vol. 3, no. 10

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER, 1938 No. 10

PUPILS MUS SATLUTE FLAG

Court Rules Agaliist Religions Liberty: New Hearing Sought

The Sacramento flag salute decision was reversed by the California Supreme Court on August 31, and Wayne M. Collins, A. C. L. U. attorney, has requested the court to grant a rehearing. The petition for a rehearing, filed September 19, contends that if religious liberty ‘“‘may be invaded by a State for the doubtful purpose of promoting patriotism as a public safety measure in the absence of danger to the public safety it necessarily follows that the liberties of speech, press and assemblage may be invaded upon a like pretext.” If the petition is rejected by the court, as seems probable, the only alternative lies in an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Such an appeal will be taken if Jehovah’s Witnesses, the religious organization involved, requests it.

Clear and Present Danger Rule

The petition asserts that “the real test to apply to the instant case is the ‘clear and present danger’ rule. . . It is obvious that the omission of the respondent did not create a ‘clear and present danger’ that threatened to bring about any substantive evil that it is the declared policy of the law to prevent or prohibit in order to insure the public safety.”

The court’s decision upholds compulsory flag saluting for public school children as a proper exaction “‘by the State of social and patriotic duties of the citizens and such other duties as may have reasonable relations to the maintenance of good order, safety and the public welfare of the nation.”’” Support for its decision is found in two similar United States Supreme Court cases in which the latter refused to grant hearings on the merits for “want of a substantial federal question.’”’ Because of those precedents, the State Supreme Court decided that a federal question, such as religi- ous liberty, can no longer be raised.

Pending Since 1935

The Sacramento flag salute case has been pending since October 25, 1935, when Char- lotte Gabrielli, then nine years old, was suspended from school for refusing to salute the flag because of religious objections. A petition for a writ of mandate was filed in the Superior Court on April 28, 1986, by A. C. L. U. Attorney Wayne M. Collins, and the child’s reinstatement was ordered by Superior Judge Peter J. Shields of Sacramento, on July 9, 1936. Judge Shields held that compulsory. flag saluting in California public schools is unconstitutional if it conflicts with a child’s religious beliefs.

“Simple Question of Standing Mute”

Following an appeal by the school authorities, the Third District Court of Appeal on November 30, 1937, unanimously upheld Judge Shields’ decision. Said the court, “The record before us presents no question of morality; no question of peace; no question of disobedience or improper conduct on the part of the petitioner; just a simple question of standing mute while other pupils saluted the flag and repeated the pledge of allegiance.”

(Please turn to page 3 fora full report of the State Supreme Court’s decision.)

LEST WE FORGET!

Occasionally we carry notices in the A.C. L. U. News that we would appreciate payment of pledges that are owing. With the Union’s fiscal year drawing to a close, may we repeat again our gentle reminder. If YOUR pledge is still unpaid, please send us your check NOW!

A.C. L. U AIDS HARRY BRIDGES IN CONTEMPT CASE

For having sent a telegram to Secretary Perkins criticizing a judge’s appointment of a receiver for the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Harry Bridges, West Coast director of the CIO was convicted and fined $125 by Superior Judge Edward T. Bishop in Los Angeles.

Attorney Lee B. Stanton appeared for the Civil Liberties Union’s Southern California branch in defense of Bridges on free speech issues. The Union held that courts should have no authority to punish except upon evidence that such statements actually affected the judge, or represented a “clear and present danger’’ to do so.

Judge Bishop ruled that Bridges’ telegram to Secretary Perkins ‘“‘tended to em barrass and disturb the Court.’’ The labor leader was cleared, however, of another contempt citation arising from an alleged threat to call a maritime strike. It was charged that Bridges sought to “intimidate’’ Superior Judge Reuben Schmidt during a court fight with the A. F. of L. some months ago. :

The contempt proce aes were instituted: by the Judicial Independence Committee of the Los Angeles’ Bar Association. Four other union leaders, also cited for contempt on similar grounds, were recently fined, one defendant receiving a five-day jail sentence. Appeals in two cases will shortly be argued in the California Supreme Court; a third conviction, upheld in the State Supreme Court, is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

