vol. 4, no. 3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. IV SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MARCH, 1939 No. 3

MISRULE IN U.S. COLONIES

A.C.L.U. Recommends Seven Steps To Protect Liberties

Broad extension of civil rights in American colonies is advocated by the American Civil Liberties Union in a study of relations of the United States government with its Carribean and Pacific possessions, just published in a 32-page pamphlet entitled “Civil Liberties in American Colonies.’”? Except for the Philippines and Virgin Islands, condi- tions oi the islands are in a ‘‘deplorable state,”

The study surveys political conditions, especially with regard to the status of civil rights, in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa and Hawaii. Copies of the pamphlet are being widely distributed to members of Congress and throughout the colonies.

Seven Point Program

Asserting that America’s promise to prepare the colonies for independent, demo- cratic self-government “has remained largely unfulfilled,” the Union urges seven steps as “remedies obviously needed:”

1. To permit Puerto Ricans to vote on genuine independence or on statehood.

2. To change the present administration in Puerto Rico by appointing officials who will permit the free exercise of civil rights, and extend self-government.

8. To adopt forms of civil government for Samoa and Guam to replace naval rule, with citizenship for the natives.

4. Tosubstitute as rapidly as practicable school instruction in native languages for instruction in English—in Guam, Samoa and Puerto Rico.

5. To retain the terms of independence for the Philippines, and assure its realiza- tion by 1946. To secure for the Philippine Commonwealth American advisers of pro- gressive mind.

6. To extend native participation and responsibility in the government of the Virgin Islands.

7. To permit Hawaii to vote on changing its territorial status to statehood.

Misrule In Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico presents the “most acute ‘ problem” in its relation to the United States, the pamphlet declares, pointing out that the nationalist movement on the island has been the object of constant repression. “Bither independence, statehood, or greater self-government is demanded by all the political parties. American prestige in Puerto Rico is now at its lowest. The policies of the present administration have given weight to all the accusations of ‘Yankee imperialism’ that have been made against the United States. All over Latin America, Puerto Rico is held up as an example of colonial misrule so obvious as to challenge the good faith of the ‘good neighbor’ policy.”

The present situation in the Virgin Islands “‘is in pleasing contrast to the status of colonial civil liberty elsewhere,” the sur

according to the report.

vey shows. “‘The conflict between American officials and the natives, acute for years under naval rule and even later, has largely disappeared under the new form of government and a liberal administration. But the organic act gives no guarantee that the present favorable state of affairs will continue.”

In the Philippines, the A. C. L. U. contends that the lack of democracy and the denial of constitutional civil rights that characterize the Commonwealth government are ‘‘ominous.”’

‘Such a regime contradicts the now (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

ROGER N. BALDWIN VISITS BAY AREA, APRIL 7 TO 13

Between April 7 and 13 Roger N. Baldwin, national director of the A. C. L. U., will make his first visit to San Francisco and the Pacific coast since 1926. Plans for Mr. Baldwin’s speaking engagements in the bay area are now in the making and will be announced in the near future.

Roger N. Baldwin

Gsveme: Olson Lifts Ban On Hearst Reporters

After excluding a San Francisco Examiner reporter from press conferences be-cause his paper allegedly made unfair criticisms of the State administration, Governor Olson revoked the order after*the A. C. L. U. filed the following protest:

Our attention has been called to a Sacramento dispatch in which you are credited with excluding a San Francisco Examiner reporter from a public press conference on the ground that his paper is guilty of ‘“unfairness and coloring of news for the purpose of sniping unfairly and untruthfully about acts of the administration.” If our reports are correct, we feel that such action violates the spirit of the constitutional guarantee of a free press.

The burden of our complaint is that a press conference, called in the course of your duties as governor, is of such a public nature that every accredited press repre- sentative should be entitled to attend. Yet, | attendance at the conference in question was allegedly denied one reporter because his paper, whether rightly or wrongly, criti- cized the activities of your administration.

We stand on the general principle that all matters of public concern should be freely discussed without interference. If a newspaper in its discussion of public issues defames governmental officials, the remedy lies in appropriate libel or slander suits, not in muzzling the offending paper. No press can long be free if it is clubbed into submission and conformance by governmental interference with its collection of news.

