vol. 4, no. 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. IV SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL, 1939 No. 4

C. S. REPEAL HEARING APRIL 5

Public Hearing ing Scheduled Before Assembly Committee

A two-hour public hearing on Paul Richie’s Assembly Bill No. 375, which would repeal the California Criminal Syndicalism Act, will be held by the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary General on the evening of April 5th at 7:30 o’clock in the Assembly Chamber. Each side will be given forty-five minutes for direct argument and fifteen minutes for rebuttal.

The hearing was originally pehedaled for the evening of March 16, but Samuel Hume, President of the California Crusaders, opponent of repeal, requested and was granted a postponement on the ground that he oS had not had adequate notice of the hearing. Two years ago, Mr. Hume acted as master of ceremonies for the opposition which he organized, including Thomas J. Riordan, State Commander of the American Legion, and representatives of the Associated Farmers and the Elks.

In 1987 the Assembly Crime Problems Committee tabled a similar measure by a: vote of 5 to 2, and the Committee’s action was subsequently upheld by the Assembly which defeated a motion to withdraw the bill from committee by a 45 to 29 vote. Likewise, in 1935 the C. S. repeal measure went down to defeat in Committee, but by the close vote of 9 to 11, and subsequently that assembly’s attitude on the issue was reflected in its rejection of a bill eliminating criminal syndicalism as a ground for dismissal of school teachers by a vote of 41 to 30.

Criminal Syndicalism Defined

The Act in question defines criminal ‘syndicalism as ‘‘any doctrine or precept ad- vocating, teaching or aiding and abetting. the commission of crime, sabotage... or unlawful acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control or effecting any political change.”

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, “all of the overt acts enumerated as forbidden topics for propaganda are already punishable under the penal code and that those who aid and abet have always been in the same category with those who actually commit crime. The only novelty in this provision of the statute is that it extends the penalties heretofore incurred by the criminal and his accomplice or abettor to such as may advocate or teach the forbidden practices and that it makes all such conduct felonious.”

‘Act a Dead Letter

The campaign for repeal has been go’ ing on ever since the Act was approved on April 30, 1919, as a product of war-time hysteria. Today, the Act is virtually a dead letter in California law, and, as such, should be repealed.

During the first five years of its operation, 581 persons were indicted under it, but in the last fifteen years it has been used only twice. First, in 19380, in order to break the Imperial Valley melon strike,

Spurious Anti-Nazi Bill Rejected

By a vote of 6 to 1, the Assembly Crime Problems Committee on March 20 tabled A. B. 150, the spurious anti-Nazi bill, introduced by Jack B. Tenney and 17 others. It proposed suppression of all speech and writing calculated to create “hatred, violence or hostility against any group or and finally in 1984 in the historic Sacra| mento cases, also connected with the organization of agricultural workers.

Oregon repealed their acts. And there have been no prosecutions under similar statutes in 14 other states for many years. Abuse In Enforcement .

The manner in which the Act has been abused is demonstrated by the fact that almost half of the convictions that were appealed were reversed. The reason for this, according to Professor George W. Kirchwey, is that “‘in all but a very few notable instances, the prosecuting attorneys in these cases conducted the prosecutions (Continued on Page 4, Col. 3)

Evidence that the local office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service has used membership in the Workers Alliance and a “report” of membership in the Communist Party for inexcusable delay in the granting of final citizenship papers comes to light in the case of one Harry Copeland When the Department failed to hand down a decision eleven months after his examination, Mr. Copeland finally appealed to the A.C.L.U. for aid.

Investigation of the case disclosed that Copeland, a British subject who entered the United States from Canada in 1923, had received his final examination in April, 1938, and a supplementary examination before a reporter in June of the same year. The transcript of the testimony in the June examination runs to ten pages of questioning directed mainly at Copeland’s memberTwo years ago, both Washington and ship in the Workers Alliance, a national union for W.P.A. workers.

Charged With Communism

The Examiner sought to draw admissions from the alien that the Workers Alliance is a subsidiary of the Communist Party, and that its national and local leadership is Communist. “Mr. Copeland,” Examiner Stanley M. Johnston finally declared, “This office has been informed that you are a member of the Communist Party and that the case, however, groups of persons residing in this State, by reason of race, color, religion or manner of worship.”