New Developments In Red-Baiting Expose

Last month we reported how Stanley M. (Larry) Doyle, Harper Knowles and A. L. Crawford had duped Ivan Francis Cox into filing his $5,100,000 red-baiting suit. Since that time the following events have taken place in the notorious affair:

1. Cox reduced his exposure to a 50page sworn statement given before Ernest Besig and Richard Gladstein;

2. Cox filed a dismissal of his $5,100,000 suit with the San Francisco County Clerk;

3. Cox, by registered letter, requested his ‘attorney of record, A. L. Crawford, to enter a like dismissal with the County Clerk; Crawford ignored the request;

4. Cox sent a sworn statement to the Dies Committee, which is considering the Bridges deportation matter, requesting that his earlier affidavit against | Bridges be withdrawn because, ‘Since signing this affidavit I have learned from bitter experience that Mr. Doyle, Mr. Knowles, and an attorney named A. L. Crawford have been using me as a dupe for their schemes, and have tricked me into making statements and signing my =e to documents which are not true”’

5. Conflicting reports have been received that Larry Doyle is in Chicago and the bay area.

THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH CELEBRATED FOURTH | BIRTHDAY ON SEPTEMBER 14

The Northern California branch of the ‘American Civil Liberties Union celebrated its fourth birthday on September 14 last. The branch had its start following the San Francisco general strike when Chester S. Williams reorganized it with the full finan- cial support of the national office.

Mr. Williams carried on until January 1, 1935, when he was succeeded by Dr. George Hedley. The present director, Ernest Besig, assumed charge on June 23, 1935. Dr. Charles A. Hogan has been Chairman of the Executive Committee from the outset, and most of the members of the Executive and Advisory Committees have likewise served from the beginning.,

The Union had its original start in N onthe ern California in the summer of 1926, but financial difficulties compelled a suspension of operations in the fall of 1927. Until the 1934 reorganization, Austin Lewis, with the support of a few devoted friends, car- ried on a single-handed fight in the defense of civil liberties in this area.

The Southern California branch of the A. C. L. U. is now celebrating its fifteenth anniversary. Dr. Clinton J. Taft has been director since the branch was organized.

Page 2 :

Let Freedom Ring

‘““Anti-Ism League”

The San Francisco Junior College has blossomed forth with an Anti-Ism League. Only evidence of the League thus far isa strident, two-page tabloid size sheet called Straight Talk, dated September 6, 1938. Freshman Editor Louis Goldstone, Jr., declares the League to be ‘“‘An organization of students of the San Francisco Junior College dedicated to the study of, and the formulation of effective legal methods to combat, the propaganda and activity of Communism, Fascism, and Naziism in the : ‘United States.”’

Straight Talk credits the Dies Committee with discovering “That Communism has made great strides in American public life, ‘enlisting the aid of unsuspecting saps while masquerading under phoney names like .. . ‘The American Civil Liberties Union’. « .” We note that the red-baiting sheet appeared just prior to the bond election called to vote money to build a new Junior College.

The 100 per center who named the organization must have suffered a mental lapse, because Anti-Ism League implies opposition even to the patrioteers’ much talked about but obscurely defined Americanism.

“League for Peace and Americanism”

Congressman Martin Dies is sponsoring a League for Peace and Americanism which he promises will be five million strong, with -no dues requirements. At its head, of course, will be Fuehrer Dies. If Congressman Dies, chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee, does his duty, he will investigate Fuehrer Dies new or- ganization to determine whether it is stooging for Stalin or Hitler.

The Bar and the A. C. L. U.

At the request of the A. C. L. U., the local Chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild has designated M. C. Symonds, member of the San Francisco bar, to the Union’s ' Advisory Committee. At the same time, the State Bar and the San Francisco Bar Association were asked to name representatives to the Union’s Advisory Committee. Such ~ representation is desired because it is bejieved the A. C. L. U. and organized law- yers have a common interest in defending civil liberties.

Anti-Semitism

From time to time anti-Semitism makes a feeble and short-lived appearance in Northern California. The latest example called to our attention is a scurrilous leaflet dis- tributed in Oakland a short time ago bearing the name “Anti-Communist Federation of America,” a Nazi outfit from Los Angeles. .