In presenting this complaint we appreciate the fact that in your brief administra- tion and past public record you have shown yourself to be exceedingly solicitous of civil liberties. Nevertheless, if a reporter was excluded from one of your press confer- ences for the reason given above, we wish to interpose a protest. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the strong provocation that apparently prompted your action. But we think you will agree that no matter how difficult the situation, the means to your ends should be within the letter and the spirit of constitutional guarantees. May we, therefore, strongly urge you to open your press conferences as governor to the repre- sentatives of all newspapers and news services.

Picketing and Leaflets

Latest anti-picketing ordinances to be challenged on constitutional grounds are those of Antioch and Shasta County. The entire issue would be settled if the legislature adopted one of the five proposals now before it to outlaw anti-picketing ordinances. The same goes for handbill ordinances, which are being challenged on constitutional grounds in San Mateo and Pittsburg.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Let Freedom Ring

Five Hundred and Seventeen

Our paid-up local membership and contributors hit a new high mark the first of the month when we counted 517 cards.

We'd have many more members than that, despite death, taxes, moving, unemployment and too much Fair, if some of our delinquent members could overcome inertia long enough to send in their renewals.

10-Year-Old

The Nevada City Board of Education on February 18 expelled 10-year-old Russell Stebbins, a sixth grade pupil at the Nevada City Grammar School, for his refusal to join in the flag salute exercises. Russell is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses re- -ligious organization. The A. C. L. U. urged the school authorities to postpone action on the case until the U. S. Supreme Court decides the Gabrielli flag salute appeal which is now pending before it. In the meantime, the Fresno County School Trustees’ Association urged the District Attorney to prosecute parents whose children refuse to. salute the flag.

Loyalty Oaths

A campaign is in full swing in Massachusetts to repeal the teachers oath law, which stands as a constant threat over the head of a teacher who holds unconventional views or.does something the conservative elements of a community do not like. Governor Leverett Saltonstall is pledged to sign ‘ the repealer which was recently recommended by the legislature’s joint education committee by a vote of 8 to 7. In California, Assemblyman Paul Richie is the author of A. B. 1318, which would repeal our teachers oath law.

Another Appointment

Governor Culbert L. Olson recently appointed John C. Packard, Treasurer of the Southern California Branch of the A. C. L. U., to a four-year term on the Industrial Welfare Commission.

SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO REVIEW EMBASSY PICKET BAN

A test of the constitutionality of the law prohibiting picketing in front of foreign embassies in Washington, D. C., failed this week when the U. S. Supreme Court re-. fused to grant a writ of certiorari in the convictions of four men charged with violating the law last year. Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union represented . the defendants. —

The law, passed in February, 1938, at the request of Secretary Hull, provides a fine and imprisonment for displaying banners or placards within 500 feet of embassies. The four defendants, members of a group of forty-nine demonstrators arrested last March 15 for picketing the German embassy, were found guilty in the Police Court. The convictions were upheld in October by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

A. C. L. U. attorneys held that the law -abridges freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly, and “fails to satisfy the requirements of the due pro- cess embodied in the Fifth Amendment.”

FEDERAL BUREAU OF CIVIL LIBERTIES HAILED BY UNION

Announcement. by Attorney General Frank Murphy of the formation of a Buyeau of Civil Liberties in the Department of Justice brought assurances from’ the American Civil Liberties Union this week of “hearty support and complete cooperation in an undertaking so significant as a development in the application of federal law.”

A letter to Mr. Murphy signed by members of the Union’s Board of Directors said :

“We are confident from a long experience that the Department of Justice-can through such a special agency render im- mense service investigating the denials of the rights of citizens under federal law and in-taking the appropriate action to correct them.

“We have long urged upon the Department of Justice action in cases which seem to us to come within the federal jurisdiction, and yet for which no special machinery of investigation exists. The action of the Department in connection with the Harlan County and Jersey City situations was most: gratifying, and marked a beginning of what we assume the new Bureau will do.”

Under the Attorney General’s order, the function and purpose of the new agency will be to study provisions of the Constitution and Congressional acts “relating to civil rights with reference to present conditions, to make appropriate recommendations in respect thereto, and to direct, super- vise and conduct prosecutions” in violation — of provisions of the Constitution or the Congressional laws “guaranteeing civil rights to individuals.”’ Henry A. Schweinhaut, special assistant to the Attorney General, is in charge of the bureau.