Designéd to stop anti-semitism and race prejudice, the measure provided a twoedged sword more dangerous to its sponsors than to the people against whom it was directed. All comments on the subjects of race, or religion would have been fraught with danger, because a jury might Ub se quently decide that they created racial or religious hatred. The first victims of aSimilar measure in New Jersey were not = Nazis or Fascists, but Jehovah’s Witnesses who criticized the Roman Catholic Church. At the hearing, Mr. Tenney spoke for the bill, while Ernest Besig appeared against it on behalf of the A.C.L.U.

The vote to table the measure was as follows:

“Aye’’: Richie and Mrs. Daley, San Diego; Gilmore and Wollenberg, San Francisco; Johnson, Berkeley, and Miss Miller, Pasadena (6.)

“No”: Watson, Orange (1.)

OBSTACLES TO CITIZENSHIP

you paid your dues to the Communist Party up to November, 1937, but that since that time you have been delinquent in your dues. . Information given about you is that you were known as Harry Coppland i in the files of the Communist Party in San Francisco.” If the Examiner had such information, it was his duty to produce it. The record in is barren of evidence justifying a year’s delay in acting upon the alien’s petition. While a mere suspicion or “report” that an alien is disqualified for citizenship demands investigation, it certainly does not permit of endless delay in the hope some evidence will turn up to — support it.

‘A.C.L.U. Intervenes

On March 8, when Mr. Copeland’s furs ther employment by the W.P.A. had become contingent upon his securing American citizenship, the A.C.L.U. requested in- formation from the Naturalization office | concerning its unreasonable delay in grant- ing this citizenship petition. The Department refused to commit itself as to when a decision would be handed down, nor on whether or not it had had more than a rea| sonable time to examine the matter. Later — in the same week, Mr. Johnston informed the A.C.L.U. that a report favorable to the | alien had been made and that, barring the submission of new evidence, Mr. Copeland would be admitted on April 3.

age 2

We Propose ae

The A.C.L.U. has endorsed the following legislative civil rights program for California:

1. A.B. 375 (Richie) Repeals criminal syndicalism act; 2. A.B. 844 (Richie) Eliminates erimi“nal syndicalism as a cause for dismissal of school teachers;

3. A.B. 262 (Tenney and Gilbert) or A.B. 1622 (Del Mutolo) Prohibits con| sideration of political, economic and re‘| ligious beliefs of applicants for teaching positions;

4, A.B. 845 (Richie and Tenney) Amends Civic Center Act to permit all groups to use school houses without dis

; 5. A.B. 1318 (Richie) Repeals teachers loyalty oaths;

| 6. A.B. 241 (Tenney) Declares it to be lawful to distribute economic, political and religious handbills;

7, A.B. 104-5 (Rosenthal) Outlaws anti-picketing ordinances; favorable report by Assembly Labor and Capital Committee on March 22nd;

8, A.B. 2630 (Hawkins) or A.B. 346 (Tenney et al) Declares municipalities liable for personal injury suffered by mob or vigilante victims ;

9, A.B. 1107-8 (Richie) Reduces the number of signatures to qualify minority parties for places on the ballot; | 10. A.B. 246 and 263 (Tenney) Ex

cuses radio broadcasting stations from liability for slander committed by lessees of time; 11. A.B. 1024 (Miller) Provides jury trial in cases of indirect contempt of court;

12. A.B. 1728 (Pelletier) and A.B. 1835 (Collins) Broaden application of Civil Rights Law and punish violations

13. A.B. 2456 (Tenney) Amends vagrancy act;

14. A.B. 2237 (Pelletier) Guarantees teachers freedom to join or refrain from joining any teachers organization ;

15. Constitutional amendment excusing religious objectors from R.O.T.C. at U.C.

Two Censorship Bills Tabled In Committee

Two American Legion bills aimed at censorship of the radio and press were tabled by the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary General on March 23. Before action was taken, Assemblyman Jack B. Tenney, joint author with Millington and Gannon, announced his withdrawal from sponsorship and opposition to the bills.

Assemblyman Gannon himself requested that A. B. 826 be tabled. It required all foreign language radio programs to be broadcast in English, and would have resulted in such an absurdity as the translation of operas.