“Christian Vigilantes Arise,’ cries the leaflet; “Buy Gentile; Employ Gentile; Vote Gentile.”’ The “‘Vigilantes” are asked particularly to boycott the movies, because “Hollywood is the Sodom and Gomorrha where International Jewry controls vice, dope, gambling; where young gentile girls are raped by Jewish producers, directors, - easting directors, who go unpunished.”

April Fool

. One morning, early in September, we had two very pleasant moving men from Bekins Van and Storage Co. visit us. ‘‘We’ve come to move your furniture to Room 1519 Mills Bldg.,” they declared. ‘‘But we don’t want to move,” we protested after we had gotten over our initial astonishment. ‘“‘We have a telephone order to move you that was given yesterday by some woman,” they insisted. “What woman?’ we demanded. “She didn’t give a name,’ said they uneasily. “Well, you find out and then move her,’’ we suggested. What’s more, we’re still at Room 612, 216 Pine Street, and we’re staying here. Incidentally, there is no Room

1519 Mills Bldg.

EMPLOYERS’ FREE SPEECH

IS NOT VIOLATED BY THE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

That no violations of employers’ rights of free speech” are involved in two widely publicized cases recently decided by the National Labor Relations Board is the con- clusion just announced by the Board of Directors of the Civil Liberties Union, follow- ing exhaustive study of the decisions by the Unions’ attorneys.

The Union had recently called the attention of the N. L. R. B. to the need for clari- fying the order against the Ford Company of Detroit to insure against infringement of free speech. The two N. L. R. B. orders just examined by the Union, in which the charges of denial of free speech to employers were widely made, involved the Muskin | Shoe Company of Westminster, Md., decided on July 5, and the Mock-JudsonVoehringer Company of Greensboro, North Carolina, decided on July 7th.

The Muskin case involved, among other factors, the distribution among employees of a.pamphlet entitled “Communists’ Iron Grip on the CIO” issued by the Constitutional Educational League, and containing extracts from an anti-union speech in Congress by Rep. Clare E. Hoffman of Michigan. The Greensboro, N. C. case involved the distribution on company time and in the company plant of an anti-union pamphlet.

In seeking to determine whether the Board was justified, by evidence of coercion against employees, in restraining employers from interference with union activities, the Civil Liberties Union found that in both cases evidence of coercion in violation of law was sufficient to justify the orders to employers to cease distributing antiunion literature. :

“In neither of these cases,’”’ declared the A.C. L. U. in a statement issued this week, “was there an order preventing future distribution of anti-union literature. In both cases the order followed the precise text of the National Labor Relations Act in forbid- ding the employer to interfere with employees’ rights to self-organization.

“In: both cases, employer distribution of anti-union literature during working hours and inside the plant was taken into account by the Board (together with many other facts showing plainly unlawful employer coercion) in reaching the conclusion that the literature itself was intended to be and was coercive and that the employer had by his entire course of conduct interfered with his men’s right of self-organization. The Civil Liberties Union is of the opinion that in neither of these cases may the employer properly claim that any right of free speech has been invaded.”’ .

The study of the N. LR. B. orders was made for the Civil Liberties Union by a committee headed by Nathan Greene, New York attorney and co-author with Prof.

Felix Frankfurter of the standard work on injunctions; and by Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel for the Union.

A. C. L. U. WILL ANSWER SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION CHARGES

Negotiations are proceeding between the A.C.L.U. and the San Francisco Industrial Association concerning publication of a letter in the latter’s Anti-Communist Bulletin answering charges in their August 16 issue that the A.C.L.U. expends ninety per cent of its time on behaif of communists.

At first, the Industrial Association agreed to purchase and distribute to its members 1000 copies of the last annual report of the A.C.L.U., but refused to fulfill its agree- ment when the A.C.L.U. requested payment in advance. Now, it has agreed to carry a letter from the Union in a forthcoming issue of the Bulletin. The letter was submitted in due time but has not yet been found acceptable to the Industria] Association. Any differences are expected to be ironed out in a conference that will be held within a few days.

