore ‘“premature,’ the Board also rejected the pleas of the remaining three defendants.

Governor Bibb Graves is due to make the final decision on the pardons after September 16, the last date for appeal to the high court on three of the convictions.

Page 2

L. A. Times Contempt © Of Court Conviction Menaces Free Press

The Los Angeles Times on August 25 was found guilty on five counts of contempt of court for publishing editorials discussing cases pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Among others, the Times editorials commented on the widely publicized Jackie Coogan case, the conviction of “Queen’”’ Helen and Edwin P. Werner, the conviction of the Douglas sit-down strikers and the contempt, proceedings against itself.

The contempt citations were issued at the instance of the ‘Judicial Independence Committee” of the Los Angeles Bar Association. Recently, the same Committee secured contempt convictions against three C.1.0. leaders for sending telegrams to Judge Reuben S. Schmidt protesting against the appointment of a receiver of the longshoremen’s hiring hall at San Pedro, while the case was pending before the Judge. Also convicted, was Charles J. Katz, C.I.0O. attorney, accused of filing an improper affi: davit in the same case intimating a strike might be called if a receiver was appointed.

Bridges Accused of Contempt

In the meantime, the bar Committee had a contempt citation issued against Harry Bridges (1) for having prepared the abovementioned affidavit; (2) for sending a telegram to Frances Perkins protesting Judge Schmidt’s decision and causing the telegram to be made public in the press, and (3) for statements made from time to time that the longeshoremen would engage in a strike in the event a receiver took possession of their hiring hall. Judge Edward Bishop recently held Bridges for trial on the last two counts.

A Civil Liberties Issue

The A.C.L.U. has taken the position that it will not defend contempt cases where persons have sought to influence a judge by sending letters and telegrams. But the Union does maintain that freedom of speech includes the right to discuss pending cases at public meetings and in the public press; and that courts should have no authority to | punish for contempt of court statements concerning a pending case, except upon evidence that such statéments actually af-. fected the judge or had a “clear and present danger” so to do. In both the Bridges and Times cases, the A.C.L.U. has opposed the contempt charges as a “friend of the court.”’

The Times will appeal the conviction to the State Supreme Court. The A.C.L.U. will continue to appear in the proceedings as a friend of the court. The Bridges case is scheduled to go to trial on September 6.

MASSACHUSETTS BAN OF L W. O. PROTESTED

Charging discrimination against an insurance organization because of the alleged political beliefs of some of its members, the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Committee has called upon Insurance Commissioner Charles F. J. Harrington to reverse his recent action refusing to renew the license of the International Workers Order. Terming the action “designedly unfair and malicious” and “a summary attempt to exercise power which the Commissioner does not or should not possess,” the Civil Liberties Committee has filed its protest with Governor Hurley.

Revocation of the I.W.O.’s license, according to reports received by the Union, was based on the charge that some of the members were “‘Communistic.”’ State Senator Sybil Holmes, chairman of the late Special Commission Investigating Subversive Activities, has declared that strikebreakers and policemen are not eligible for membership in the I.W.O. and that the Order or some of its members aided the cause of Loyalist Spain. I.W.O. officials were given no opportunity for defense against the charges.

The Anti-Picketing Initiative; ‘Death Blow To Trade Unionism!

Some fifty San Francisco organizations, including the A.C.L.U., have organized a Committee for the Defense of Labor’s Civil Rights to fight the anti-picketing initiative that will appear on the November ballot. While the State Supreme Court has before it a plea to invalidate the measure because of a defective title, there appears small liklihood that it will be successful. A ruling is expected within the next week.

We submit herewith an argument against the measure prepared by a leading A.C.L.U. attorney:

If the proposed Labor Initiative becomes law, workingmen of this State will have lost their every last resource for keeping tolerable the conditions under which they must work. Oppressed workingmen and their families can go on living, but a society and a state whose public policy condones oppression cannot go on living.

Social Justification for Labor Unions

During the past hundred years history has taught a lesson which has been taken to heart by courts and legislatures of every state and of the national government. That lesson is simple. Individual workingmen are helpless in dealing with an employer of many workingmen; they can hope for opportunity to bargain with their employer on some basis approaching equality and thereby have a fair chance to maintain or — improve their pay and conditions of work only if they join together and unify their influence; the essential instrument for achieving such unification, for keeping it alive and for giving it effect in negotiations with an employer is the labor union.

