vol. 5, no. 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. V SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL, 1940 No. 4

CENSUS VIOLATES NO RIGHTS

A.C.L.U. Finds No Civil Liberties Issue Presented By Questions

After a thorough investigation of complaints that the government census will invade the privacy of citizens, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the view that “no issue of civil liberties involved in the questionnaire.

99 The study was made by attorneys for the A.C.L.U. in response to numerous requests from members and friends who charged that new questions in the census inquire into matters which the government may not properly investigate and that citizens are not protected against public exposure of purely private matters. The statement adopted by the Union’s Board of Directors follows:

One New Question

“Examination of the questionnaires used in previous censuses shows that only one es- sentially new question has been added to the 1940 census, namely: the ‘amount of money wages and salaries’ received. The rules provide that if the amount is under $5,000 it should be stated, if over $5,000 merely that fact. But similar information has been required in the farm census taken for the past twenty years. No issue of the invasion of the civil rights of citizens can be successfully raised on the basis of this inquiry.

“The census has always inquired into what are properly regarded as private matters, that is in the sense that no individual names should be associated with the census returns. Citizens have always been protected against exposure by severe penalties on enumerators who divulge information. There are few cases in our history in which census information has been made public or available to any government agency as to any particular individual.

Penalty For Refusing To Answer

“The complaint that citizens are now under compulsion to give information on pain of penalties is without merit. That has been the settled law for decades.. If the census is to operate to gather complete information, a penalty clause is a necessary feature of the law; but so far as we can learn, the records do not show a single case of a citi- zen fined or jailed for refusing to answer census questions.. The recent order of the Chief of the Census Bureau that all cases of refusal should be referred directly to Washington indicates that great care will be taken not to invoke the law except in extreme cases, if at all. :

“The social value of the census is such that all citizens should be eager to co-op- erate in compiling the information necessary to an understanding of all these phases of American life. The arguments on which the present complaints are based, insefar -as they affect the civil rights of citizens, are in our judgment wholly without foun dation.”

Constitutionality of AntiOkie Law to Be Argued April 2nd

The appeal in the case of Fred F. Edwards, convicted of violating the statute prohibiting persons trom aiding indigents to enter the state, will be argued by A.C. L.U. Attorney Philip Adams of San Francisco in Marysville on April 2nd. Edwards, long time resident of California, was given a six-months suspended:sentence for aiding relatives to enter the state from Texas.

The national office of the Civil Liberties Union has filed an amicus curiae brief de- nouncing the statute as ‘“‘an extension of the doctrine of “Freedom, but...” “Freedom of movement, yes!’’ says the Union, ‘‘But— not for indigents if their movements bring them towards the California borders; Freedom of expression, certainly! But—not for those who exercise that freedom to urge indigents to come to California; Freedom to freely write and publish one’s. sentiments on all subjects, of course!) But—not for one to write to his brother, an indigent, advising him to come to California; Freedom of movement and residence! Freedom to live and work where one will! Without question! But—only so long as the indigent neither lives nor works in California.”

The main points of the brief are (1) that freedom of movement is a privilege granted iby the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution; (2) that interference with freedom of movement and residence constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property under the due process clause; and, (8) that the statute contravenes the plenary power of the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce.

REMAINING SCOTTSBORO DEFENDANTS AGAIN DENIED LIBERTY

A renewed effort to free the remaining five Scottsboro boys has again been defeated as Alabama’s pardon board unanimously voted to deny parole.

A statement accompanying the decision declared that ‘fa day for reconsideration in each case will be set in accordance with our judgment as to the response of the individual to institutional treatment.”’

In 1988 Governor Bibb Graves also refused parole.