Strachey Leaves U.S. His Case Unsettled

With the Department of Labor indefinitely postponing determination of his case, John Strachey, British author and lecturer, reluctantly departed for England early this month following a short hearing at Ellis Island. The Civil Liberties Union had successfully contested in the courts the revocation of his visa by the American consul in London after he sailed for New York on a lecture tour last October.

Commenting on Strachey’s departure, his attorney, Arthur Garfield Hays, Union counsel, said:

“Despite the favorable decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals denying the right of a consul to revoke a visa once issued, Mr. . Strachey was unable to remain in the: Unit- ed States for the long period required to see the proceedings through. The government declined to indicate whether it would appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court, and the Department of Labor.took the position that it would not in any event grant Mr. Strachey a hearing until the Supreme Court decided the Strecker case in volving the deportation of a member of the” Communist Party.

“Some of us feel that-in this whole case ‘there has been a lack of fair play. Strachey stayed for this long time so as not to let down his American friends who are ashamed of the way our Government has be-haved. We could not expect Strachey to make further sacrifices. In a waiting game, the Government was sure to win. Strachey © ° came to visit, not to stay.”

Mr. Hays further stated that “Gf the Supreme Court sustains the lower court in the Strecker case, Mr. Strachey can presumab-ly not again be excluded from the United States because the government could not even raise the question of his alleged Com- Court reverses the lower court, Mr. Strachey would be in no worse position in seeking admission again than he is now. Weare confident from our knowledge of Mr. Strachey’s views, fully expressed in his numerous books, that he cannot be excluded from the United States under our present laws.”

Oakland Police Club AntiFranco Demonstrators

Charging Oakland police used excessive force in the Anti-Franco demonstration before the Oakland Auditorium Theatre on. February 11, and denied the right to picket and peaceably assemble, the American Civil Liberties Union urged City Manager — John F, Hassler and Chief of Police Bodie Wallman “to take proper disciplinary action against the police officers who were responsible for such reprehensible conduct.” Complaints have not yet been filed against the six demonstrators who were ar rested. Released on bail, they will appear a the Oakland police court on February The A. C. L. U. statement follows:

After a careful investigation of the facts surrounding the incident at the Oakland Auditorium Theatre on February 11, we want.to enter a strong protest against the excessive force used by police officers in arresting-one Roland Bates, as well as their denial of the right to picket and unjustifiable interference with a peaceable assemb- lage.

In submitting this protest, we do not ques‘tion the right of Eileen O’Brien to speak at the Auditorium in behalf of Franco, or anyone else. At the same time, supporters of the Loyalist cause were entitled to express their opposition to the purpose of the meet- — ing by peaceful picketing and a nearby orderly public meeting.

It was the duty of the police to regulate the picketing so that it did not impede in- gress or egress from the Auditorium, or obstruct. the sidewalks and highway to ordi| nary travel. If the picketing was disorderly, or could not be controlled in the interest of sidewalk and highway traffic, the police could use sufficient force to overcome any . resistance.

It appears, however, that the police re; fused to tolerate picketing, and that they violated an express agreement with city officials that the protestants might hold a meeting directly across the street from the auditorium. The arrest of the speakers while the meeting was in orderly progress © cannot be justified.

The evidence indicates that after the arrests at the meeting, certain protestants sought to establish a picket line in front of the Auditorium..If they disturbed the peace in their efforts to do so, the police had a right to establish order. But it seems that -the police restrained any picketing.

In the case of Roland Bates, it appears that a policeman, with questionable right, sought to wrest a sign from his hands. He resisted, and a struggle ensued with four police officers in which Mr. Bates emerged with head wounds received from the offi- cers’ clubs which required thirty stitches. The evidence is overwhelming that after Mr. Bates was subdued the police officers nevertheless continued to beat him with their clubs.

In the; light of these circumstances, we feel that the police deserve severe con- demnation for the unintelligent,. lawless, and brutal manner in which they handled the affair. It is not in the interest of public welfare to permit lawless enforcement of the law to go unchallenged, and we strongly urge you to take proper disciplinary ac- tion against the police officers who were responsible for such reprehensible conduct.