For only through a labor union which is independent of the employer and which has experience and knowledge in negotiating with employers can the needs of workingmen be protected. Such is the historic ‘social justification for labor unions accepted by the highest court of our land.

Anti-Union for Three Reasons

So deeply ingrained are all these things in the hearts and minds of the people of this state that no one would dare challenge them openly. Therefore, the proposed initiative statute comes in the guise of approving all these things and calls itself a statute to “Recognize the right of workers to strike and bargain collectively.”’ But this name is a lie. Here are three plain reasons why this name isa lie:

1. This proposed statute turns .every labor union into an outlaw. This is done by many words which cleverly destroy every single privilege of a labor union to keep its members, to seek new members and to exercise the elemental function of collective bargaining. Thus, it is made a crime punishable by imprisonment sentences which in the total may amount to incarceration for life, for any person who in order to win for a labor union the right to represent employees in collective bargaining does any of the following things: (a) attempts in a perfectly fair and honest way to influence anybody not to work for the employer or to patronize him; (b) attempts to influence anybody by means of a perfectly fair, honest, and peaceable picket, or even a perfectly fair and honest banner, to join the union; (c) attempts to induce or influence anybody to strike or participate in any strike.

2. This proposed statute turns any workingman into a potential criminal subject to incarceration for life if in order merely to maintain his wage against a threatened cut or to keep tolerable his conditions of work he pickets his own employer’s place of business and does so in the fairest and most peaceable way imaginable. Such a workingman’s only chance to avoid imprisonment is by proving that a majority of his co-workers have also had the courage and strength and resources to resist wagecuts and have joined him in his strike. Where can workingmen get such courage and strength and resources if they can get no help from labor unions.

3. This statute turns every workingman out of his job (and thereby increases the relief rolls of the community at large) if he strikes against his employer’s refusal to recognize and deal with his union. Yet, according to statistics of the Department of Labor in Washington, 58 per cent of all strikes in 1987 were provoked by this single cause.

A Death-Blow to Trade-Unioniem: :

No honest student of this proposal can avoid concluding it is a death-blow to trade- unionism and, therefore, to the right of men to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing. The people of this state will pay a horrible price if they conclude to adopt this proposal. That price will be economic and spiritual degradation - of the majority of its citizens. That price will be isolation of this state from the proud company of liberal and progressive governments which includes not only every industrial state in our country but our national government itself. That price will be a long step toward the transformation of the free men of this state into slaves.

Strikebreaking Agency Attacked At License Hearing

Charging that the Railway Audit and Inspection Company has been engaged in provoking industrial riots, spying on labor unions, “‘hooking,’”’ and supplying employers with tear gas and arms, the Civil Liberties Union contested the renewal of the company’s license as a private detective agency. The public hearings on the agency’s application for a license was conducted at the division of licenses of the New York Department of State.

Representing the Union at the hearing, Samuel Slaff, legislative representative of the New York Civil Liberties Committee, assailed the company for refusing to obey a subpoena by the LaFollette Senate Committee on Civil Liberties. Mr. Slaff pointed out that records revealing ‘‘continuous violation of workers’ rights’”’ had been destroyed by the R. A. and I. Co. in efforts to hide the facts.

Listing the grounds for complaint, the Union through Mr, Slaff contended:

“The Railway Audit and Inspection Co., in collaboration with Federal Laboratories, Inc., and other munition manufacturers, has been furnishing employers with arms, mu- nitions and tear gas for industrial warfare. It has paid stool pigeons for reports of activities of employee organizations and offered trusted positions in trade unions for the purpose of revealing the identity of members, plans of action and similar in- formation.

“Illegal methods are used by the agency to interfere with peaceful picketing and to break up lawful strikes. Disturbances have been instigated by the agency in order to encourage employers to retain its services. Lists of members of labor unions have been peddled by the agency to employers to serve aS a basis for blacklists and discharges. Armed guards have been furnished by the agency for use in anticipation of or during a strike.

“In the face of these facts, the existence and operation of the Railway Audit and Inspection Company represents a menace to industrial peace in the state and a constant threat to the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively without interfer- ence.”

Thirteen major corporations in the State were listed by the Union as having retained or continuing to retain the services of the agency.

