vol. 5, no. 7

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. V SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JULY, 1940 No. 7

U.S. FACES GAG LAW RULE

Final Action Up to President As Congress Adopts Omnibus Gag Bill

A bill adopted by both House and Senate on a conference report presents so as» tounding a violation of the first amendment to the constitution as to justify widespread protest. The bill, H. R. 5138, makes criminal any utterance or publication held to incite disaffection in the armed forces. “Military disaffection” thus becomes a major crime, opening the door to all sorts of prosecutions of pacifist and anti-war litera- ture, indeed anything which a court may | Weld to have the effect Gf circulated inthe armed forces, of causing disobedience. Federal C. S. Law

Another section of the bill establishes the federal crime of sedition by punishing any - utterances or publications advocating “overthrow of the government by force and violence.”” For years Congress has resisted any such enactment. There is no practical necessity for either provision. They so patently contravene the first amendment that. they merit a presidential veto.

The bill contains a long section affecting aliens, requiring their registration and fingerprinting on pain of deportation. It enlarges the grounds for deportation. It - nullifies the decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that past membership in an organization prohibited to aliens is not a ground for deportation.

Major Evil Affects Citizens

While the Civil Liberties Union is opposed to these latter provisions affecting aliens, the major evil of the bill affects the utterances and publications of citizens. No such measure as this could be passed in normal times. Congress has repeatedly re- fused to do so although similar bills have passed one house or the other.

The bill, having passed the Congress, the only hope of preventing its enactment will be a presidential veto. Telegrams should at once be rushed to the President urging a veto.

Take Prompt Action

This is the most sweeping assault on civil liberties by federal law in years. If the bill becomes law it will take a long time to get a decision from the Supreme Court voiding it, and that fight should be avoided if at all possible, for considerable damage can be done first. Every interested person should take prompt action.

BILL TO DEPORT HARRY BRIDGES TERMED “BILL OF ATTAINDER” Following the passage by the House of a bill (H. R. 9766) to deport Harry Bridges, West Coast C.1.O. leader, the Civil Liberties Union called upon members of the Senate Immigration Committee to defeat the measure.

“This bill,’ the Union wrote, ‘‘unprecedented in history, constitutes a ‘bill of at- tainder’ and this violates the constitutional provision. Our position is based wholly upon the character of the legislation, not the alien affected.”

‘and the world situation.

War Jitters Causes S.R.A. Director's Dismissal

E.R. Nieland, S.R.A. director for Butte County, was summarily dismissed from his job on June 12, because he introduced Rajni Patel at a public gathering in Oroville on June 4. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Independence Club of Butte County and Mr. Patel spoke on India In the course of his talk he attacked Great Britain besides denouncing the Dies Committee and the Associated Farmers.

The attack upon Great Britain was apparently too much for hysterical Legionnaires who demanded Nieland’s scalp for aiding ‘Fifth Column” activities. B. C. Willford, administrative assistant in charge of S.R.A. for Northern California obliged by dismissing Nieland. Said he, “It is apparent that he (Nieland) does not have the cooperative backing of the people of the community.”’

Protests have been lodged by the A.C.L.U. with 8.R.A. director, Walter Chambers, and Governor Olson. Thus far, a mere acknowledgment has been received from the gover- nor’s office. Further representations will be made unless action is taken on the pro- test by State officials.

N. J. ORDER DENYING RELIEF TO MEN ELIGIBLE FOR ARMY WITHDRAWN

Succumbing to widespread protests, New Jersey’s Director of Relief, Arthur Mudd, is withdrawing his recent order refusing -relief to all unmarried young men eligible for..enlistment in our armed forces. The Civil Liberties Union had offered its legal services to any New Jersey resident willing to test the order in the courts.

The Union’s offer was contained in a telegram to Mudd by Roger N. Baldwin, A.C.L.U. director. “Your action in denying relief to men of military age,” wired Baldwin, “is of concern not only to New Jersey but to the whole country because it sets a shocking precedent of compulsion. American citizens have a right to choose what service they shall render their country. No measure virtually compelling them against their wills to join the armed forces can be justified on any ground.