ANTI-LABOR FORCES RAISE HUGE WAR CHEST

The sponsors of Proposition No. 1, the socalled California Committee for Peace in Employment Relations, are raising a huge war chest to put across their anti-labor measure. Stressing the point that, “Personal incomes are continually being jeopardiz- ed by employer-employee disturbances,” the Committee is soliciting those with large incomes to contribute to the campaign fund in a liberal amount. “The Northern Cali- fornia fund,’ says their form letter, ‘‘has been set at $100,000.” No doubt a still larger sum will be raised in Southern California.

» On the other hand, the State Federation of Labor is limiting its participation in the November elections to fighting the antipicketing proposal. To that end every union affiliated with the Federation has been asked to contribute 50 cents per member and $15,000 has been set aside from its treasury “in order that campaign activities may be started at the earliest possible moment.”’ Financial assistance has also been requested of the American Federation of. Labor. The CIO has likewise girded itself for a vigorous fight against the proposal.

Liberal groups have organized regional committees to combat the measure, and a statewide committee is to be formed on October 2nd.

Speakers against Proposition No. 1 will be furnished by the A. C. L. U. upon request. Campaign literature is also available.

LOS ANGELES ADOPTS STRINGENT ANTI-PICKETING ORDINANCE

By a vote of 198,507 to 152,065 the City of Los Angeles on September 16 adopted a stringent anti-picketing ordinance that prohibits peaceful picketing. Picketing is limited to a “bona fide strike,’”’ which is defined as a “cessation of work by at least a majority of all of the bona fide employees © of all classes of an employer in order to obtain or resist a change in wages, hours or conditions of their employment after demands made therefor on such employer, which cessation of work has taken place after a majority of all of the bona fide employees of all classes of such employer have by secret ballot voted to strike.”

Under the law, pickets must be designated by a majority of the striking bona fide employees. No two pickets are permitted within less than 25 feet of each other. In all other respects, too, the ordinance is similar to Proposition No. 1, which will be voted upon by the California electorate on November 8.

“MANKIND UNITED”

We have again had inquiries concerning “Mankind United,” which is doing a flourishing business in Northern California, particularly Oakland. Actually, it is merely the name of a book sold by The International — Registration Bureau, whose sponsors are reported undisclosed even to its local representatives. No civil liberties issues have thus far arisen in connection therewith.

We say now, as we did in April, 1937, that the whole scheme appears to be nothing but a fantastic yet highly successful book-selling racket. The book, if sold to» two hundred million people, is offered as a panacea for wars and a way to “financial . security and abundant leisure to every man, woman and child on this planet.’”’ And, for those who want to help the sponsors help themselves, the first suggestion is that they “Order as many copies of ‘Mankind United’ as you can put into circulation among your relatives, friends, acquaintances and neighbors.” We know one man who “helped” to the tune of $60, or 24 books at $2.50 each. We were given one of the books and will be glad to share its contents with anyone who is curious to inspect it. Moreover, we -would be happy, very happy, to pass title thereto at half price, or what are we offered?

Opinion In Calif. Flag Salute Case

GABRIELLI v. KNICKERBOCKER et al, (2nd) 280) August 31, 1938.

(96 Cal.

Charlotte Gabrielli, a minor nine years of age and a former student of the Fremont School, a public school of the elementary grades in the City of Sacramento, applied through her guardian ad litem to the superior court in Sacramento County for a writ of mandate addressed to the authorities of the Fremont School and the Superintendent of Schools and Board of Education of the City of Sacramento School District to compel her reinstatement as a pupil of the Fremont School, She had been expelled by the respondent authorities for persistent refusal to participate in a ceremony of saluting and pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States. Her refusal was based upon the ground of religious objection to the ceremony. The respondents have appealed from a judgment directing the issuance of the peremptory writ.

The Facts

The essential facts have been agreed upon. Petitioner and her father and guardian ad litem, Joseph — Gabrielli, are citizens of the United States and reside in the city of Sacramento School District. Petitioner was duly and regularly admitted to and was in at- tendance upon the Frement School until her expulsion, which was for the sole reason that she refused to salute the flag of the United States and pledge allegiance thereto, although she was willing to stand quietly and respectfully during the perform- ance of the ceremony by the other children. Participation in this ceremony is required of all students in public elementary schools in the city of Sacramento, although in some of the public schools of elementary . grades in the County of Sacramento compliance is not required of students who have religious objections thereto. Petitioner and her father are members of a religious organization known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” which teaches that the saluting of and the pledge of allegiance to the flag and government of the United States constitute a form of idolatry and the ascription of spiritual powers of salvation to a manmade symbol and are forbidden by the Bible; hence such acts imperil the salvation of the participant. There is no suggestion that petitioner’s objections are not made in good faith.