Hearings will be continued on September 28. :

Radverse Decisions In S. F. And L. A. Handbill Cases

Last March the U. S. Supreme Court — handed down an important decision upholding freedom of the press. It held invalid an ordinance of Griffin, Georgia, which prohibited the distribution of handbills or other literature without a permit secured from the chief of police. Despite that decision, similar handbill ordinances of San Francisco and Los Angeles counties have recently been sustained by appellate courts on the ground that the distribution of handbills may be regulated in order to prevent littering of the streets.

In the San Francisco case the appellate department of the Superior court ruled that “The ordinance of the City and County of San Francisco upon its face discloses the reason for its adoption, viz: the prevention of the littering up of streets and sidewalks, where only the distribution is restricted and we know as a matter of common knowledge occurs with an unregulated control of the disposition of handbills and dodgers. There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the terms of the ordinance. There is no attempt made by its terms to prohibit distribution of handbills or dodgers of any kind, but only to regulate such distribution.”

The Los Angeles decision, handed down four days earlier, reasoned in much the same fashion. ‘Reasonable regulation of the use of public speech and places,” said the court, ‘‘may be made for the purpose of preventing littering of such streets and places with waste material, and such regulations are valid—even though they may incidentally affect the exercise of some rights otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution.”

The Los Angeles decision is being appealed to the State Supreme Court. The A.C.L.U. is co-operating in the case.

PENNSYLVANIA FLAG SALUTE . CASE TO BE HEARD IN OCTOBER

The U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia will consider in October the appeal of the Minersville, Pa., School Board from Federal Judge Albert B. Maris’ ruling last June holding unconstitutional a local regulation requiring school children to salute the flag even in contravention of their religious beliefs.

Judge Maris, in granting the appeal, has held up his order directing the school board to reinstate Lillian and William Gobitis, members of Jehovah’s Witnesses expelled from school in November, 1935, for refusing to salute the flag on the ground that it was a form of idolatry. Until the appeal is heard, the children are to continue their education at schools conducted by the religious sect.

In holding the compulsory flag salute invalid last June, Judge Maris declared that under the Constitution the Gobitis family --was entitled to its belief that saluting the flag had a religious significance.

The Civil Liberties Union has cooperated with the religious sect in fighting dismissals in scores of communities in thirteen states.

N. Y. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ADOPTS CIVIL RIGHTS BILL

' A clause in the State Constitution barring discrimination by any concern because of race, color or faith has been unanimously adopted by the New York Constitutional Convention now meeting in Albany. The text of the clause as adopted reads:

‘No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this State or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his civil . rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by this State or any agency or subdivision of the State.”’ The term “civil rights’? was defined by Justice Harry E. Lewis, chairman of the Bill of Rights Committee, as “the rights which are found in the Constitution, in the Civil Rights Law and in the statutes.”

Page 3

The Better American Federation ‘Leads The Dies Witch Hunt

For several years the B.A.F. (Better America Federation), Los Angeles redbaiting organization, has been in eclipse. But recently it loomed into prominence again in connection with the Dies committee which is making an investigation of “‘un-American’’ activities.

Miss Margaret Kerr, Secretary-Manager of the B.A.F., occupied the spotlight in the newspaper world as she appeared before the Dies committee to give testimony concerning the activity of the “Reds” on the West Coast. It reminds one of the time when the Hamilton Fish redbaiters conducted their investigation back in 1930. At that time Col. LeRoy Smith was the head of the Better America Federation. Some of us vividly recall how he frothed at the mouth as he sought to out-do the Red Squad in revealing to the Fish committee the secrets of a gigantic interlocking red conspiracy. Nothing really ever came of the Fish investigation as the findings of the committee were practically shelved by Congress, but they did furnish a lot of big headlines in the reactionary press and enabled the various red-baiters of the country to shine temporarily.

We predict that the same outcome will follow the investigations of the present red-baiters in Washington. of Texas, who heads the committee, is one of the most reactionary members of the House of Representatives, a narrow-minded, old-style Southern Democrat and an inveterate foe of the Roosevelt New Deal. Those associated with him on the committee for the most part are of the same ilk. One of them is a “lame duck” from Ohio, who recently failed of re-election.