“Let's Put a Brake On The Fifth Column Hysteria”

Sounding an alarm against the Fifth Column hysteria that is sweeping the country, the A.C.L.U. issued a statement urging the public “to put a brake on the hysteria.” “Unless we do,’’ warned the Union, “there is a real danger that in the present wild and unreasoning eagerness to defend the country against subversive forces, many innocent people will be wrongfully accused and suffer irreparable injury.’

“Thus far,” continued the statement, “the hysteria has produced countless amateur — snooping societies and homeguard rifle clubs that have promised to make short | work of the Fifth Column. Significantly, however, such vigilantes instead of catcherties by banishing from communities the members of a small religious sect whose beliefs they do not like.

“Not only must we guard ourselves ing Fifth Columnists have violated civil libagainst such reckless accusations and con duct subversive of the Bill of Rights, but we must also be watchful against the evident tendency on the part of interested agencies to describe as ‘Fifth Columnists’ or ‘disloyal’ all persons whom, for their purposes, they wish to discredit. In this regard, we feel that Californians must look ‘with suspicion upon the announced intention of the Associated Farmers to join the fight against the Fifth Column. Their bitter opposition to the organization of labor is so well known that we are impelled to be| lieve that they are exploiting the Fifth Col- umn hysteria as a screen for their anti-labor activities.

“No doubt there are foreign spies and Fifth Columnists in this country. But the way to meet their threat is through regular governmental channels that are fully equipped to cope with them. Our laws should and will be enforced against individuals who violate them, but this is a job for the duly constituted authorities and not for vigilantes.

“Above all, in combatting Fifth Column activities, we must be mindful of the lib- erties guaranteed by the Constitution. If we would preserve those liberties for ourselves and our posterity we must guard against the subversive activities of persons who with good motives seek by unlawful, reckless or meretricious means to eliminate alleged Fifth Columns.”

A NEW MEMBERSHIP RECORD

As we go to press, the local branch of the Union has once again established a new membership record. Exactly 687 members and supporters are in good standing.

If you have an unpaid pledge, may we please urge you to pay NOW. We say this because the financial going during the summer months is always very difficult. And, if your membership has expired, won’t you please renew promptly?

Page 2

ASSOCIATED FARMERS BECOME “QUIET MEN DOING THEIR BIT”

From San Francisco comes the announcement that the Associated Farmers of California have declared “total war on subversive groups” and “the most intensive American drive ever directed at a fifth column.” They promise to avoid hysteria and to employ only “lawful legal methods compatible with our American form of Government.”’ Nevertheless the crusade seems to be a private enterprise, with “quiet men doing their bit” and ‘“‘strategies” which cannot be revealed to the general public.

It will seem to many who are not involved in California’s quarrels that this move shows distrust for the regular police machinery of the State and Nation; that it involves a dangerous element of secrecy ; and that no matter how fine the announced intentions it may be capitalized for the advantage of those engaged in it. The Asso- ciated Farmers is a lawful organization which has among its purposes resistance to what its members believe to be unjustifiable demands on the part of labor. It has been involved in economic skirmishes in which the rights were certainly not all on one side and the wrongs all on the other side. It has a definite economic interest, and there is no reason to believe that every one of the “quiet men doing their bit’ will be able to forget that interest when engaged in the present crusade.

No one denies that “fifth columns” exist in this country. Even the ‘Okies’” and ‘““Arkies” who work on California fruit ranches would probably admit as much. But it is highly important that no group should be permitted to act on the assumption that persons who disagree with it or stand in its way economically should there fore be treated as ‘fifth columns.” We are all of us under obligation to report to the -proner authorities any evidence we find of unlawful activities of any kind. Perhaps organizations may be formed under suitable safeguards to help the authorities. But this country is likely to become a madhouse if any one with an interest or a grievance may use the country’s danger to promote the interest or satisfy the grievance.—Edi. torial, New York Times, June 13, 1940.