The other bill, A. B. 827, prohibiting pub‘lication or circulation of any foreign language newspaper unless it carried correct English translations, was tabled by a unanimous vote without the opposition even being heard. Sentiment in the Committee was so strongly against this measure, which would have imposed a prior restraint on the press, that the Committee felt it unnecessary to listen to arguments against it, de- spite Mr. Gannon’s impassioned plea for protection against subversive alien doctrines.

Demonstrators Released

Complaints against six persons who were recently arrested for picketing a proFranco meeting in Oakland were dismissed in the Oakland police court on February 28. Among the six was Roland Bates, U. C. law student, whose brutal beating by police was protested by the A.C.L.U.

Sweeping Gag Law Proposed In State Senate

The most suppressive piece of legislation affecting civil liberties that has ever come to our attention was introduced in the California legislature by Senator George M. Biggar of Mendocino and Lake Counties on March 8. The California Criminal Syndicalism Act pales into insignificance beside the bill whose purpose is summarized in the title as “regulation of political activities, by requiring licenses in certain cases, and prescribing penalties for engaging in activities obnoxious to the public interest.”

The first section of the proposal makes it a felony for two or more persons:

1. “To engage in practices detrimental to the existing form of government in this State or the United States’’ ;

2. To,advocate doctrines ‘inimical to the i

3. To conspire to substitute “an alien form of government for the government now ordained by our Constitution.”

Section two of the act makes it a felony for any person to advocate or induce others to accomplish a violent change in any of the “rights, privileges and immunities guar- anteed to the people of this State under the Constitution’; or to teach or advocate “racial, religious or class intolerance.”

Section three requires every person or group engaged in any political activities in this State “contemplating or advocating any change in our governmental institutions or form of government” to register with and secure a license from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is required to keep records of registration and licenses issued by him. Applications must give the names and addresses of the applicants, the ad- dresses of all members, if an association is the applicant, and the “objectives and sources of revenue of the applicant.” Failure to register is punishable as a misde- meanor.

Finally, section four declares that anyone falling within section one and two is ineligible “to hold any office or employment under this State” or a subdivision thereof.

U. S. SUPREME COURT DECISION EXPECTED IN FLAG CASES

The United States Supreme Court will have distributed to its members on April 1 the record in two flag salute cases—a case from Massachusetts, and the Gabrielli or Sacramento flag salute case. The only question before the court at this time is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. To find jurisdiction, it must hold that a federal question is involved under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits a State from depriving any person of liberty without due process of law.

A decision on the question of jurisdiction should be handed down on April 10. If it is unfavorable, that will end the California flag salute case. If it is favorable, the eases will be set for argument, possibly some time next October. Incidentally, we are informed that the Civil Liberties Committee of the American Bar Association is considering the filing of an amicus curiae brief.

MORE CONSULAR PICKETS ARRESTED IN SAN FRANCISCO

A ‘dozen persons were arrested in San Francisco on March 25 because they carried banners while picketing the Nazi and Italian consulates. Marchers who carried no banners were not subjected to police interference. :

The arrests were made under a: Sa Francisco ordinance which makes it a misdemeanor “To appear on the streets of the City and County of San Francisco carrying banners or boards, or placards with advertisements.”’

Last January John Thurber and Jack Cope were arrested and convicted for carrying banners in protest picketing before the French Consulate. The A.C.L.U. has appealed the convictions to the higher courts and the constitutionality of the ordinance will soon be set for a hearing.

We Oppose...

The A.C.L.U. has gone on record as opposing the following California legisme proposals as violating civil liberies:

1. A.B. 150 (Tenney et al) Spurious anti-Nazi bill; (tabled March 20 by Assembly Crime Problems Committee. )

a 4b, 261 (Tenney) Limiting freedom of discussion concerning any “organization, association or race;”

3. A.B. 343 (Gannon and Millington) and S. B. 310 (Nielsen) Compulsory flag salute measures;

4, A.B. 750 (Green) Prohibiting boycotts; :

Compulsory finger-printing of applicants for operators’ and chauffeurs’ licenses;

6. A.B. 826 (Millington, Gannon and Tenney) Compelling translation of all foreign language radio broadcasts; March 23, tabled in committee;

7. A.B. 827 (Millington, Gannon and Tenney) Compelling foreign language newspapers to carry full translations; March 23, tabled in committee;