The Issues

In support of her contention that she has been illegally excluded from the Fremont School petitioner . argues that her expulsion has deprived her of her right to attend the public schools without due process of law (in violation of amend. XIV, sec. 1, Fed, Const., and art. I, sec. 13, Cal. Const.); that it constitutes a denial of the religious liberty guaranteed to petitioner by the California Constitution (art. I, sec. 4) and protected by amendment XIV, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States; and, finally, that it is ‘a, denial to petitioner of the equal protection of the laws, forbidden by both state and federal constitutions. (Cal. Const., art I, secs, 11 and 21; U. S. Const., amend. XIV, sec. 1.)

U. S. Decisions Controlling

Since the judgment of the trial court in the instant case the Supreme Court of the United States has twice dismissed appeals taken from state court judgments upholding the validity of regulations requiring the salute and pledge of allegiance to the flag as applied to pupils objecting on religious grounds. (Leoles v. Landers, 58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364; Hering v. State Board of Education of New Jersey, 58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152.) In view of these decisions it. cannot be held that application of the regulation requiring the salute to the flag to members of the group known as Jehovah’s Witnesses is in violation of rights guaranteed by the federal constitution. In dismissing the appeal taken from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia in\Leoles v, Landers, 192 S. HE. 218, the Supreme Court of the lice States rendered the following decision:

No Substantial Federal Question

“PER CURIAM. The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Coale v. Pearson, 290 U.S. 587, 54S. Ct. 131, 78 L. Ed. 525; Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U. S, 245, 261, 262, 55 S. Ct. 197, 203, 79 L. Hd. 343.)” (58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364.)

A. similar decision was rendered in dismissing an appeal (58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 752)) from the judgment of the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey in Hering v. State Board of Education of New Jersey, 189 Atl. 629, 194 Atl, 177. The court cited Leoles v. Landers, supra. In Nicholls v. Mayor and School Committee of Lynn (Mass.), 7 N. HB. (2d) 577, and People v. Sandstrom, 3 N. Y. S. (2d) 1006, state courts upheld the requirement of saluting the flag ag applied to pupils objecting on religious grounds. (Contra, Gobitis v. Minersville School Dist., 21 Fed, Supp. 581.)

No Violation of Due Process Clause

By reason of the above decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States the question as to whether the flag saluting requirement violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution, or any other provision of the federal constitution, is no longer open. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution and the due process clause of the state constitution (art. I, sec. 13) both prohibit the state from depriving any person “of life, liberty, or prop- erty without due process of law,’ which provisions are claimed to have been violated in the instant case. State courts in interpreting provisions of the (Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

“Page 8

— You Should Vote “No” On

Proposition No. 1

Here are twelve plain reasons why you should vote “NO” on the anti-picketing pro- posal, Proposition No. 1:

1. It violates the fundamental right of | f¥eedom of speech by prohibiting peaceful picketing in all labor controversies except “primary strikes’ which are defined merely as disputes over wages, hours and physical conditions of the place of employment;

2. It prohibits peaceful picketing in disputes arising over an employer’s refusal to recognize and deal with a union, a cause which provoked 58 per cent of all strikes in 1937;

3. It prohibits peaceful picketing in strikes arising over the discriminatory discharge of employees;

4. It prohibits pickets in a “primary

. strike” from SPEAKING to anyone by restricting their activities to patrolling on foot, wearing arm bands and wearing or carrying banners;

5. It limits pickets in a ‘‘primary strike” to employees of a struck plant, thereby inviting personal friction with the management and retaliation after the strike;

6. It places an unreasonable restriction on picketing in “primary strikes’? by limiting the number of pickets under any circumstances to one for each entrance, twenty-five feet apart, or a minimum of two pickets to the struck place of business;

7. It does not “recognize the right of workers to strike and bargain collectively’ as it claims, because it virtually eliminates the supplementary rights of peaceful picketing and the boycott, without which the right, to strike and bargain collectively . are ineffective ;

8. It duplicates existing laws against in timidation, coercion and sit-down strikes (fully covered by penal statutes against assault and battery, disturbance of the peace, trespass and other offenses) in order to camouflage its real purpose, the virtual elimination of trade unionism.