THE STATUTE OF PENDING CASES ON THE LEGAL FRONT

No decision has been handed down by the Yuba County Superior Court in the case of Fred F. Edwards who was convicted under a California statute for bringing indigent relatives into the state. The case has been under submission more than a month.

Final briefs have been filed in the case of George Bogunovich who was denied citi- zenship in San Jose because more than seven years ago he subscribed for a year to a radical paper. The appeal will be argued before the District Court of Appeal in San Francisco some time in August.

Esteban Aguirre, who was denied citizenship by Judge Louderback in San Francisco; has authorized the A.C.L.U. to proceed with an appeal to the United States District Court of Appeal.

Frank §. Connor, who claims he was denied counsel in criminal proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, will have his innings before the State Supreme Court on July 9. Attorney Wayne M; Collins will argue the case.

The question of citizenship for Hindoos will be reopened in San Francisco on July 9 when Dr. Mulay applies for his final papers. Almost twenty years ago a reactionary U.S. Supreme Court held that Hindoos are not eligible for citizenship.

In Oakland on July 15, Police Officers A. D. Pierce and Glenn Hancock will go to trial in the Superior Court for the brutal jail killing of Fred Fernelius, W.P.A. worker.

Should Communists and Nazis Be Barred From Public and Private Jobs? —

In the commendable effort to protect American democracy from elements hostile to it, the line should be carefully drawn between restraints imposed by sound public policy and prohibitions dictated by prejudice. National defense is not promoted by wholesale denial of employment to aliens, nor thei¥ exclusion from public relief. The reasonable argument that aliens may not be suitable for certain jobs does not justify any blanket rule excluding them from public or private employment. All employers, public and private, have adequate discretion to select persons suitable for the tasks to be performed.

The considerations which hold good for aliens apply with equal force to the exclusion from public and private employment of members of minority movements against which popular prejudice is strong.

Deprivation of Civil Rights

The action threatened in Congress, and already taken by the United States Civil Service Commission and by loéal public agencies in parts of the country, to bar completely from the public service or pri= vate employment persons solely because they are members of the Communist Party or the German-American Bund is a deprivation of civil rights wholly without justification.

It may fairly be argued that some citizens, because of their proved attitude to the government of the United States or the principles of democracy, are not qualified for certain public services. But it cannot be fairly argued that the government may by law bar from private employment persons because of political beliefs, as is proposed in amendments to the Oppressive Labor Practices Act passed by the Senate and now pending in the House. Those amendments would prevent any employer engaged in interstate commerce from hiring any member of the Communist Party or the German-American Bund. Such connections have no relation whatever to qualifications for performing ordinary jobs in private employment. They virtually disfranchise in the field of employment citi- zens holding unpopular views. The law, if passed, will succeed not in eliminating them but in making liars out of them.

Legal Organizations

Concerning the public service, the wholesale exclusion of Communists and members of the German-American Bund is indefensible so long as those are legal organizations functioning. openly. The Communist Party is on the ballot in most states. It has not been established that the GermanAmerican Bund operates otherwise than legally and openly. Itis argued that members of these organizations are disqualified for all public service because they are sympathetic with a foreign government opposed to democracy. If such a disqualification is laid down in a time of hysteria and hostility to those governments it can readily be applied to others as well. There are many organizations in the United States sympathetic with other foreign governments equally undemocratic in principle and practice—to name only a few, the Catholic supporters of Fascist Spain, the Italian-American supporters of Fascist Italy, the Portuguese-American supporters ‘of the dictatorship in Oe ie a Eg aE

American ees of the dictatorship in Japan.

Not only do the measures which now threaten,to be adopted set up these qualifications for the public service, but they go further by denying public relief through the W.P.A. The next logical step will be to deny even home relief on the basis of political opinions. Starvation would appear to be the desired penalty for political heresy.