8. A.B. 848 (Millington) Alien Labor Permit Law;

9. A.B. 1356 (Houser) Sets up border patrol to exclude “‘paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice”’;

10 A.B. 1553 (King) Regulates meetings, parades and uniformed groups;

11. A.B. 2682 (Bashore) Compulsory. registration and finger-printing of aliens;

12: A.B. 2706 (Desmond) Requires Washington’s Birthday exercises in schools to emphasize warning against entangling alliances;

13. S.B. 470 (Swing) Prohibits relief to all aliens.

5. A.B. 820 (Millington and Gannon)

Advocating “Changes” Opposed

Deporiation of Aliens For Contending that ‘all expressions of opinion by aliens on essential political issues” would be suppressed, the American Civil Liberties Union has registered its objections to a bill passed by the House on March 28 providing for deportation of aliens who advocate changes in the American form of government.

As originally introduced by Representative Dempsey of New Mexico, the bill stipu- lated deportation for advocacy of ‘‘fundamental changes.” But after the Union charged that ‘‘no agreement is possible as to what are ‘fundamental changes’ in a form of government,” the measure was amended to read “any changes.”

In a letter to Chairman Samuel Dickstein of the Immigration Committee, the Union pointed out that the President’s proposal to reorganize the Supreme Court might be considered a “fundamental change’ in the form of government. “Expression of approval by an alien would subject him. to deportation.”

“The effect of the bill, if enacted and seriously enforced, would be to suppress all expressions of opinion on essential political issues by aliens. Any utterances on political theories could be readily construed as coming within the prohibited advocacy. All aliens would be placed at the mercy of informers and personal enemies ready to report as violations of law any remarks on American politics. .

“All laws aimed at opinions and beliefs are notoriously difficult of enforcement, and wherever the attempt is made to enforce. them, grossly unfair. Prejudice inevitably plays a large part in all such proceedings. The history of the present provisions of the immigration law relating to opinions and beliefs bears convincing testimony as to the difficulty and unfairness of their administration.”

Page 3

Let Freedom Ring

Baldwin’s Trip Postponed Until November

We have received word from Roger Baldwin, national director of the A.C.L.U., that he is unable to make the trip to the bay area between April 7 and 13 announced in the March issue of the ‘News,’ because the time was too short to complete the necessary arrangements for meetings. According to the latest information, he now plans to visit this area some time in November.

The Committees Disagree

Following lengthy consideration of the question whether the Northern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. should support a “Little Wagner Act” for California, a postecard ballot was taken among the members of the Executive and Advisory Committees with the following result: “Ayes” 10; “Noes” 10; recorded as “Not Voting” 1. The stalemate developed over the question whether such sponsorship presents a civil liberties issue. : .

Committee Election

At the March meeting of the Executive and Advisory Committees, Philip Adams, member of the San Francisco bar, was elected to the Advisory Committee. Mr. Adams has been a regular member of the local branch for several years.

Ye Editor Crosses His Fingers

Ye Editor has again received notice that he is to receive Life Magazine for a year, this time as a gift from a Mr. C. D. Jackson. Since the generous donor is unknown to him, Ye Editor suspects another “plot,” and has so advised the publishers. Previously, it will be recalled, a similar gift subscription was cancelled when the purported donor, Harry Bridges, denied that he had played Santa Claus. For the time being, however, Life keeps coming and Ye Editor goes around with his fingers crossed.

Going Up

Once again the A.C.L.U. membership have reached a new high. As we go to press, we count 541 members and contributors in good standing. That figure would be boosted considerably if our delinquent members would send in their renewals. If you have not renewed, how about helping us to another new high in membership?

ENFORCEMENT OF COLORADO EQUAL RIGHTS STATUTES SOUGHT IN COURTS

In an effort to curb discrimination against Spanish-speaking sugar beet workers in Colorado retail establishments, the American Civil Liberties Union is aiding court tests of state civil and criminal statutes being brought by the United Cannery, Agri- cultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America.

According to labor union officials at Denver, many stores in the state refuse the beet workers the right to purchase cigarettes or food for cash. Many restaurants dis- play signs stating they will not accept other than “white trade.” Two civil suits and one criminal action are being instituted.

Armed Political Groups

The increase in this country of uniformed military groups connected with political movements constitutes a menace to democracy for they are plainly preparations for the use of force. The experience of foreign countries clearly indicates the danger of al- lowing such groups to assume the function of maintaining order even on private prop- erty, for the extension of that function to public places is only too easy. Already German-American organizations of Nazi sympathies have established semi-military companies, drilling and organizing, and in some places, allegedly with arms. Certain native American organizations of political character also engage in military drill and training. While these organizations are not yet large or numerous they represent a tendency which should be outlawed by federal statute.