9. It is misleading and deceptive because while purporting to outlaw coercion and intimidation its has denes these terms to include peaceful acts;

It is long and so involved that consi: sideration on the merits is unlikely;

It cannot be liberalized by the legislature but only by vote of the people;

It is sponsored by the labor-hating, red-baiting, vigilante-minded Associated Farmers, who have assumed the false front of a Committee for Peace in Employment Relations.

10. Li. 12.

OPEN FORUM

“Not the Business of the A.C.L.U.”

Editor:—In the pamphlet containing the reports of the local Civil Liberties Commit- tees, which you were good enough to send me, I find on p. 6 the following passage:

“The branch aided the American League for Peace and Democracy in showing two films, The Greater Promise and Spain in Flames.”

The passage is from the report of the Cincinnati Branch. It seems to indicate that the branch sponsored the film. I do not know the film The Greater Promise, and I would personally be willing, without the slightest inhibition, to sponsor any film supporting the cause of government Spain. However, I think it is not the business of the A.C.L.U. to sponsor any film on any controversial subject, because it should not’ participate in any controversy, except one: the controversy on the merits of a free discussion. The splendid work which the A.C.L.U. is doing must be impaired if it permits itself to be dragged into a fight over issues with which it has no concern. The A.C.L.U. should be an institution for conservatives as well as liberals; true, the conservatives, up to now, refuse to join; that is too bad for the conservatives, but it ought not ‘to affect the attitude of the A.C.L.U.

It may be that I have not ee interpreted the passage and that the Cincinnati Branch only aided the American League of Peace and Democracy in fighting censorship which, needless to say, would come entirely within the orbit of A.C.L.U. activities. But if this interpretation is correct, I must say that the language of the report: should be clearer in order not to give a pretext for attacks.

I hope you will not mind this frank exad oe of my opinion.

CARL LANDAUER.

Intervened Against Censorship

Mr. Besig has sent me a copy of your letter of September 4th concerning the re‘upon employers’ utterances. port of the Cincinnati Civil Tb eres Committee.

My understanding of the Branch’s action in aiding the American League for Peace and Democracy in showing two films is that these films. were threatened with censorship by the State Board and that the Civil Liberties Union intervened to insure their showing.

Although you properly take exception to any commitment outside the field of civil liberty, I think the rest of the report, as well as the reports of the other Ohio committees, made it clear that film censorship has. been a major concern.

ROGER N. BALDWIN.

Baldwin Answers Prof. Eliot Blackwelder

On my-return to the city from vacation I find a copy of your letter of August 12th to Mr. Besig in regard to my correspondence with the San Francisco Chronicle.

You hold that the National Labor Relations Act makes unjustified restrictions We do not think it does. Freedom of speech is limited in many ways, which we accept—by libel and slander laws, by the laws making it a crime to spread rumors about the solvency of banks, by the laws against blackmail, etc. Employers because of their relation to employees are in an exceptional position to coerce their employees in regard to the protection of their rights. An employer who says “if you join a union, you will lose your job” is obviously making a threat which denies a worker his rights.. It can be argued that the employer has that right of free speech, but when it is part of a coercive course of conduct, tied up with discharges for union activity, it seems to us entirely proper that the law should intervene as it now does.

We have supported for some years a bill in Congress to make it unlawful for. -em- ployers to put in pay envelopes advice to their employees as to how to vote in na- tional elections, a practice which has been increasingly common. We think that is a proper restraint because of the nature of the relationship.

The field is a difficult one and if you think that we fail to live up to our prin- ciples in taking this position, I would like to hear what alternative course you would propose for us. ROGER N. BALDWIN.