A.C. L U. Opposes Proposals

The American Civil Liberties Union is wholly opposed to all of these proposals in law, denying employment in public or private agencies to persons because of membership in unpopular organizations. The Union stands resolutely against this invasion of democratic rights under the pressure of war hysteria.

Critics of the Union’s position will of course reply that the Union itself has ex- cluded members of the Communist Party and the German-American Bund, among others, from service on its governing committees or staff. But the requirements of a private organization in selecting its policymaking committees are wholly different from those of the public service — which should be open to all citizens without distinction as to political or religious belief— or from employment in private jobs which have no relation to political principles. It will be replied further that certain great labor organizations, notably the United Mine Workers, exclude members of the Communist Party from membership, and under closed shop agreements such persons are barred from employment. It is no defense of the action proposed in Congress to cite the measures taken by private membership associations such as a trade union, however regrettable they may be in deny-—— — ing employment for political views. —

Compromise Our Democracy

Precedents established now in a time of hysteria will compromise our democracy for years to come. It is time enough for the government to act against Communist Nazi movements when they contravene our laws by activities. hostile to our form of govern- ment. The individual cases of law violation by members of these organizations al- ready tried, constitute no basis for such sweeping measures as these. The sober second-sense of the American people should bring the realization thateverybody’s rights are endangered by such wholesale exclusions from public and private employment of those who at the moment are the objects of popular fear or prejudice.

We urge all of the friends of civil liberties to express to members of Congress their opposition to H. J. RES. 544 removing Communists and Bundists from W. P. A. relief; to S. 1970 now before the House Labor Committee prohibiting private employers engaged in interstate commerce from hiring ‘Communists or Bundists; and to the United States Civil Service Commission, Harry B. Mitchell, president, protesting the order of May 29th refusing to certify any member of the Communist Party or German-American Bund.

If the bills pass Congress every effort should be made to get a presidential veto. The Civil Liberties Union will offer its services to test in the courts any or all of these proposals if adopted.

SALINAS TRIES TO STOP DISTRIBUTION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES LITERATURE

In Salinas, on June 12, Alvyn L. Franck was fined $200 and sentenced to 90 days in jail for failure to secure a license to sell “Consolation,” magazine published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The decision flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions holding that it constitutes a violation of freedom of the press to require a license or permit for the distribution of literature. An appeal is being taken to the Superior Court.

SIX MONTHS’ SENTENCE FOR ; REFUSAL TO TALK AFFIRMED

The Federal District Court of Appeal on June 22 upheld a six months’ sentence imposed on Marcus Graham, philosophical anarchist and editor of “Man” for refusing to tell the Immigration authorities where he was born. Graham contends he cannot be compelled to testify against himself in’ the twenty-one-year-old deportation proceedings. The Southern California branch of the A.C.L.U. may appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fight Against Compulsory Flag Salute to Continue Sharply criticizing the U. S. Supreme Court decision last week sustaining the right of school boards to compel salute of the flag on pain of expulsion, the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed its determination to continue the fight to reinstate in the schools children expelled because of refusal to salute on religious grounds.

The Union’s position was stated in a letter to Judge Joseph F. Rutherford, of Brooklyn, N. Y., head of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the religious group whose tenets barring salute to the flag resulted in the court test of a Minersville, Pa., ordinance, upheld by the high court.

“It is something of ashock,’’? wrote Roger N. Baldwin, A.C.L.U. director, “to find the court brushing aside the traditional right of religious conscience in favor of a compulsory conformity to a patriotic ritual. The language of the prevailing opinion unhappily reflects something of the intolerant temper of the moment.

“It has always been our contention that where a conflict between duty to God and duty to the state arose, duty to God comes first where there is involved no interference with the rights of others or any practice contrary to the public peace and morality.”