Federal law at present does not prohibit private military drill nor drilling with arms by political organizations. The law only prohibits the wearing of uniforms similar to those of the United States armed forces. Certain states prohibit private military or- ganizations unless authorized by state officials.

The Proposed Law Bills have been introduced in Congress by Rep. Hamilton Fish (H. R. 2645) and* Senator P. Nye (S. 175) regulating the formation and activities of private military forces. The proposed legislation makes it unlawful for “any five or more persons to | organize or to associate together ... for the purpose of drill or parade with firearms or other dangerous weapons .. . or offer to give military training to its members.” Violation would subject persons to fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment up to 6 months; or both. Specifically exempted federal Law ized military forces and exclusively war veterans’ societies.

Constitutionality

The only objection raised to the proposed law is that it might violate the constitu- tional right to bear arms. The constitutional guarantee of the “right of the people - to keep and bear arms’’ does not apply to private military groups. The Second Amendment establishes the right to bear arms only for the purpose of “a well regulated militia” as “necessary to the security of a free state.”

This constitutional issue was raised under a state statute similar to the proposed legislation and discussed by the United States Supreme Court in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois. The court said:

“Military organizations and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers... The Constitution and the laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific: legislation: on the subject.”

Congress alone, under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has exclusive powers — ‘to provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia.” Congress can and should exercise its power to regulate or prohibit private military groups.

NOTE:—Letters should be sent to your congressmen at once urging favorable action on the above proposals from the provisions of the act are author

RIGHT OF W.P.A. TO DISCHARGE ALIENS TESTED IN COURT

Challenging the constitutionality of the federal Appropriations Act, which discrim- inates against aliens with respect to employment on W.P.A. projects, the Southern California branch of the Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in Federal Court at Los Angeles seeking to enjoin the local W.P.A. Administrator from discharging 2500 alien employees.

Validity of the Act, which went into effect on March 4th, is challenged in the suit on the ground that it denies aliens liberty and property without due process of law, under the 14th Amendment, and arbitrarily and unfairly discriminates against aliens.

The suit, first of its kind brought against ’ the section of the Appropriations Act, was tentatively scheduled for hearing this week.

RADIO CENSORSHIP DECRIED BY UNION BEFORE F.C.C.

“Backdoor” censorship of radio programs by the Federal Communications Commission was assailed by Roger N. Baldwin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, at hearings before the F.C.C. committee investigating the radio monopoly and chain broadcasting.

‘““Commission opinions as well as speeches and letters of commissioners have the ef- fect of duress on program content,” testified Mr. Baldwin. Alluding to the Com- munications Act provision that the Commission shall not censor radio, Mr. Baldwin pointed out that “thus the Commission is doing through the backdoor what the Congress has prohibited it from doing through the front door.”

Another target for the Union’s attack was the F.C.C. policy of licensing stations for six-month periods instead of for a longer period permitted by the Communications ACU. Revocation of a license, rather than

ANTI-RED BILL FOUGHT IN NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY

Assailing the measure as ‘‘a dangerous attack on freedom of public expression,” twenty-five prominent New York liberals have wired members of the State Assembly Committee on Civil Service urging defeat of the McNaboe ‘anti-Red”’ bill barring from the civil service and teaching system persons who express certain political views. The bill passed the State Senate this week. Governor Lehman vetoed an identical measure last year on the ground that it violated constitutional rights.

The telegram, released: through the New York Civil Liberties Committee, declared that the bill, if passed, would result in “‘further inroads on minorities’ rights. We look to the legislature to safeguard and protect rather than endanger and whittle the fun- damental guarantees of the Bill of Rights.”