B.A.F. Charges Bridges “Plot’’

Recently the witch-hunters had a gala season at the national capital. Miss Kerr and her organization made the front pages again and again. She told one rather startling story to the effect that Attorney A. L. Wirin of the American Civil Liberties Union had tried to bribe a spy employed by the B.A.F. to gather under-cover information concerning Harry Bridges and the Communists. This spy who bears the name Irving A. Markheim had made affidavit, it was alleged, that Mr. Wirin had called him to his law office and proposed to give him $500 if he would avoid testifying before the Dies committee by betaking himself to Mexico. Such a lurid tale went over big with the witch-hunters. The only trouble with it was that it was not true.

The “Plot” Exposed

Mr. Wirin’s version of the matter is as follows:

“‘Markheim’s statement that in behalf of Bridges I offered to finance for him a trip to Mexico is a lie. Markheim came to my office in July wholly unsolicited by me. I had never heard of him, seen him, or known of him before.

“He told me that the Dies committee had been hounding him to give it information against Bridges; that he already had given an affidavit to Miss Margaret Kerr of the Better America Federation, to the effect that Bridges was a member of the Communist party; that the statement was false and that he had received some money from Miss Kerr before he made it.

“He told me further that he was broke -and needed some money. I explained to him that neither Bridges nor I would pay any money for any testimony that he had given or might give about Bridges, if that is what he meant but if he could get back the affidavit which he had given to Miss Kerr, I would appreciate his bringing it to me. He promised to do that. I have never heard from, him nor seen him since.”

Of course the untruth of Markheim’s story did not seem to disturb the B.A.F. In the eagerness of this group to get some

Martin Dies

thing on the ‘Reds’ they grasp at straws frequently.

It may be well for us here to review briefly the history of the B.A.F. It originated in Los Angeles under the name of the Commercial Federation of California, and was set up by Big Business to smash everything liberal and progressive that appeared above the California horizon. Through the years it has done business under no less than nine different aliases. So the chamelion has nothing on the B.A.F.

At one time the big corporations backed the B.A.F. with huge contributions. For instance, the Southern California Edison Company supported it to the tune of $3,000 a year, back in the ’20s. Other big business establishments were almost as generous. So that at that time the B.A.F. boasted of a pledged income of $160,000. per year.

Accomplishments of B.A.F.

Among the accomplishments of the B.A. F., according to its own story, is the putting of the Criminal Syndicalism Act on the statute books in 1919, and keeping it there ever since. It boasts also that in 1934 it had the Criminal Syndicalism Act written into the teachers’ tenure law. Further the B.A.F. has hounded liberal ministers in Southern California and has incited movements among their congregations to get them kicked out of their pulpits. It even went so far as to oppose democratic measures like the Initiative, Referendum ' and Recall, dubbing them subversive of democracy. It called public waterworks and public service commissions ‘“Bolshevistic.”’ Allegedly standing for the Constitution, it has probably done more to pervert the provisions of that noble document than has any other group in Southern California.

B.A.F. Thoroughly Discredited

In the estimation of well-balanced American citizens the B.A.F. is a thoroughly dis- credited organization and has been for many years. Senator J. M. Inman, speaking from the floor of the State Senate, once declared:

“We see the Better America Federation at work using what control it possesses to serve the special interests. Under a false title, which would seem to indicate that that organization is aiming to make American citizenship and better national life, we find it being used only and actively in trying to aid these corporate interests in their endeavor to evade just taxation. These gentlemen are typically of the reactionary type, representative of ‘Big Busi— ness’ and ready to serve the big special interests in so primitive a form of special privilege as evasion of just taxes... They simply want big business to be free to engage in unregulated and unbridled exploitation of the people of our State.”’

COURT HOLDS NEGROES MUST NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE

For a generation or more negroes have been systematically excluded from jury Service in Merced county, despite the fact that over eight per cent of the population are negroes:and that seven per cent of the entire population are negroes who are qualified voters.

Recently, Luther Hines, a negro, was convicted of second degree murder. His attorney objected to the exclusion of negroes from the venire and jury, but the objection was overruled.

In reversing the conviction, the court held that Hines had been denied the equal protection of the laws and an impartial jury trial which are guaranteed by the federal constitution. “That does not mean,”’ said the court, “that an accused is entitled to a jury upon which there are members of his own race. It only means that qualified jurors must not be excluded from service merely because of their nationality, race, or color.”