‘CHINESE AWARDED DAMAGES. FOR EXCLUSION FROM PUBLIC BATH

On April 1, 1988, seven Chinese boys ranging in age from 12 to 15 years, mem bers of a Boy Scout troop, were excluded from the Crystal Plunge and Baths of San Francisco because of their race. They sued for damages, and on January 16, 1939, “Municipal Judge Alden Ames entered a ) judgment in their favor in the f $240. munist.Party membership. If the Supreme. The damages were secured under the so-ealled Civil Rights Section of the Civil Code (Sec. 52) which prohibits discrimination against any persons because of race or eolor in places of public amusement or accommodation, including ‘“‘bath houses.”’ The plaintiffs were represented by Messrs. Vladimir Vucinich and Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco,

LIFE COMES AND GOES FOR THE EDITOR |

Last December the editor received notice from Life Magazine that he had been one of the lucky thousands to receive a gift subscription to the magazine. “To show you the world and the way of its people,” said ‘the announcement, “LIFE comes to you each week of 1939 from Mr. H. R. Bridges.”

“Could this be Harry Bridges, the labor leader, playing Santa Claus for me,” the editor asked incredulously. He didn’t know why Mr. Bridges should do it, but he certainly had no objection to receiving a little freedom of the press.

Life came for several weeks, and then it ‘came no more. The editor vowed he -wouldn’t lose a year’s subscription without a struggle, or at least an explanation. “What’s it all about,’ he demanded of Life. Responded they, somewhat crestfallen, “Mr. Bridges has notified us that he did not place the order. Since no payment accompanied it, we have no alternative but to cancel the subscription. Apparently you as well as we have been victimized by a practical joker.” And, they might have counted Harry Bridges in on that, too.

At any rate, the editor did learn something of ‘‘the world and the ways of its -people.”’

WESTERLY, R. I. PERSUADED TO “RESPECT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Through the intervention of the American Civil Liberties Union, citizens of West-. erly, R. I, are now free to distribute newspapers and leaflets without consent of the authorities.

When 68-year-old Albert Boardman recently attempted to distribute 300: copies of the American Guardian’s ““Abundance for All Program”’ issue, police, took him into custody for not having a permit, as stipulated in a town ordinance. Appealing for ‘aid to the A. C. L. U., Boardman received rights follow. A logician on the other side a copy of the U. S. Supreme Court decision last year invalidating the Griffin Ga., leaflet ordinance. When Boardman showed the decision to the prosecuting attorney, town authorities admitted the court had superior powers and permitted him to hand out his remaining copies of the newspaper.

OPEN FORUM

Comments On Proposal That A. C. L. U. Sponsor “Little Wagner Act”

Editor: While I am in favor of a just measure defining the rights of labor and lJabor organizations, I feel that A. C. L. U. should avoid any connection with such a measure except to oppose any provisions detrimental to the civil liberties of either side.

I wish to be a member only so long as the Union deals purely with well recog‘nized civil liberties and avoids any connection with political, social and economic movements.—K. S. P.

Editor: There is still room for the A. C. L. U. to operate within its special and limited sphere. I think those individuals who are trying to make it serve their broader interests are making a big mistake. The fact is that there are plenty of organizations already in the field to serve these broader aims. Why don’t these ACLUers join them? I think the answer is that, probably uncon sciously, they cling to “respectability” and. want the protection of the A. C. L. U. label. As Socialists, Trotskyists, Communists, -Lovestonites, Social Democrats, or what not, they could work for the full program they believe in, but this would pigeon-hole ‘them politically and they could no longer pose as detached “liberals.” They want the tune without paying the piper. It won’t work and it spells quick—and I think pre-mature—death for any organization such as the A. C. L. U. if it permits itself to be — dragged along on their various pilgrimages however commendable these may be.— TC.

Shall The A. C. L. U. Sponsor A Ga

Page 3

“Little Wagner Act” For Calif.

Following are two further statements on the issue we presented to our readers in last: month’s issue of the “News.” We again invite our subscribers to present their own views on the subject set forth in the title..

“VES”

It seems to me that when we came out in favor of laws restricting injunctions we took the first step in support of the proposition that the rights of labor might be civil liberties rights. Of course, Meiklejohn is right when he says that there is nothing in the Constitution on the subject. He may have felt that our stand in connection with labor injunctions was justified by some connection with rights of free speech and as- sembly. It seems to me that our answer to Meiklejohn should be on the broadcast pos- sible grounds, namely, that new conditions create new requirements and that in the modern world the power of industry has become a restriction on liberty. Thus while the old guaranties were all directed against governmental action we are now realizing that private action can also restrict liberty. Therefore, we have taken the position that the ordinary freedoms of a worker are not enough unless he is able also freely to or- ganize.