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

Court Reluctantly Admits “Pink Socialist” To Citizenship

After waiting for fifteen years, Jakob Hullen, Santa Rosa rancher who was de“nied American citizenship on account of his political views, has finally received his ‘papers. Hullen; a German. Socialist, entered this country through Galveston, Yexas, in 1910 and settled in Sonoma County. In 1923 he declared his intentions and received his first papers. When he applied for his final papers in 1930, his petition was denied on the grounds that he

A: was a Communist and not “attached to the | principles of the Constitution of the United States.” — During the hearing, the Naturalization Examiner. submitted evidence that Hullen had been arrested in Oakland in 1920 in the wholesale raids against alien radicals, though the charge was subsequently dismissed. To questions by the Examiner and the Judge as to whether he believed that the state should confiscate industries and farms, Hullen testified that his belief was that industry and farming should be run by the state for the “benefit of all,’? and that his purpose in seeking citizenship was to enable himself to work and vote for -changes in the form of government “to bring those changes about in a peaceable manner, not by violence.”

A.C.L.U. Enters Case

The Civil Liberties Union entered the case at this point, and an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal was prepared by Attorneys A. W. Hollingsworth -and Raymond L. Henderson which contended that the evidence presented in his hearing did not support the finding that Hullen was a Communist, nor that he was not sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution, and that the Court erred in receiving evidence that Hullen had been arrested more than ten years prior to his hearing... The Court denied the appeal on the technicality that it had not been pereared within the time limits allowed by aw.

Subsequently, Hullen again filed his declaration of intention to seek citizenship. On May 12, 1938, he appeared before Federal Examiner Allen Hunter and Judge Comstock of the Sonoma County Superior Court, and testified that he was no longer a Socialist but an ardent supporter of the New Deal. Judge Comstock recalled that his original petition had been denied, characterized him as a “pink Socialist,’’ and continued his hearing until September 21 to afford the Immigration Department an opportunity to investigate Hullen’s recent activities and his asserted political allegiance.

New Deal Supporter

On September 21, with Director Ernest Besig, of the A.C.L.U., on hand in an advisory capacity, the applicant appeared before reactionary Judge Donald Geary of Santa Rosa. To the Judge’s question as to whether he was a Socialist, Hullen replied that he had not been a Socialist for ten years, that he was a supporter of the New Deal. Geary commented that the line of demarcation between a Socialist and a New Dealer was very faint! But he added that Hullen’s Socialist leanings were no legal bar to his citizenship in any event. Among other questions, Hullen was asked whether he thought the problem of the Child Labor Amendment could be better handled by the separate states. Hullen believed that the matter was one that could be met squarely only by Constitutional amendment. Geary took the opposite stand, and ey admitted eulen to citizenship. .

The California Supreme Court Opinion In Flag Salute Case

(Continued from Page 3, Col. 1)

state constitution are not necessarily concluded by an interpretation placed on similar provisions in. the federal constitution. (Sperry and Hutchinson Co. v. State, 122 N. BE. (Ind.) 584, 587; People v. Budd, 22 N. BE. (N. Y.) 670, 674; Watson v. State, 189 N. W. (Neb.) 620, 621; State of New Mexico v. Henry, 25 Pac. (2d) 204, 207; 11 Am. Jur., sec. 105, p. 741; 12 Am. Jur. 259.) But these decisions declare that cogent reasons must exist before a state court in construing a provision of the state constitution will depart from the construction placed by the Supreme Court of the United States on a similar provision in the federal constitution.

Due Process Clause Protects Religious Liberty

In addition to the due process clause, our state constitution contains an express guaranty of freedom of religion (art. I, sec. 4). The federal constitution does not contain a similar express provision protecting “religious” liberty from encroachment by state action. However, the absence of such an express provision does not weaken the force of the federal court decisions, supra, as indicating the rule to be applied in the instant case, for religious liberty is included within the “liberty’protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U. S. 245.) In. the cited case, the court upheld a regulation that students at the state university take a course in military science and tactics as applied to petitioners, who objected to enrollment in such a course on religious grounds.