The Union announced that it would attempt the repeal or modification of law and regulations regarding compulsory flagsaluting. Some school boards have permitted children of Jehovah’s Witnesses to remain in school and to sit quietly in their seats while the other children saluted the flag. In such schools, no complaints have been made, according to the Union.

The Supreme Court opinion, the Union held, not only ruled against religious free. dom but enunciated a doctrine which “seems fraught with a great danger for civil liberties.’ The court, in effect, ruled et legislatures and school boards which enact legislation designed to suppress religious freedom of minorities are not subject to judicial scrutiny.

JUSTICE STONE DISSENTS IN FLAG SALUTE CASE

“The guaranties of civil liberties are but guarantees of freedom of the human mind and spirit and a reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them. They presuppose the right of the individual to hold ' such opinions as he will and to give them reasonably free expression, and his freedom and that of the state as well, to teach and persuade others by the communication of ideas. The very essence of the liberty which they guarantee is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say, at least where the compulsion is to bear false witness to his religion. If these guaranties are to have any meaning they must, I think, be deemed to withhold from the state any authority to compel belief or the expression of it where that expression violates religious convictions, whatever may be the legislative view of the desirability of such compulsion.”’ (Justice Stone dissenting in Minersville School District vs. Walter Gobitis, decided June 38, 1940.)

BIDDLE URGED TO POINT OUT ILLEGALITY OF LOCAL ALIEN REGISTRATION

In view of the expected enactment by Congress of an alien registration law, Solicitor General Francis Biddle, now in charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, was urged by the American Civil Liberties Union to call the attention of state and municipal authorities to the unconstitutionality of local registration laws and proclamations.

In a telegram to the Solicitor General, Roger N. Baldwin, A.C.L.U. director, listed the following local actions: An ordinance in Nashville, Tenn., requiring aliens to reg

Page 3

S. F. Police Crack Down On “Peace Poll” Organized By Radicals

After granting the San Francisco Coordinating Council for Peace written permission to establish polling places throughout the city for a “‘peace poll,”’ the police on June 20 summarily ordered attendants to remove the polling tables. Two persons were arrested for obstructing the sidewalk when they relied upon the police permits and refused to do so. Jury trials for both will take place early this month.

The police do not deny that Michael Riordan, Deputy Chief of Police, granted writ- ten authority to establish the polling places. Said Mr. Riordan, ‘‘This department has no objection to the.placing of tables and chairs in various localities throughout this city for the purpose mentioned, providing of course, streets and sidewalks are not unreasonably obstructed.”

Charged With Communism

The police do not claim that any “‘unreasonble obstruction” prompted the arrests. They do say, however, that it was discovered that a considerable number of the sponsors of the Coordinating Council were Communistic or Communist affiliates. For that reason alone, the permit was summarily revoked without notice to the leaders of the group who had obtained it.

It is undoubtedly true that the Coordinating Council is Communist inspired, but that is no valid reason for revoking the permit in question. Individuals and organizations should not be discriminated against by public officials because of their political or economic beliefs or affiliations. Such considerations have no bearing on the issuance of permits by a police department.

Arrests Were Unfair The arrests were unfair because the Coordinating Council obviously tried its best to keep within the law by securing from the Chief’s office written authority to establish polling places. If the police later believed themselves warranted in revoking the permit, it should have been done in an orderly and regular manner rather than by a summary demand to attendants to remove the polling tables.

It is interesting to note, too, that there is no law which empowers the police to issue such permits. Of course, the newspapers do it without permits, as do flower stands. and the Red Cross. In some cases, however, it seems to be the practice for the police to allow or not to allow the obstruction. Since the Coordinating Council sought to follow the regular practice in securing such a permit, it should be treated as everyone else, and should not be discriminated against because of its political complexion.

Unreasonable Bail

While the two persons arrested were each released on $50 bail, that amount was increased to $250 cash or a $500 surety bond for each when they demanded jury trials. In the one case, Judge Morris explained that he was raising the bail because of the nature of the literature. Judge Meikle, in raising the bail in the other case, claimed it was necessary to insure the appearance of defendants at jury trials which are very expensive to the county.