Page 4

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.........................As8sociate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Yeerr. Five Cents per Copy.

$5,100,000 Suit Framed (Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

the Mark Hopkins Hotel. It recited, among other things, that Bridges stated, “‘To hell with the President of the United States,”’ when the latter recommended mediation of the 1934 strike. He claims Bridges added that he “had more power behind him than the Government of the United States” and that “before three years he would be in a position to prove his statements.” Martin Dies, chairman of the present Congressional Witch-Hunt has just used this affidavit, among others, as a basis for demanding the immediate deportation of Bridges.

At the present time, “Big Boy” Doyle is reported to be in Chicago. Still outstanding is a warrant charging him with assault in attacking the local director of the A.C.L.U. and destroying his motion picture films.

SUIT TESTING RIGHT OF ASSEMBLAGE GOES TO TRIAL

Request of the Communist Party of San Francisco for declaratory relief against Joseph J. Phillips, Custodian of Property, who refuses to rent the Civic Auditorium to them because he: thinks radicals should not be permitted to use public property, goes to trial in the Superior Court on September 1. Attorney George R. Anderson is appearing for the petitioners.

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES PUBLICATION “Let Freedom Ring” (Office of Education, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C, 879.9. $ .60).

The scripts of the 13 national broadcasts presented last year over a nation-wide net- work on aspects of civil liberties. Adapted for use on the stage, in classrooms and on the radio.

The subjects covered: “Bill of Rights,” “Trial by Jury,” “Freedom of Speech,” “Freedom of the Press,” ‘“Freedom of Worship,” “Right of Petition,’ ‘Free Assembly,” “Right of Suffrage, ” “Women’s and Children’s. Rights,” ‘Right to Patent,” “Right to Habeas Corpus,” “Right of Freedom in the Home,” and “Right of Racial Equality.” Supplementing the scripts are lesson aids and directions for music and production, and a useful manual.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Chairman Dr. Charles A. Hogan Director Ernest Besig Prof. Harold Chapman Brown A. Alan Clark George T. Davis Hugo Ernst Prof. Glenn Hoover Mary Hutchinson Dr. Edgar A. Lowther Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn Judge Jackson H. Ralston Helen Salz Rabbi Jacob J. Weinstein Marie De L. Welch Samuel S. White Charles Erskine Scott Wood

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Wayne Collins James J. Cronin, Jr. Morris Grupp Dr. Robert F. Leavens Clarence E. Rust Rev. E. C. Vanderlaan

ties infringed is dealt with:

Jersey City Leaflet Barrage Resumed As Court Ruling Nears

In a campaign to acquaint the people of Jersey City with the reaction throughout the nation to Mayor Frank Hague’s wholesale suppression of civil rights, the Civil Liberties Union has renewed distribution of leaflets attacking the Hague administra- tion.

First of the series of leaflets distributed consists of reproductions of editorial car- toons from leading newspapers in the country depicting Mayor Hague and his repres- sive tactics. Entitled “Candid Views of Mayor Hague,” it invites Jersey City residents to join the fight for constitutional rights.

Resuming the battle in the courts, the C.I.0. and the Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support of their joint action against Jersey City on free speech issues. The brief was filed by Dean Spaulding Frazier of Newark University Law School with Judge William Clark of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals at Newark. Seeking an omnibus injunction against the Hague administration, the C.I.O. and the A.C.L.U. declared in the brief:

“The right of workers to organize and confederate for purposes of collective bar- gaining and mutual aid and protection is now recognized both at common law and by Federal statute ... This right, involving as it does the use by labor of all the normal means of human communication, depends upon the free exercise of basic constitutional rights—the right of free speech, free press and the like. If these constitutional rights are abridged in any community—in Jersey City by coercion of the government officials themselves—the right to organize is defeated.”’

The brief goes on to show that the basic civil liberties do not exist for labor in the Jersey City area and that “‘this'suppression is directed to the ulterior end that labor shall not organize.’’ Each of the civil liberinterference with distribution of literature, unlawful searches and seizures, deportations and exclusions, “‘molestation,” interference with meetings in private halls and denial of street meetings.

Answering Hagues’ charge that the plaintiffs came into the case with ‘unclean hands,” the C.I.0O. and the A.C.L.U. in their brief denied that they had ever violated a valid law and charged that Mayor Hague had failed to make good on his numerous threats to ‘“‘expose”’ them.