Those who signed the telegram were: Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Lewis Mumford, Dr. Mary E. Woolley, Lewis Gannett, Rev. John Howland Lathrop, Quincy Howe, Malcolm Cowley, Ernest Sutherland Bates, Mrs. W. Russell Bowie, Henry Seidel Canby, Henry Smith Leiper, Prof. Robert 8. Lynd, Bishop Francis J. M. McConnell, Prof. James T. Shotwell, Walter Frank, Richard S. Childs, Arthur Garfield Hays, John B. Andrews, William Jay Schieffelin, George Soule, Nicholas Kelley, Paul Kellogg, Dorothy Day, Dr. Henry Neuman and Rev. Robert A. Ashworth.

failure to renew it should be the basis for forcing a station off the air, according to Mr. Baldwin. ‘It would then be up to the Commission to prove the station was not operating in public interest.”” Mr. Baldwin urged the Commission to define by rules its standards of “public interest, convenience and necessity” so as to avoid the present in- direct censorship based on the varied interpretations of that phrase.

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

Sedition Charge Against General Moseley Derided

The suggestion that Major General George Van Horn Moseley, retired, be tried for sedition because of a speech made in Boston recently is characterized as ‘“‘pre- posterous” by the American Civil Liberties Union in a letter to Secretary of War Harry H. Woodring.

“We assume that the Department will take. no action whatever calculated to interfere with General Moseley’s complete freedom of expression on any public question,’ wrote the Union. At the same time, it chided the Communist Party of Massachusetts for a telegram to Mr. Woodring urging action against General Moseley for remarks made before the Sentinels of the

» Republic in Boston.

In its letter to Mr. Woodring, the Union said: “We have previously noted a number of complaints concerning utterances attributed to General Moseley, some of which appear to counsel the use of force. We assume that the War Department has been in receipt of many protests against his obviously intemperate utterances. But we -have not before noted that any critic has recommended such drastic discipline as a military trial for sedition or withdrawal of pension.

‘We are wholly opposed to any disciplinary action whatever against, an officer not in active service for any remarks on public questions. The suggestion that he should be tried for sedition is preposterous. It comes with ill grace from an organization some of whose members have been tried on that charge for their utterances.”

Writing to Phil Frankfeld, secretary of the Communist Party of Massachusetts, Roger Baldwin, A.C.L.U. director, declared:

“We are amazed to see the Communist Party call for a sedition trial against anybody. Members of the party themselves have been the victims of these un-American statutes, and have consistently protested not only against the prosecutions but against the statutes themselves. To invoke such a law against an opponent is to invite its use against yourselves. We had assumed that the experience of Communists with gag legislation had taught the fundamental lesson of civil liberty that unless rights are assured for all, friends and opponents alike, they are not assured for any.”

INDIAN. CHILDREN BARRED FROM WISCONSIN SCHOOL

Barring of four Indian children from attending the Council Bay, Wisconsin, district school is ‘‘a violation of civil liberties based on race prejudice exclusively,” ac- cording to the Milwaukee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has interceded in behalf of the Indian families.

The children were not permitted to attend the school on the ground that they were “unclean and tubercular,” but state physicians found to the contrary. State Su- perintendent of Schools John Callahan ruled that the school must take the children, and stopped state funds when it still refused. :

“If the township should get away with its ban,” declared Mrs. Margaret Hoben, sec- retary of the Milwaukee civil liberties group, “poor children could just as logically ‘be barred from school here because they come from under-privileged families.” The committee has started moves to speed ac tion in the case by the U. 8S. Department of Justice.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

They Conspired To Commit Peaceful Picketing

Final determination of the constitutionality of Shasta County’s ordinance prohibiting peaceful picketing seems probable with the arraignment on April 12 of the first of the pickets jailed during the mass arrests made during the protracted Shasta dam A. F. of L.-C. O. I. O. dispute.

The trouble arose in the claim of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, a C. I. O. affiliate, to represent a majority of the workers employed on the re-location of the Southern Pacific tracks for construction of the Shasta dam. The A. F. of L. Con- struction and General Laborers Union, on the other hand, has contended that under a signed agreement negotiated with the United Conerete Pipe Company, the contractor, prior to the commencement of work, it is to furnish all labor. When no decision was coming from the N. L. R. B. on the C. I. O. request that an election to determine a bar- gaining agent be held, C. I. O. picket lines were established on the project, in protest against the firing of C. I. O. men and the employment of 22 A. F. of L. unionists.

No Patrolling Allowed

Following the arrest of 7 C. I. O. men, who rode past the project, on “suspicion” of carrying concealed weapons, Judge Al-, bert F. Ross granted an injunction restraining C. I. O. partisans from “patrolling the highways,” interferring with work, and coercing workers. In a determined effort to provoke a ruling on the anti-picketing ordinance, C. I. O. picket lines were reestablished, despite daily wholesale arrests and detention in over-crowded, unfit jails on excessive bail.