In these particular cases it was obvious that the defendants were not criminals and the lower bail was sufficient to guarantee their appearance for trial. It strikes us that in raising the bail on these trival charges the courts violated the constitutional guarantee of a “just bail.”

ister within ten days atid placing the law’ s administration in the hands of members of the American Legion; a similar ordinance in Knoxville; a proclamation by the Governor of Georgia ordering all aliens to register and a local ordinance in Atlanta; a similar proclamation by the Governor of Arkansas; and local registration laws in Miami, South Miami and Coral Gables, Florida. 4

“Much confusion and dayne can be avoided if the federal government warns against enforcement of these unconstitutional enactments,” wired the Union. “If enforcement is attempted, we would contest it in the courts. It is hoped such efforts can be avoided by action of the Department of Justice.”

Revocation of Communist's Citizenship To Be Appealed

The American Civil Liberties Union, through its Northern California branch, will intervene in behalf of William Schneiderman, Communist leader, in his appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Federal District ruling in San Francisco revoking his citizenship.

Schneiderman, state secretary of the Communist Party in California had his citi- zenship cancelled on the ground that he withheld the fact that during his 5-year citizenship probationary period he was a member of the Young Workers’ League of America and the Workers’ Party of America, considered by the court as organizations advocating violent overthrow of the government. Both organizations were later merged with the Communist Party. The decision is held not to affect the question of membership in the Communist Party after an alien had become a citizen.

The A.C.L.U. announced it would aid in carrying an appeal to the U. 8. Supreme Court if necessary. ' the national defense ‘“‘by sabotage . .

BILL PERMITTING F.B.. WIRETAPPING HIT BY UNION

Opposition to wiretapping for any purpose as an unwarranted invasion of the right to be free from searches was expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union to a House Judiciary sub-committee at hearings on a bill (H. J. Res. 553) to authorize the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigations in the interests of na- tional defense and permit wiretapping for that purpose.

The Union’s objections to the bill are in accordance with a recent decision on wire- tapping by the U. S. Supreme Court.

“We are also opposed,” the Union wrote the chairman of the House sub-committee, “to any extension of the power of the F. B. I. which would take it into the field of political opinion because of its danger to civil liberties.”

The bill refers to plans to interfere with . or in any other manner.” To Attorney Gen- eral Jackson, who has approved the measure, the A.C.L.U. pointed out that the phrase (‘‘in any other manner’’) would “open the door wide to investigations of trade union activities, political opinion and like, which ought to be wholly outside the functions of the F.B.I.” Mr. Jackson was urged to consider deletion of the phrase.

CIVIL RIGHTS IN WAR TIME

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally | in war and in peace, and covers with | the shie!d of its protection all classes | of men, at all times and under all cir; cumstances. No doctrine involving . more pernicious consequences was ever > invented by the wit of man than that | any of its provisions can be suspended | during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism. (The ‘ -U. S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milli- ; gan, 1866, 4 Wall. 2.)

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.

Reward Posted In Violence Against Jehovah's Witnesses

The Civil Liberties Union has posted a $500 reward to the first person supplying information to authorities which would lead to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for burning of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ headquarters at Kennebunk, Maine. The reward is payable upon actual completion by the convicted person of a penitentiary or jail sentence of at least one month.

In making the announcement, Roger N. Baldwin, Union director, said: ‘“‘We are of- fering this reward in an endeavor to check the lawlessness displayed against Jehovah’s Witnesses not only in Maine but all over the country. It is a symptom of the hysteria of the moment that Jehovah’s Witnesses, of all minorities, should be so savagely and widely attacked on wholly false grounds. The sect is bitterly antiNazi, yet members'are attacked here as Nazi agents. It arouses religious opposition by its pam- phleteering against other creeds, but it is devoutly Christian. It refuses to salute the flag as a man-made symbol, yet its members are patriotic and law-abiding citizens. Its rights of propaganda have been sustained by the Supreme Court in two notable de- cisions, but its members are arrested for doing only what the Supreme Court protects.” ..