“The true measure of this case is that the defendants were obliged to rest without even attempting to put in an affirmative case, after they stood condemned upon the plaintiff’s proof of breaking down our most precious and important legal and historical traditions—the Bill of Rights.”’

Judge Clark is expected to announce his decision in the case during the first ten days in September.

BAR ASSOCIATION ASKED TO LIFT BAN ON NEGROES

On the heels of its announcement creating a special committee in defense of civil rights, the American Bar Association was urged by the Civil Liberties Union this week to remove its discrimination against Negroes as a first step in conducting a militant fight in behalf of minorities. .

The Union’s suggestion was contained in a letter to Frank J. Hogan, president of the Association, by Arthur Garfield Hays, counsel for the A.C.L.U. Congratulating the Bar Association for its “long delayed recognition of its responsibility”’ in the field of civil liberties, Mr. Hays offered the cooperation of. the Union and “Personally,” Mr. Hays concluded, “I wish to add that Jam a member of the American BarAssociation but that I intend to resign unless some action is taken so that Negroes may be admitted to membership. I hope such an example on my part will be followed by many other members.”’

its branches | throughout the country to the Association’s newly created committee.

OPEN FORUM

Editor: Having read with interest the August number of the A.C.L.U. News, I should like to comment on a few points as follows:

In the debate between the San Francisco Chronicle and Mr. Roger Baldwin, the latter concludes with the sentence, “‘But we do not think the National Labor Relations Act as administered endangers them (their civil liberties).’’ It seems to me this is beside the point. The real question is not whether the Act as administered by the present Labor Board endangers civil rights but whether the terms of the Act are such that a suc- ceeding board could legally endanger them. As I understand it that is all the Chronicle charged.

It is reassuring to note that the A.C.L.U. is taking steps to clarify the meaning of the Wagner Act but it does not seem to me that your position regarding the rights of employers is quite consistent with the general purpose of your organization, which is the defense of free speech and other civil liberties. You say, eens upon utterances to employees should Cease as soon as employers cease coercive measures against the right to organize.’ I can not see that the employers’ right to freedom of speech is contingent upon their observing provisions of the Act. Their right to freedom of speech is limited only by the laws of libel, etc. If they infringe upon any other laws they should be prosecuted and punished accordingly but their right to freedom of speech is not thereby affected.

You say that “prohibition of coercive acts to prevent organization of employees does not violate civil liberty.” The core of this question is of course the meaning of the word “‘coercive.”’ I do not see how under our constitution Congress can take away from an employer the right to say anything he chooses to his employees or any one else so long-as such statements do not involve . libel, slander, fraud, and similar illegali- ties. Even if that is the purpose of the Wagner Act and even if the highest courts sustain the constitutionality of the Act it does not seem to me that the A.C.L.U. is living up to its principles, if it condones the singling out of one group of citizens for free speech restrictions not applied to all groups.—Eliot Blackwelder.

Alien Pacitist Granted Citizenship In Akron, O.

In an unprecedented ruling, Common Pleas Judge E. D. Fritch of Akron, Ohio; has granted citizenship to an alien despite an expressed refusal to bear arms in defense of the United States.

The alien, Mrs. Magdalen Aberth, was. born in Czechoslovakia and is a member of the Nazarene church, which includes warfare in the Biblical command, ‘‘Thou shalt not kill.”” Mrs. Aberth declared that she would not go to war, but when Judge Fritch formally asked if she would bear arms for her country, she answered “I will.” Judge Fritch ruled that her reply entitled her to citizenship and added his conviction that no woman in this country would be asked to carry arms in any war.

Whe U.S. Supreme Court last April declined to review the appeal of Rev. Abraham Warkentin, a Mennonite minister of Newton, Kansas, who was denied citizenship because of his pacifist beliefs, based on religious grounds.

Now awaiting appeal to the U. S. Sureme Court is the case of Miss Rebecca Shelley of Michigan, native-born American and prominent pacifist, who lost her citizenship by marriage to an alien. Miss Shelley’s petition for citizenship was denied in 1933 and 1935 on the question of her unwilling-. ness to bear arms, despite the fact that her: application has been endorsed by the Commissioner of Naturalization.