Circulation of leaflets demanding the release of the pickets and challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance under which they were arrested resulted in the return of indictments by the Shasta County Grand Jury on March 7 directed against 27 C. I. O. leaders, including Richard Gladstein, attorney, and Louis Goldblatt, state secretary. These indictments charged the 27 with conspiracy to violate the Shasta County anti-picketing ordinance, a felony.

A. C. L. U. Protests

The local branch of the A. C. L. U. issued an immediate protest contending that, “The conspiracy is not on the part of the labor union and its leaders, but on the side of the law enforcement agents, to prevent peaceful picketing, which is an exercise of the fundamental right of free speech. It is the duty of law enforcement agents to act im- partially. Instead, they are using the power and influence of public offices to defeaf a labor union in its lawful activities. This case is a convincing example of how anti- picketing ordinances are used to violate labor’s fundamental rights, and should lead the Legislature to adopt one of the five pending bills to outlaw all anti-picketing ordinances.” In the event any convictions are secured, the A.C.L.U. will urge the Gov- ernor to issue pardons.

Pending trials for those under arrest, the picket line has been withdrawn under an agreement between C.I.O. legal forces and county officials whereby a speedy test of the anti-picketing ordinance was promised, and the conspiracy indictments were — amended to read, in effect, “they conspired

Proposed Alien Labor Permit Law Declared a Unconstitutional

Attorney General Earl Warren on March 25 ruled that the proposed Alien Labor Permit Law, A. B. 848, opposed’by the A. C. L. U., violates both the federal and state constitutions. In all likelihood, then, the measure will be tabled when it is brought up for a scheduled hearing before the Assembly Committee on Labor and Capital on April 17.

The bill was introduced by Seth Millington of Gridley, former State Commander of the American Legion. It provides that “An alien who has taken out his first citizenship papers must receive a permit to work in this State after the available supply of American citizens has been exhausted and not before.”

In support of his conclusion that the proposal violates the State Constitution the At‘torney General quoted from a California Supreme Court decision where it is stated that “The constitution provides that all men have the inalienable right of enjoying lib- erty and acquiring property, and that foreigners of the white race, eligible to citizensship, while bona fide residents of the state, shall have the same right to acquire property as native born citizens.” =

The proposal, said the Attorney General, also infringes the Federal Constitution be- cause it constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. The U. S. Supreme Court in Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, held an Arizona law, which prohibited any employer of five or more laborers from having in his employ more than 20 per cent aliens, to be unconstitutional. Said the court, “It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the Amendment to secure.”

to commit peaceful picketing.”

C. S. HEARING

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

with all the vindictiveness and the unscrupulous disregard of orderly and lawful procedure which might have been expected © and furnished us with ‘the spectacle,’ de- scribed by Dean Pound of the Harvard Law School, ‘of press, public and prosecutor in full ery in a man-hunt,’”

The Assembly Committee on the Judiciary General, which will consider the question of repeal, is composed of fifteen members, with Jack B. Tenney of Los Angeles as Chairman. Northern California committeemen are George D. Collins, Jr., Melvyn I. Cronin and Edward F. O’Day of San Francisco; Gardiner Johnson of Berkeley, © and Byrl R. Salsman of Palo Alto. All persons and organizations favoring repeal should address letters and telegrams to the Chairman of the Committee and the author of the measure, Paul A. Richie, as well as to their own Assemblyman.

FAVORABLE ACTION ON BILLS TO OUTLAW ANTI-PICKETING — ORDINANCES

Assemblyman Ben Rosenthal’s bills to outlaw anti-picketing ordinances, A. B. 104 and 105, received favorable recommendations by the Assembly Committee on Labor and Capital on March 22, by a vote of 11 to 0. Assemblyman James H. Phillips of Oakland was recorded as “Not Voting.” The bills are now on the Assembly calendar awaiting action by that body. —

SAN FRANCISCO RATED “GOOD”

No city in the United States achieves more than a 50 per cent observance of the civil rights presumably guaranteed its citizens, it is revealed in a nationwide survey of civil liberties during the last year recently made public by the American Civil Liberties Union. Of the 332 cities of over 10,000 population covered in the survey, San Francisco received a “Good” rating.