At the same time, the Union stated that it had requested the Civil Liberties Unit of 25 the Department of Justice to investigate the background of the 42 reported cases of violence against Jehovah’s Witnesses in 21 states in the last month.

CHICAGO BAN ON FILM ‘FIGHT FOR LIFE” ASSAILED

The ban on ‘The Fight for Life” by the Chicago police censor board was denounced by the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee after it staged a private showing of the film -for prominent leaders of medical, women’s and civic organizations.

Produced by the United States Film Service, a government agency, the film is an adaptation by Pare Lorentz of the maternal welfare chapters in a book by Paul de Kruif. According to the Chicago censors, who voted unanimously for the ban, the film was “not fit for the general public because it portrays pregnancy and childbirth.” The National Legion of Decency has also placed the movie on its banned list.

Protesting to Police Commissioner All-. man, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee contended that the picture should be shown “in the public interest—to cut down the in- fant mortality rate.” The film has been playing in New York since March without interference.

SAN. FRANCISCO POLICE — CONTINUE INTERFERENCE WITH STREET MEETINGS

On June 13 San Francisco police once again interfered with a street meeting. Eleanor Bowmann was arrested at the corner of Fillmore and O’Farrell streets for committing a nuisance by blocking the sidewalk. When a jury trial was requested the case against Miss Bowmann, a Trotskyite, was dismissed by Judge Theresa Meikle. Incidentally, police do not break up religious meetings held regularly at the same corner.

Press reports also indicate that the San Francisco police arrested a speaker and one spectator at a street meeting at Polk and Broadway on June 24. The character of the meeting was not disclosed.

A. C. L. U. Rejects Complaint of © Academic and Civil Rights Council

Denying that it had instructed Director Ernest Besig to cooperate with the Academic and Civil Rights Council of California, the Executive Committee of the A.C.L.U., in a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Council, upheld the right of Mr. Besig to express the opinion that that body is dominated by the Communist Party.

-“He was merely exercising his right to freedom of speech,’’ declared the Committee. The Cammittee also stated that it was not prepared to agree with the Council that the two organizations have a common purpose. “Tf, as Mr. Besig believes, your group is dominated by the Communist Party which takes a class position an civil liberties, its purpose can hardly be said to coincide with that of the A.C.L.U. which is dedicated to the task of defending civil liberties for everybody without distinction.”’

The Council did not claim that Mr. Besig wanted to deny civil liberties to it. Asa matter of fact, Mr. Besig stated specifically that the A.C.L.U. would defend its right to freedom of speech, press and assembly.

The Letter

The Committee’s letter to the Council follows:

“Our attention has been called to your letter of May 28, 1940, addressed to several members of our Committee, a copy of which was sent to our director. The burden of the letter is (1) that itis the understanding of your organization that the director of the A.C.L.U. was instructed to cooperate with your group; (2) that despite said in- structions he has publicly and privately ‘attacked the Academic and Civil Rights Council as a Communist organization’; (3) that since the two organizations have much the same aims such attack is unwarranted, especially in view of asserted sentiment of ‘many A.C.L.U. Board Members that there is room in San Francisco for two civil libcritical times when civil liberties are being attacked it is unfortunate that the director of the A.C.L.U. should attack an organization devoted to that cause. We will undertake to answer these points in order.

No Instruction To Cooperate

“1. In view of the letter sent to you by Mr. Besig under date of February 6, 1940, we are at a loss to understand how you arrived at the conclusion that the director of the A.C.L.U. had been instructed to cooperate with your group. You were advised specifically, in accordance with the action of this committee, that we declined your invitation to send a delegate to your group because it is not our policy to join united front groups, and that no exception would be made with your Council. At the same time, we expressed our readiness to cooperate with anyone on a civil liberties issue, and to share information on civil liberyour organization.