Vallejo and Eureka Close Civic Centers To Harry Bridges

The A.C.L.U. on March 14 made an urgent request to the Vallejo Board of Education to reconsider its revocation of permission for a meeting in the Junior High School auditorium to be addressed by Harry Bridges on “Understanding the Modern La— bor Movement, Its Program and Its Principles.” The Board, after protests from the American Legion, other veterans organizations, and the Elks and Lions Club, rescinded its original permission on the ground that the subject was “highly controversial” and that there was “grave danger of the meeting getting out of hand.”

The Union countered the reasons advaneed by the Board for its action by pointing +e ot 5 Smiley aityathan a out that in a similar situation a year-ago the Superior Court of Ventura County 7S granted a writ of mandate requiring the Board of Trustees of Ventura District to allow a labor meeting at which Tom Mooney was the scheduled speaker, even though the Board, as in the instant case, regarded the meeting as “highly contro- versial.”” Noting that political Townsend and Ham and Egg Clubs commonly use schools as meeting places, the Union contended that it would be discriminatory to exclude labor. The Union answered the Board’s declara-. tion of the “grave danger cf the meeting getting out of hand” by suggesting that “If anyone seeks to interfere with the peaceful conduct of a meeting, he should be arrested; the meeting should not be prohibited because of threats of lawlessness by those opposed to it.’”? Furthermore, “If. the democratic processes are to be maintained, there must be complete freedom of expression on matters of public concern. And it is the duty of public officials to fos- ter and not to interfere with the freedom of speech, press, assemblage, and the right of petition of citizens.”’

Following in the footsteps of Vallejo, the Eureka Board of Education likewise denied the use of the High School auditorium for a Bridges meeting sponsored by C.1.0. Un- ions. In Santa Cruz, however, the School Board permitted the use of ¢he High School for a similar meeting whicii was held without incident, despite the protests of the American Legion.

VOLUNTARY DRILL REJECTED — BY CALIF. REGENTS

The Board of Regents of the University of . : 3 California on March 8, by a vote of 14 to 2, refused to place military training at the University on a voluntary basis. Governor Olson and Lt. Governor Patterson were re ported as favoring the resolution. In a communication to the Regents concerning the issue, the A.C.L.U. urged that students holding religious scruples against military drill be exempted from the com- pulsory course at the University.

— LeT FREEDOM /RING

The anti-lynching bill already approved by the House received a 10 to 3 favorable vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee. on March 25. It now faces a filibuster by Southern Senators.

The United States Supreme Court on petition of the State of Pennsylvania recently agreed to review the validity of that state’s alien registration law held unconstitutional . by a three-judge federal court. Warren K. Billings was married to Jose-, phine Rudolph in Reno, Nevada, on March 25. Billings conducts a watch repair business in San Francisco.

The San Francisco Employers Council has joined Labor in opposing the proposed “California Labor Relations Act’ providing for compulsory arbitration of labor dis- putes.

The legality of picketing as a means of organizing, and also to secure closed shop agreements will be decided in five cases heard together by the State Supreme Court last month.

The nine victims of Yuba County’s antipicketing ordinance, convicted in Marysville last fall, have appealed to the State Supreme Court contending that the ordinance violates freedom of speech and assemblage.

Robin Taber, a senior at the University of California, was placed on “full censure”’ for distributing handbills on the campus. Taber failed to secure permission to dis- tribute the literature from the Dean’s office, which is apparently required by a rule of the Board of Regents.

The rule of the Board of Regents is as follows:

“No poster, circular, handbill, newspaper, magazine, or pamphlet, shall be posted, distributed, or circulated upon or in any of ‘the preadds or buildings of the Univer- sity of California except with the approval of the President of the University, and then only in accordance with such regulations and subject to such conditions as he may prescribe.”

TOLEDO FINGERPRINTING PROGRAM HIT

A proposal by the Toledo, Ohio, Junior Chamber of Commerce to fingerprint all citizens of Toledo has been denounced by the local branch of the Civil Liberties Union.

“Fingerprinting could be used to blacklist union members and strikers,” said Rus- sell E. Chase, Cleveland attorney for the Union. “It is simply more evidence of an ef- fort to set up a Gestapo in this country. Next thing, they'll be seeking a domestic pare port law.”