Of course it is not possible to adduce any proof in support of our proposition. Those who would confine our activities to protecting the individual against interference with his liberties by the government will part company on the issue of collective bargaining. Those who recognize the need for extending the concept of civil liberties will follow us. It is, of course, possible to lure the narrow constructionists to our way of thinking by pointing out to them that where industry opposes collective bargaining all kinds of interferences with fundamental would answer that these being interferences by private action are not our concern.

On the other hand, I think the Union can ‘point to a long unchallenged concern with private ‘interference of the traditional rights. Our whole concern, for instance, with lynch law and various kinds of private discriminations against Negroes is founded on the belief that insofar as the Constitution lays down a rule for the guidance of government, the same rule should guide the conduct of private citizens.

Pulling all these loose threads together it . seems to me that we might appeal even to the narrow constructionists on the merely factual basis that genuine civil liberties cannot exist in a lopsided community, that unless the inequality between the individual worker and his employer is redressed by freedom of organization there is the tendency for a kind of feudalism to develop which is inconsistent with all liberty. Thus our concern with the right of collective bargaining can be looked upon as corollary to our concern with the rights specifically guaranteed by the ConstitutionOsmond K. Fraenkel

COURT ORDERS VENTURA SCHOOL BOARD TO ALLOW. MOONEY MEETING

Superior Court Judge Louis C. Drapeau of Ventura County on February 21 granted a writ of mandate ordering the Ventura school trustees to grant a permit for a Tom Mooney mass meeting at the high school auditorium. One hour before the court handed down its decision, the School Board reluctantly rescinded its order barring Mooney when the District Attorney advised them that to deny Mooney the right to — speak would be un-American. Without a hearing or notice, the Board had on February 2nd turned down an application for a. permit on the ground that Mooney and the subject matter to be dis- cussed were “too controversial,” and in order, as reported by the Ventura Star-Free ‘Press, to “play safe.” The petition for the writ was filed jointly by A. F. L. and C. I. O. labor groups under the sponsorship of the Southern California Branch of the A. C. L. U.

“NO”

-There is a definite reason why some of us are insistent that the A. C. L. U. must steer clear of economic and political issues. It is a reason that has been more or less ignored in the discussion of a perplexing question. Now that the suggestion comes that we depart from old policies and join in the advancement of some form of collectivism, the reason should be repeated.

“The Union is a ‘united front’ of persons of varied political and economic views who could not possibly agree on any program. except defense of civil rights.” If we never- theless persist in turning the Union into economic and political channels, it can lead only to disaster.

The demand that we “‘be realistic” is not new. In the past it has come from persons who have sought to steer the Union into the © sphere of one political party or another. We answered them realistically when we said it would be suicidal for the Union to enter the economic and political fields either by direction or indirection.

To the cry that civil rights are not an end © in themselves, I dissent. I for one won’t barter my liberty for a crust of bread or extravagant promises.

Moreover, the implication that an insis tence upon civil liberties under the Consti- tution (for which we stand) contributes to ends abhorrent to us is without merit. Is it thereby proposed that we modify our defense of the traditional American rights and liberties for all in order to advocate the suppression of modern witches? Such a par- tisan position can lead only to fascism of one brand or another.

If it be granted that sponsorship of a Little Wagner Act involves us in what is sub- stantially an economic question, even though there are strong civil liberties im- plications, it will serve as a precedent for getting us still deeper into the morass of politics and economics. Today it is a Wagner Act, tomorrow it may be compulsory health insurance (the better to enjoy civil liberties), or production for use for the un- employed in order that they may enjoy their civil rights. And, from there we would be led into still more controversial fields ‘Somehow or other, I can’t imagine Repub- licans, Democrats—old or new, Socialists, Communists, Socialist Worker Partyites, So- cialist Labor Partyites, syndicalists, anarchists, technocrats, single taxers, etc., etc., agreeing on any such program.

If the Union is to survive, it must maintain its functional integrity. And, its func- tion is limited to the field of civil liberties. Within that field we need not suffer from illusions in doing a piece of work that still demands attention.—Ernest Besig.

CONTEST FOR SHORT PLAY ON CIVIL LIBERTIES

In preparation for a series of nationwide broadcasts, the Civil Liberties Union announces a contest for one-act plays, suitable for radio presentation, dealing with aspects of civil rights in America.