The times are critical, and we fear : erties organizations’; and, (4) that in these

APPEAL DENIAL OF CITIZENSHIP TO COMMUNIST “SYMPATHIZER”

Arguing that freedom of speech and thought were abridged by a federal court’s decision denying citizenship to Archibald Russell Allan because of his political views, the Southern California branch of the A.C.L.U. has filed an opening brief in behalf of Allan with the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco. Allan’s application for naturalization was refused upon recommendation of the Immigration Service on the ground that he believed in some of the principles of Communism. The Union is sponsoring the appeal.

According to the Union, the evidence against Allan was based on “casual tabletalk and neighbor’s gossip.’’ The proceedings are characterized as “dramatic illustrations of the tyranny of labels over certain types of minds. The horrendous word ‘communism’ has been allowed to tap the emotions, arouse the prejudices, warp the mind and dominate the judgment of the Department of Labor officials, bent upon depriving Allan of citizenship.”

ties that we have at. our disposal. In doing this we treat your organization no dif- ferently than we do others, and it is our understanding that such information and even advice on civil liberties issues has been freely furnished to you by our director. Ac- cordingly, we are of the opinion that our director did not violate any instruction that we gave him concerning your organization. 2. Mr. Besig does not deny that he has publicly and privately characterized your organization as Communist-dominated. On the occasion of the Mills College meeting his remarks on the subject of ‘Subversive Activities in the United States: What groups are subversive? What are they doing? How important are they?’ to which particular objection has been taken, were pertinent to the issue under discussion, and, according to Dr. Glenn Hoover, one of our | Committee members who was Chairman of the Forum, Mr. Besig made it clear that he was expressing his personal opinion. Under the circumstances, he was merely exercising his right to freedom of speech.

Different Purposes

3. We are not prepared to agree with you that A.C.L.U. and the Academic and Civil Rights Council have a common pur-— pose. If, as Mr. Besig believes, your group is dominated by the Communist Party which takes a class position on civil liberties, its purpose can hardly be said to coincide with that of the A.C.L.U. which is dedicated to the task of defending civil | liberties for everybody without distinction.

“It may be that four or five of our Committee members have supported your Council. In doing so they have acted as individuals and not as representatives of the . A.C.L.U., and their membership should not be regarded as an endorsement Py us” of z S54. ae

that the present hysteria will lead to many denials of civil liberties. It is, therefore, | important that persons devoted to the cause of defending the civil liberties of everybody without distinction should today be especially vigilant against an invasion of fundamental rights. As far as the director of the A.C.L.U. is concerned, we do not believe he has relaxed his vigilance or been un faithful to the cause of civil liberties.”

Executive Committee, Northern California Branch, American Civil Liberties Union.

NOTE :—Since the Committee issued the above letter it has been noted that the Academic and Civil Rights Council of California has already departed from a strict civil liberties program by affiliating with the San Francisco Coordinating Council for Peace which recently clashed with San Francisco police, as reported elsewhere in this issue.

POLICE CHIEF ABSOLVES OFFICERS. OF BRUTALITY CHARGES

| Charles W. Dullea, San Francisco Chief ‘of Police, has completely absolved members of the police department of charges that they beat F. Vergel de Dios, Filipino, whom they arrested on a forgery charge. ‘Our investigation of the foregoing matter,’’ said the chief, ‘clearly shows that no more force was used by the officers in arresting Mr. de Dios than was legally necessary.”

At the trial on the forgery charge, which resulted in a hung jury, the prison doctors testified for the prosecution that the only marks on the defendant’s body were the result of adhesive tape which was applied for a rib injury which they failed to account for. When de Dios was released from a stay of seven weeks in jail the A.C.L.U. director found large black and blue marks on the man’s body.

The result in this case is not unexpected. It seems to be a universal police practice to shield officers from py charges.