-The fingerprinting program was suggested as an aid in “identification of amnesia victims” and of “thousands of persons mutilated beyond recognition who are buried in Potters Field because their fingerprints were not recorded.”

F. BT. Index of Questions In “Subversive M ovements” Protested The American Civil Liberties Union hace protested to Attorney General Robert H.. Jackson against the compilation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of a “‘general index of persons active in any subversive activity or in movements detrimental to the internal security.”

the public safety in peace or war justifies any such activity.”’ The Union, which re- gards the “index’’ as likely to lead to violations of civil rights, called upon Mr. Jackson to investigate this F.B.I. activity and: to destroy the material gathered if. found to constitute an “impropriety.”

The “indexing,” according to the Union, is revealed in a statement by J. Edgar Hoover at hearings on the 1941 Appropria-. tions Bill before the House Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Hoover is quoted as saying: “We have also initiated special in- vestigations of persons reported upon as being active in any subversive activity or in movements detrimental to the internal security. In that connection, we have a general index, arranged alphabetically and geographically, available at the Bureau, so that in the event of any greater emergency coming to our country we will be able to locate immediately these various persons ai may need to be re subject of further investigation by the Federal authorities.” In its letter to Mr. Jackson, the Union said: “This ig the first time to our knowledge in twenty years that the Bureau of ‘Investigation has undertaken to extend its activities into any such vague field as an In a letter to the Attorney General the. A.C.L.U. declared that “‘no requirement ofinvestigation of persons ‘active in any sub‘versive activity or in movements detrimental to the internal security.’. Under such a heading almost any movement conceived by the F.B.I. to be unpatriotic could be listed. Pacifists’ organizations, religious groups, labor unions, and minority political move| ments would easily fall within that. category.

“We venture to suggest that such a listing of citizens is wholly inappropriate for a ‘governmental agency, and that no requirement of the public safety in peace or war justifies any such activity.

“May we earnestly request your attention to what we regard as an inquiry likely to lead to the violation of the civil rights of citizens. If your investigation of the character of this activity reveals the impropriety which we believe characterizes it, “we trust that you will order the F.B.I. to desist from conducting further such. in- quiries and to destroy the material. already secured.”

BERTRAND RUSSELL APPOINTMENT UPHELD

The Civil Liberties Union has offered legal aid in defense of any court action to prevent Bertrand Russell from teaching at the College of the City of New York. Rus-’ sell’s appointment was upheld recently” by the Board of Higher Education amid a™ barrage of statements by his opponents and ° defenders.

Mr. Russell, whe was Mee ee cked because of his views on marriage, is now. un-: der fire because of his status as an alien. The Union pointed out that the only issue involved was that of academic freedom.

The Union’s stand was expressed in a letter to the Board signed by seventeen prom- inent ministers and educators. The letter follows:

“All objections to Professor Russell on the basis of opinions he holds on ethics: have no real bearing on the matter. The work he will do involves logic and mathematics. If he is to be penalized because of his theories on morals and philosophy the basic principle of academic freedom is at stake.

As a man, he is entitled to hold any views, on any subject, that seem valid to him. That liberty must not be infringed because he is a teacher.

“Therefore, if Professor Russell were to; occupy a position which would enable him: to teach his own philosophy, he would still. be entitled to a place in our schools. Since, : however, this is not the case, all protests) against his appointment are irrelevant.”

PLAN.TO DISFRANCHISE RELIEFERS IN NEW JERSEY PROTESTED

A proposal by the New Jersey joint legis-' © lative emergency relief committee to deny the right to vote to ‘‘all able-bodied males continuously on relief for three years,” was . characterized as “incredible and presumptuous,”’ by Dr. Archey D. Ball, chairman of the New Jersey Civil Liberties Committee. |

Dr. Ball contended that the proposed ac-, tion violated the Fourteenth Amendment.. “What conceivable sense could there be to: democratic rights,’’ declared Dr. Ball, “if: they could be simply brushed away because a citizen has been a victim of economic cir- cumstance, or if such circumstances were to be the criterion of citizenship?”

Under the proposal, all men who have} been on the relief rolls for three years would be reduced to pauper’s status. The, state constitution prohibits paupers from voting or holding public office.

| Americans were treated like adults by

FOUR LIBERALS JOIN ACLU. GOVERNING BODIES

The Board of Directors of the Civil Liberties Union recently elected Dr. William Allen Neilson, retired president of Smith College, to the National Committee.

At the same time three well-known liberals were elected to the Board of Directors: former Municipal Justice Dorothy Kenyon; John Chamberlain, associate editor of Fortune Magazine; and Alfred Bing-| ‘ham, eee of Common Sense.

MISSISSIPPI BILL FOR “WHITE” AND “NEGRO” TEXTBOOKS AMENDED

“Jim Crow” amendments providing separate civics textbooks for Negroes omitting - instruction in such duties as voting, were deleted from the controversial free text- book measure which recently passed the Mississippi legislature. The American Civil - Liberties Union had protested the discriminatory provisions and promised to test the law’s constitutionality in the courts.

Last Chanee

To secure a copy of the new book by Morris L.. Ernst, national counsel for. the A.C.L.U., and Alexander Lindey, entitled, ‘The Censor Marches On’

We have a few copies remaining of this 346-page exposure of: the ComStocks. in literature, the theatre, the movies, radio, art, birth control and nudism.

-. Says’ Joseph Henry Sackeon of: the San Francisco Chronicle, “Certain kinds and degrees of regulation are . necessary for many reasons. But I’ think that if you’ll read this book you — . will agree that some cleaning up of our laws. is also necessary, that it is time. their self-appointed guardians, and — that we stop playing with the matches that may so easily ignite a full. forest fire of censorship.” This book sells ceaulecs ta $2. 50: Special price for the paper bound edition to the A.C.L.U. membere— |

‘Seek To Bar Communist Sympathizer From Citizenship

Whether or not a believer in the principles of Communism who is not a member | of the Communist Party and considers the .present American form of government the most democratic in the world, is sufficient ly “attached to the principles of the Con- gtitution” to be eligible for United States citizenship, is the issue pending before Federal Judge George Cosgrave in Los Angeles in the naturalization application of Archibald Allan. The Southern California branch of the Civil Liberties Union is sup porting Allan’s right to citizenship.

The U. S. Department of Naturalization is opposing citizenship for Allan on the ' ground that he has associated with Com munists, has had a banner in his home read. ing “Vote Communist,” has expressed him self as questioning the right of so few per- gons to be rich, and otherwise indicated his opposition to “capitalism.”

— At the hearing the naturalization inspector offered in evidence the Communist . Manifesto, dubbing it ‘‘an anarchist document.’”’ The Judge announced that he had never heard of the document, nor of its au thors Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels. Also introduced in evidence against Allan was an issue of the ‘Hollywood Citizen,” which - contained a letter written by Allan to the editor, protesting the interference with a Communist meeting at the Polytechnic High School by armed Legionnaires.

Allan explained that he would uphold the right of anti-Communists to hold peaceable meetings on the same basis as he supported that right for the Communists. He disavowed any belief in violence, but stated his position as favoring changes in the present form of government, such changes to be effected, however, as provided by the United States Constitution and through peaceable means.

Judge Cosgrave requested the filing of briefs. The case was taken under submission by the Judge.

OPPOSE BILL BARRING REDS FROM ALL PUBLIC POSTS IN NEW YORK

Defeat of the Devany-Martin bill in the New York State Senate extending a ban on certain radical opinions to all appointive and elective state and city employees has peen urged by the New York City Civil Liberties Committee in a telegram to Senate -jeaders.

.The telegram, signed for the Committee by Florina Lasker, chairman, and Osmond K. Fraenkel, counsel, declared:

“The bill is unwarranted and a threat to freedom of speech and opinion of public servants. It would deprive minority groups of representatives of their own choosing. If the legislature resorts to hysterical measures to combat unpopular doctrines instead of trusting to present adequate laws, the fundamental concept of American democracy is at stake. We consider such a bill so clearly in conflict with both the letter and the spirit of the constitution that if passed we will fight its validity in the courts.”

A law enacted last year extends the ban on radical views only to the classified civil -gervice of the State and to teachers.

POLL TAX CURB DEFENDED AT HEARING ON GEYER BILL

-. Constitutionality of a bill (H. R. 7534) to curb the evils of the poll tax system was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union at a recent public hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The measure was introduced by Rep. Lee Geyer of Cali- fornia and is aimed at the poll taxes in seven Southern states.

Ina brief arguing for the proposed legislation, the A.C.L.U. contended that “the pernicious social and political activity resulting from the imposition of poli taxes as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections should be curbed by Congress.”

Page 3

Turns Down Gypsy Case

‘The Civil Liberties Committee of the Bar Association of San Francisco has just in- formed the A.C.L.U. that the matter of alleged persecution of Gypsies by local police does not “fall within the jurisdiction of this committee.” On January 15, the A.C.L.U. requested the assistance of the Committee in defending the civil liberties of Gypsies. An accompanying copy of a letter addressed to Mayor Rossi set forth that police had ar- rested three Gypsies who were on relief as vagrants, and that the arrests occurred at their homes without the benefit of warrants of arrest or search warrants. After trial, the cases were dismissed. The complaint also charged that the same Gypsies had been ordered to leave town by the police a couple of months before. =

The letter of the Bar Association Committee, signed by Henry B. Nathan, Secretary, follows: :

With letters dated January 15, 1940, you transmitted to members of the Committee on Civil Liberties of the San Francisco Bar Association, a copy of a letter to Hon. An- gelo J. Rossi, Mayor of San Francisco, dated Jan. 10, 1940, signed by the chairman and various members of the local Executive Commiire of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The letter to the Mayor complains of alleged acts of the San Francisco Police De- partment and asserts that such acts indicate “persecution of a minority group.” At a meeting of the committee on January 24, 1940, the matter was given consideration and upon request a report from the Pelice Department was submitted. Since that time the matter has been the subject of further careful consideration.

I am instructed to advise you that it is the conclusion of the committee that the facts as stated in the letter do not sustain the complaint that police action was directed against any class or group, but on the con| trary shows nothing more than action against particular persons suspected of public offense. If these persons feel that their rights as individuals have been invaded, their complaint could be lodged through the proper authorities, but such complaint would not fall within the jurisdiction of this committee.

The committee is of the view that the facts presented by your complaint call for no action or further consideration by it, unless further additional facts are brought to our attention.

Citizenship Case Limits Alien’s Right To Read

The A.C.L.U. will shortly file its brief in the District Court of Appeal in San Fran- cisco urging that court to set aside denial of citizenship to George Bogunovich of Cupertino. The lower court held that the petitioner was ‘‘not attached to the prin- ciples of the Constitution,’’ whereupon the A.C.L.U. filed an appeal.

The transcript of the hearings before Superior Judge Wm. F. James of San Jose, which has just come to hand, discloses that the basis for denying Bogunovich citizenship was a year’s subscription to the Croatian Communist paper, Rodnik, entered more than seven years ago. Under federal law, an alien applying for citizenship is ‘required to show attachment to the Constitution for a probationary period of five years prior to the filing of his petition. Therefore, even if the subscription and reading of a Communist newspaper by any stretch of the imagination constituted lack of attachment to the Constitution, it occurred before the probationary period began and may not now be considered by the Court.

No witnesses testified against the petitioner. On the other hand, besides the usual two witnesses, seven of his neighbors testified that Bogunovich would make a good citizen.

APPEAL DENIAL OF CITIZENSHIP TO ALIENS ON RELIEF

Whether aliens on relief may be disqualified for citizenship on the ground that, be- cause they are indigent, they are “not attached to the principles of the Constitu- tion,” is to be determined shortly by the U. S. Circuit Court at San Francisco. Seven aliens denied citizenship by District Court Judge Hollzor in Los Angeles are appeal- ing. The Southern California branch of the Civil Liberties Union is supporting their ap- eal.

. In the district court, the Labor Department, which at first opposed citizenship, later changed its mind and took no position. It conceded the aliens were otherwise qualified. A.C.L.U. attorney A. L. Wirin argued that wealth or poverty constitutes no legal criterion for granting citizenship.

With the Labor Department declining to appear in the appeal proceedings, the pres- ident of the Los Angeles Bar Association has announced he will intervene, urging de- nial of citizenship.

Examiner Opposes Citizenship For Loyalist Supporter |

Stanley M. Johnston, designated Naturalization Examiner in San Francisco, has recommended to Federal Judge Louderback that Esteban Aguirre be denied citizenship on the ground that he is “not attached to the principles of the Constitution.”” Aguirre’s petition for citizenship was opposed by Franco-ites in the local Spanish colony who contended that Aguirre was a Communist because he sang the Loyalist song, “No Passeran,” gave the Loyalist clenched fist salute, and contributed to a Spanish society which was raising funds to aid the widows and chidren of Loyalist Spain.

The Naturalization Examiner contends that because Aguirre, as was his right, claimed exemption from military service during the World War on the basis of alienage, such claim is evidence of disloyalty to the Constitution of the United States and has probative value in the present proceedings. The A.C.L.U., in exceptions to the Examiner’s recommendation filed with Judge Louderback, contends that Aguirre has established his ‘‘attachment to the Constitution of the United States,’ and. that his claim to exemption from military service may not be held against him because under the law a petitioner for citizenship is merely required to show such attachment for the five-year period preceding his application for citizenship. A decision is expected sometime this month.

OAKLAND DEMANDS POLICE PERMIT > TO DISTRIBUTE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE :

We are informed iuat members of Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested in north Oakland last month for distributing tracts from house to house without a police permit. They were released on bail for trial on April 11. ee So far as we ean ascertain, the Oakland ordinance is virtually the same as was recently held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Schneider case. In that. case the Court said, ‘‘we hold a municipality cannot .. . require all who wish to disseminate ideas to present them first to police authorities for their. consideration and approval, with a discretion in the police to say some ideas may, while cthers may not, be carried to the homes of citizens.”

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, 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—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

Communists Smear The A.C.L.U.

The latest in a series of attacks upon the A.C.L.U. following its adoption of a resolu- tion barring totalitarians from Board and staff positions comes from the People’s World, West Coast organ of the Communist Party. In its issue of March 19, that paper suddenly made the discovery that the A.C. L.U. in defending civil liberties for all, including Communists, likewise defends the civil rights of non-union as well as union workers.

Communists have also taken the A.C.L.U. to task for defending the principle of civil liberties in a case involving Henry Ford. If they perused the record further, they would find that the same principle has been defended by the A.C.L.U. in cases involving the Party’s erstwhile foes, the Bund, their hated enemies the Trotskyites and Love- stonites, Mr. Hearst, and the Ku Klux Klan.

Such attacks, of course, only serve to emphasize again the difference between the A.C.L.U. and the Communist Party; the latter does not believe in civil liberties for all; it believes in ‘‘civil liberties for our side.’ The A.C.L.U., in contrast, agrees with the statement attributed to Voltaire that, “Though I hate what you say, I will defend with my life your right to say it.”

In their present smearing campaign the Communists contend that the action of the New York office of the A.C.L.U. barring Communists from its Board of Directors and staff is a “discrimination based on political belief.”’ While we should hesitate to state that the action was in accordance with orthodox Communist policy, it remains a fact that on many occasions the Communist Party has likewise severed persons from its direction and membership who were alleged to be disloyal to its aims andpurposes. The present Resolution of the Board is merely a requirement that those who conduct A.C.L.U. activities shall believe in the purpose for which the organization exists —civil liberties for all.

The Communists have further interpreted the A.C.L.U. actions of which they disapprove as “surrender to the war mongers,” and have charged the Union with “cockeyed logic” for its defense of civil liberties where non-union workers are involved. To our mind, “cockeyed logic’ lies in relating the A.C.L.U. defense of civil liberties to the war.

However, being classed with the “war mongers” has at least the benefit of novelty. We had become so accustomed to being called “red” on one hand, and “social fascists,” ‘“Trotskyites,”’ ‘“stool-pigeons,”’ and “Industrial Association spies,”’ on the other that any innovation, however slight, is a welcome addition to our collection of aromatic designations.

BILL CURBING POST OFFICE CENSORSHIP SUPPORTED AT HEARING

Arguments for enactment of the Geyer bill curbing post office censorship were pre- sented before a House Judiciary sub-committee by representatives of publishers, au- thors and the Civil Liberties Union.

Among those appearing in behalf of the measure were Morris L. Ernst, for the Council on Freedom from Censorship, A. C.L.U. affiliate; George Middleton, for the Authors League; Fred Melcher, for publishers; and S. John Block, for the National Lawyers Guild.

The bill (H. R. 4923) proposes to transfer to the courts the control of matter bar- red from the mails by the Post Office Department. —

DEPORTATION BILL OPPOSED AT SENATE HEARING

The Dempsey bill for deportation of aliens advocating ANY changes in the American form of government appeared destined to die in the Senate Immigration Committee following hearings at which opponents ripped the measure to pieces.

Appearing for the Civil Liberties Union, Reuben Oppenheimer, Baltimore attorney and author of the Wickersham Commission report on deportation proceedings, charged that the bill was so vaguely worded as to exclude aliens who wished to participate in a discussion of any amendment to the Constitution. Discussion of such issues as the proposed Ludlow Amendment for a referendum on war would make an alien liable to deportation, Mr. Oppenheimer pointed — out.

“The theory of democracy calls for the fullest and freest discussion on all issues. The constitution guarantees rights of free speech to all, regardless of their citizen- ship.” =

Others who appeared in opposition to the measure included representatives of the N. Y. Bar Association, National Emergency Conference, Descendants of the American Revolution, and the Committee for Cultural Freedom.

The bill passed the House in March, 1939, without roll call or debate.

BAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES FOR S.R-A. WORKERS

The so-called “Little Hatch Bill,’’ written into the relief law passed at the special session of the State Legislature, prohibits political activities by anyone employed on the S R.A. Its most sweeping provision declares:

(f) It is unlawful for any person employed in any capacity in connection with the administration or disbursement of the appropriation to take an active part in po- litical management, or be an active member of political organizations or take an active part in political campaigns which have as their purpose the election or nom- ination of any person to any office or employment, or to be a candidate for nomina- tion or election to any office, whether partisan or nonpartisan.

Moreover, the Act requires relief clients to expend the money they receive for ne- cessities. Under that provision it would be a violation of the Act to pay Union dues or to make church. contributions.

Since the law is effective only until June 1, 1940, its constitutionality cannot be tested because of inadequate time. It is quite likely, however, that similar provisions will be written into the next S.R.A. bill that is adopted by the Legislature. A test of the law may then be sought.

Newspaper Freed of Contempt Charge in Puerto Rico

Freedom of the press was recently upheld in Puerto Rico in an important decision by Judge Robert Todd, Jr., of the San Juan District Court involving a contempt case against “El Mundo,” the most important daily newspaper on the island. The editors were charged with contempt of court for commenting editorially on a pending — case in which the local electric power company figured. The Puerto Rico Civil Liberties Committee aided in the legal defense.

George A. Malcolm, newly appointed Attorney General in Puerto Rico, publicly applauded Judge Todd’s decision.

In acquitting the defendants and dismissing the case, Judge Todd ruled:

“If they (the accused) have exhibited any: undue indiscretion in their comments on the legal aspects of these proceedings, they have done so in the belief that they are acting in the interest of the community as a whole and in a matter related to public interest, shielded by the freedom of the press guaranteed by our Constitution.” |

Two somewhat similar contempt cases . relating to freedom of the press, involving the Los Angeles Times and Harry Bridges, are now before the U. 8S. Supreme Court.

ACLU. BRIEF IN 7 ' BRIDGES CASE FILED

Freedom of speech and of the press were — violated in the recent conviction of Harry Bridges for. contempt of court, in the opin— ion of the American Civil Liberties Union . which this week filed a brief as friend of © the court in support of Bridges’ petition... for certiorari in the U. 8. Supreme Court. -The Union’s brief was prepared by Osmond K. Fraenkel of New York.

Bridges was convicted and fined for sending a telegram to the Secretary of Labor characterizing as “outrageous” a decision . of a State Court in a controversy between — two labor unions. The judge before whom. . the contempt proceedings were instituted held that since an application for a new trial remained undetermined, the action was still. pending before the judge criticized; and therefore the sending of the - telegram and its subsequent publication — were calculated to interfere with the ad© ministration of justice.

“In contempt cases,” the A.C.L.U. brief stated, “the courts must weigh in the bal-- ance one great social need against another: | a free press and a free judiciary. It will not. do to assume that one freedom is superior — to the other. . . Except in unusual circumstances, criticism of a decision should never be punishable as contempt, even if it suggests to the judge what decision the writer would prefer.” ' :

The Union declared that the necessity for judicial self-restraint ‘‘is all the greater” because the courts are, in contempt proceedings, sitting in‘ judgment on issues af- fecting themselves. ‘Excessive sensitiveness to criticism or arrogance of attitude tend far more to bring the judiciary into disrepute than do most of the comments which form the basis of contempt proceedings.”

NEW YORK STATE EVICTION OF RELIEF CLIENTS APPEALED

Maintaining that the decision as to where one may live “belongs to no public author- ity, but is the free choice of every citizen,” the Civil Liberties Union will intervene as friend of the court in behalf of the family of Rosario Cherillo, Mamaroneck, N. Y., cobbler, ordered evicted from Westchester County, in an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals at Albany. The case will be argued during the week of April 8.

The court will be asked to determine the constitutionality of a section of the state Public Welfare Act under which the Cherillo family was ordered evicted last January. The county’s department of public | welfare contended that the family still had a legal residence in Wooster, Ohio. The law gives the state the right to send a family back to its legal domicile outside the state if it receives relief within one year of — entering.

The A.C.L.U. attacked the law on the ground that it violates the provision in the federal Constitution guaranteeing citizens of each state “all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states,” and abridges the Fourteenth Amendment. oS Attorneys for the Workers Defense Lea. gue will argue the appeal for the defendants.

SEEK WRIT IN ANTI-OAKIE LAW | TEST CASEIN VISALIA As we go to press, reports have come from Visalia that Raymond Henderson, Bakersfield A.C.L.U. attorney, has intervened in behalf of Richard Ochoa who is serving a six-months sentence for transporting in— ‘digents into the state. Henderson has petitioned for’a writ of habeas corpus in the Tulare County Superior Court. Some’ 20. persons have been convicted under the’statute in Tulare and Kings counties since last fall. They have received sus— pended sentences contingent on returning the migrants they aided to their home states.

Previous efforts to secure a test of the “anti-Oakie law’? were unsuccessful. At the present time, however, the law is also being tested in a Marysville case, reported on page 1 of this issue.