Judges will’ be Brooks Atkinson, drama critic of the New York Times; Sidney Howard and Elmer Rice, playwrights; Archibald MacLeish, poet and radio dramatist; and William Kozlenko, editor of the One-Act Play Magazine. The contest closes April 30, 1939.. The best play will be awarded $75.00; the second best, $25.00. In addition, authors will receive any royalties accruing from production of the winning plays. Manuscripts, with return postage, should be sent to Civil Liberties Play Contest, care One-Act |] Play Magazine, 112 West 42nd Street, . New York City. “

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............. Associate Editor

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

MISRULE IN U. S. COLONIES

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

aim of the United States government to prepare the Filipinos for democratic self-gov- ernment. Assuming that the terms of the Independence Act are to be carried out, the Filipinos are being prepared not for democratic self-rule, but for a military and pos- sibly fascist dictatorship.”

Samoa and Guam, whose inhabitants are still not American citizens, remain under dictatorial rule by the Navy Department “without even a status defined ‘by Congress,” the pamphlet states. In Hawaii, although numerous violations of civil liberties in industrial strife have been reported, the Union declares that ‘‘no special condition in Hawaii different from that in the United States marks American control. Hawaii has become too closely tied to the United States, politically and economically, to be viewed now as a colony—though its annexation was the first of our major imperialist ven- tures.”

Forty Year Record Not Commendable

The record made by forty years of American administration of its colonies “‘is not a commendable one,” according to the Union. “Exploitation of natural resources and of commerce by American interests has intensified political control and made difficult for native workers and peasants the organization of their own forces. The benefits of American rule are largely confined to measures of sanitation, health and roadbuilding.

Maintenance of civil liberties in the colonies is essential to political or economic reforms of any sort. Only by organization and agitation can natives express their de- sires and needs. Achievement of this depends not only on freedom of speech, press and assemblage but also on the forms of American control, which limit political par- ticipation.”

The survey was compiled for the Union by Alfred H. Sinks of New York. A committee on American colonies, consisting of experts on one or more of the islands, is being created by the Civil Liberties Union to support its legislative proposals.

MILITARY TRAINING IN C.C.C. CAMPS OPPOSED

Opposition to compulsory military training in the Civilian Conservation Corps was - yoiced by Robert Fechner, CCC director, in a letter to the American Civil Liberties Un- jon, made public recently.

Mr. Fechner’s stand was contained in his reply to an inquiry by Roger N. Baldwin, A. C. L. U. director, as to the attitude of the CCC administration toward current agitation for compulsory military training in the camps. ‘We would object very strenuously to using a relief measure to add to our military establishment by forcing boys on relief to do something they .had not contracted for,’ wrote Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. Fechner’s letter declared: “My po-. sition is now as it always has been. I do not believe that there is any need or justification for compulsory military training of any character as the term is usually understood in CCC camps. From official press reports I understand that this is also the position of the President. Undoubtedly some effort will be made to have military training introduced in CCC camps but I hope it will not be approved by Congress.”

Representative Richards of South Carolina has introduced a House Bill which would require that all CCC members, except war veterans, have six hours of military drill a week.

California Faces Another Indigent Exclusion Act

Four years ago Assemblymen Redwine and Jones introduced what was known as the Indigent Exclusion Act or Border Patrol Bill. It provided that ‘all paupers, vagabonds, indigent persons and persons likely to become public charges, and all persons affected with a contagious or infectious disease are hereby prohibited from entering the State of California.”

Successful in the Assembly by a vote of 43 to 32, the bill went down to a surprising defeat in the Senate by a vote of 13.to 20. Perhaps the defeat was not very surprising when one remembers that the Senate represents the cow counties, and if the measure had gone through these counties would have lost their cheap labor supplies.

Altered Form

At the present session of the legislature, Assemblyman Frederick Houser of Alhambra in A. B. 1356 has revived the Indigent Exclusion Act in altered form, It provides that “All paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice are hereby prohibited from entering the State of. California.”

May California restrict citizens of other States from going and coming as they like? In this connection it is interesting to note that Nevada and Florida attempted somewhat similar legislation some years ago, but both legislative measures were held uncon- stitutional.

Privileges and Immunities Denied

The Constitution provides that, “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,’’ and the fourteenth amend- ments provides that ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Certainly, exclusion from a state because a person hasn’t enough money in his jeans to satisfy a border inspector is denying privileges and immunities accorded citizens of the several states.

And, anyway, why exclude paupers? In 1935 Senator Olson proposed an enlargement of the excluded class to include “‘financial racketeers, stock and bond jobbers, industrial monopolists, watered stock manufacturers, corporation plunderers, despoil- ers of the savings of the poor, bank wreckers and defaulters, sweat shop owners and child labor exploiters, defrauders of widows and orphans, fraudulent promoters, family deserters, violators of private or public trusts, bribers of public officials, re- cipients of bribes, beneficiaries of fraudulent contracts secured through public agencies, millionaire wartime -profiteers and promoters of war.” Wouldn’t the fore- going classification be more reasonable than an exclusion based on poverty?

RIGHT OF NAZI BUND TO HOLD MEETING IN NEW YORK SUPPORTED

In the face of numerous efforts to prevent the meeting, the German American Bund carried off its scheduled mass rally in Madison Square Garden in New York on February 20 without violence, except for minor scuffles in the streets. In line with a request by the New York Civil Liberties Committee for adequate police protection both to the Nazis and those picketing in protest, 1,700 members of the police force were assigned to the meeting.

Vigorously defending the ‘right of the Bund to hold its meeting, the Civil Liberties Committee announced it would combat any attempt to restrain the Bund from “the free exercise of its constitutional rights.” In a letter to Police Comfissioner Valentine, the Committee declared:

“In conformity with our firm belief that the only way to preserve Americanism is to protect the rights of assembly and free speech of all groups, no matter how unpopular or undesirable their doctrines may be, we wish to request you to give full police protection to both those holding and attending the meeting, and to all persons and groups who may wish to protest the same by picketing or other lawful means.”

HAGUE CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL COURT VACANCY OPPOSED >

President Roosevelt is strongly urged by the American Civil Liberties Union not to appoint a candidate with Mayor Frank Hague’s endorsement to the vacant post of district Judge for Northern New Jersey on the ground that he would not “fairly and impartially” enforce the civil rights injunction against Jersey City officials if it should be sustained by the U. 8. Supreme Court.

In a letter to the President signed by Harry F. Ward, chairman, and Arthur Garfield Hays, counsel, the A. C. L. U. said:

“In filling the vacant post of District Judge for Northern New Jersey, may we call to your attention the undesirability of naming any man endorsed by Frank Hague, mayor of Jersey City. The Mayor and officials of Jersey City are under restraint by injunction in the federal courts secured in a proceeding brought jointly by the C. I. O. and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Supreme Court of the United States has consented to review the case on appeal by the Jersey City officials. We fully expect that the position taken by the lower courts will be sustained.

“In that event the enforcement of the injunction will be in the hands of the District Judge to be appointed in Northern New Jersey. It is obvious that no judge approved by the defendant party in the litigation would fairly and impartially enforce the mandates of the higher courts, however genuinely he might attempt to do so.”

The Union pointed out that one of the leading candidates for the post is Judge Thomas Walker of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, regarded throughout the state as “a Hague man.” His appointment, the Union declared, would be construed as favorable to Mayor Hague’s contentions and as opposed to the contentions of the organizations which sought the injunction against him, :

PROPOSED ALIEN LABOR PERMIT LAW VIOLATES 14TH AMENDMENT

Assemblyman Millington has proposed an Alien Labor Permit Law, A. B. 848. It makes it unlawful to employ aliens in California unless they hold alien labor permits. Moreover, “An employer may employ an alien who has an alien labor permit when no American citizen is available for that specific work. An employer shall at once discharge such an alien and replace him by any available American citizen able to do the work.”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no State shall ‘‘deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”? The Supreme Court has held that “The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protec- tion of citizens.”

The sponsor of this measure might take to heart the following statement of the Su- preme Court in 1886 in the case of Yick Wo against Hopkins, “For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be in- tolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”’

LOS ANGELES LEAFLET CASE TAKEN TO U. S. SUPREME COURT

Constitutionality of the Los Angeles handbill ordinance prohibiting distribution of leaflets on city streets will be tested in the U. S. Supreme Court. On February 22nd, Presiding Judge Hartley Shaw of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court signed an order allowing an appeal in the Kim Young case. Young was convicted of violating the ordinance by distributing cards announcing a meeting in behalf of Loyalist Spain under the auspices of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.