Full Weight Given to Federal Flag Decisions

It must be accepted as a postulate, by reason of the subject matter involved in the dismissal of the above cited appeals, that every argument relied upon in the instant case, both for and against the power of appellant board to enforce its action of expulsion as an asserted violation of the religious freedom clause of the federal Constitution, and every argument and reason urged in the many decided cases of the several courts of the country in which the precise question was presented with respect to the violation of said religious freedom clause, came to the cognizance of the United States Supreme Court and was duly weighed by it in the process of reaching the conclusion that no substantial federal question was involved in said appealed cases. The action taken by said court in disposing of said appeals cannot be taken in any other sense than that no violation of respondent’s constitutional right in the instant case has been committed by the act of excluding respondent from attendance at said public school until she shall comply with the rule which she refuses to obey.

U. S. Court Followed Precedent We are/further of the view that the United States Supreme Court, before making its orders of dismissal, had in mind the principles which were previously enunciated in Davis v, Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 342, a searching and exhaustive review of the question be fore us, from which we make the following brief quotation:

“The term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s view of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confounded with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter. ... With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.”

‘Further Precedents Cited

To the same end may be cited the earlier case of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, and Hamilton

FLAG SALUTE VICTIM

Charlotte Gabrielli

v, Regents, etc., supra, as furnishing further reasons supporting the action of dismissal. The decision in the Reynolds case points out the omission of the constitution to define the word “religion.” In answering its own question as to what is meant by the religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution, the court reverts to Mr. Jefferson’s comment made at the time of the adoption of the first amendment to the federal. constitution, whereby the Congress was forbidden to make any law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The decision incorporates Mr. Jefferson’s comment as an aid to the interpretation of the meaning of said clause, phrased in the following words:

. I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress ‘of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

The paragraph concludes in these words:

“Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, (Jefferson) it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order,”

No Violation of Constitutional Rights

Giving due consideration to the precise constitutional question presented in the cases from which the appeals were taken and the historical background upon which are marked by the supreme law of the nation the limits beyond which the field of religious freedom may not be invaded by unwarranted encroachments of state, it clearly appears that the exactions by the state of social and patriotic duties of the citizens and such other civic duties as may have reasonable relations to the maintenance of good or- der, safety and the public welfare of the nation, may not be interpreted as infringements of the religious freedom clauses of either the state or federal organic law. We are, therefore, of the view that the rule prescribed by the board does not abridge any of petitioner’s constitutional rights by excluding her from attendance at the Sacramento city public school until such time as she shall comply with the rule which she refuses to obey.

Reasonable Regulation

The legislature has conferred upon school boards broad plenary powers to make all reasonable regulations that will in the reasonable exercise of judgment promote the efficiency of the school system in performing public welfare duties, which are limited not merely to the development of the mind in academic fields, but the sphere of which is much broader and extends to those subjects which will tend to develop and quicken the civic conscience in ways of attachment for home and country. It is only where its regulations are clearly shown to be in violation of the fundamental law that the courts, even though entertaining a different opinion from that of the governing boards as to the wisdom or expediency of adopting social regulations, may annul them. Many authorities may be cited sustaining the action of school boards in matters in which the wisdom of the board’s action may be so highly controversial that reasonable minds might well be divided as to the wisdom of the board’s action. In such cases its action is conclusive.

Salute Stimulates Patriotism

We see no violation of any article of the federal or state constitutions in its exercise of power in the instant case. The training of school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to state and nation is regarded by the law of the state as a means of protecting public welfare and is directed by the school code of the state. (Sec, 5.544.) The simple salutation to the flag and the repetition of the pledge of allegiance, in the judgment of the proper governing body, tend to stimulate in the minds of youth in the formative period of life sentiments of lasting affection and respect for and unfaltering loyalty to our government and its institutions,

The judgment is reversed and the writ is discharged. SEAWELL, J:

We concur: WASTE, C. J. CURTIS, J. LANGDON, J. EDMONDS, J. HOUSER, J. SHENK, J.

WESTWOOD VIGILANTES MUST ACCOUNT TO N.L.RB.B.

The National Labor Relations Board will hear charges of unfair labor practices against the Red River Lumber Company at Westwood on October 6. In the meantime, the Department of Justice has completed its study of Westwood’s vigilante terrorism but has not yet published its report. An independent study is being made by the San zi uuleeo Chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild