vol. 7, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VII SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MAY, 1942 No. 5

EVACUATION HARDSHIP CASES

Hearing Boards Needed to Mitigate Needless Hardships and Injustices

While General J. L. De Witt has granted certain general exemptions from his Pacific Coast evacuation order, those exemptions are not far reaching. They apply essentially only to German and Italian aliens, exempting those over 70 years of age, those who filed petitions for naturalization prior to December 7, and those who have, or since December 7 have lost, in the armed forces, close relatives upon whom they are dependent.

FLASH

SAN FRANCISCO, April 28.—General De Witt’s office has just informed the A.C.L.U. that “temporary exemptions” will be granted from evacuation orders to the Japanese partners of — | mixed marriages and their offspring. — Curfew regulations, however, will con- tinue to apply. The necessary exemption forms are now being prepared.

Very few anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist refugees will be affected by the exemption or- der. The few who have been here long enough and filed their first papers six or seven years ago will be benefited by the order, but in Alameda County, for example, which ranks next to Los Angeles County in alien population, only 54 German and Italian aliens are affected.

Those Over 70

Exempting all Germans and Italians over 70 would really mean something if their spouses, irrespective of their ages, were also allowed to remain. Today, an alien over 70 is exempted from the curfew regulation, while the husband or wife who is ‘under 70 must stay at home between 8 P.M. and 6 A.M.

There are countless cases where citizens are married to German and Italian aliens who are subject to evacuation. most of our members know situations of this kind. We call to mind the case of the janitor of our office building who is a naturalized citizen. His Italian wife speaks poor English and thus has neglected to secure her citizenship.

Citizens Married to Aliens

We recall, too, the case of an Estonian who was naturalized almost 40 years ago. He recently married a German woman who came to this country in 1926. She is a hard- ‘working person who has been too busy to become a citizen. Faced with evacuation, she is about to file her petition for naturalization as the wife of a citizen, but it will be at least a year before her petition is acted upon.

Recently we received a pathetic letter from a German who has been in this country for exactly 40 years. He married here and had three children but neglected to become naturalized. His wife is now dead, but two of the children work in the Consoli

No doubt.

dated Aircraft plant in San Diego, while the third is married to a member of the Coast Guard. His home was in San Diego where he operated a filling station. Now he is in Reno (where he was advised to go) and would like to return to San Diego where his children reside. Says he, “If I couldt get Exemption anu couidt go vack to my Station my Son and Daughter and to the Resting Place of my beloved Wife wich I lost last December, I will proudly runn my Station and turn all Profits over to the Defence Programm.”

Mixed Marriages

Virtually nothing has been done about (Continued on Page 8, Col. 2)

FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION BILL SUPPORTED

Approval of a bill to amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 to require foreign agents to indicate plainly their affiliations on any propaganda placed in the mails was voiced by the American Civil Liberties Union in a letter to Congressman Hatton W. Summers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill passed the Senate April 2, and is a revised version of an earlier bill vetoed by President Roosevelt. The new version meets the President’s objections by speci- fically exempting agents of friendly powers from its provisions.

In urging passage of the bill the Union says: “It seems to us wholly in the interest of civil liberties that the sources of propaganda should be diselosed and that all propaganda in the mails emanating from foreign agents should be identified.”

NEW MEMBERS ELECTED TO BOARD AND NAT’L COMM.

Prof. Paul Brissenden of Columbia University has been elected to the Union Board of Directors, and the following new members elected to the National Committee: Stephen Vincent Benet, author; Henry Seidel Canby, editor of the Book of the Month Club; John Dos Passos, author; Rep. Thomas H. Eliot of Massachusetts; Malcolm S. MacLean, president of Hampton Institute, Virginia; John P. Marquand, author; and Dr. William Lindsay Young, president of Park College, Missouri.

C. I. O. Council Urges Loyalty Hearing Boards For Coast's Enemy Aliens

After investigating the effect of the Army’s curfew and evacuation orders on its members engaged in defense production, the C.I.O. Council has petitioned the Army to establish loyalty hearing boards for “enemy aliens’ subject to evacuation.

The Council urged that “Civilian Boards be established to investigate the history and activity of enemy aliens applying for exemption from Army and Navy regulations. That the boards provide those aliens whose loyalty may be in doubt with prompt hearings and give them an opportunity to prove they are loyal and that it is in the public interest for them tc continuc te follow their regular occupation. Such boards should be empowered, after investigation and hearings, to grant to individual aliens clearance or permits to continue to work in their respective industries. These boards should also be empowered to waive the evacuation order of those enemy aliens who may be found to be loyal to the country.”

“Army regulations barring enemy aliens from restricted zones and imposing curfew regulations have affected hundreds of workers engaged in local defense production,” said the C.I.Q.

“Prior to March 29, 1942, when the Army assumed full authority in the enforcement of the above regulations, the attorney-general’s office had issued permits of exemption to enemy aliens engaged in defense production, but these permits were subsequently revoked by the Army.

“The result has been that in cases where enemy aliens had been working on night shifts it has been necessary to change them to day shifts and to replace them on the night shifts with citizens. In one steel plant, for example, there are 80 enemy aliens (Italians) who had been issued permits to work after curfew. When these permits were revoked they were changed to the day shifts—and in many cases to unskilled jobs —and their work assumed by citizens. This situation has caused serious friction and disunity among the workers in the plant, for it is obvious that a citizen is reluctant to give up his job on a day shift to accommodate an enemy alien.

“The same situation has developed in the warehouse, furniture, textile and other in- dustries represented by the CIO that are engaged in national defense work.

“Many of these aliens are key men in their respective plants and it will be diffi- cult, if possible, to replace them. |

“The seriousness of this situation is emphasized by the fact that there are some 14,000 Italian aliens in San Francisco, all of whom are affected by curfew regulations and many thousands of whom are engaged in defense production.”

Page 2

A.C.L.U. Urges Reopening Of Ramsay Deportation

Hearings Early last month the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U. requested the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the hearings in the deportation proceedings against Ernest G. Ramsay “‘to allow the introduction of newly discovered evidence.” Ram-. say, together with Earl King and Frank J. Conner, was convicted in 1937 on second degree murder charges in the so-called “Ship Murder Case,” and because of that conviction, he faces deportation to Canada.

After the deportation hearings in Ramsay’s case were closed, evidence was dis- covered showing that Mrs. Julia Vickerson, one of the jurors in the murder trial, had a secret financial arrangement with one of the prosecuting attorneys, Assistant District Attorney Charles D. Wehr. This evidence was disclosed when Mrs. Vickerson made a claim against the estate of Mr. Wehr for over $15,000.

Last November Mr. Vickerson supported ‘his wife’s claim by identifying a memorandum drawn up by his wife, in Mr. Wehr’s presence, listing various loans to Mr. Wehr. The document reads, in, part, as follows: “The monies owed me by Chas. Wehr. “Loan of $8500 yr. 1936. ‘Had notes signed by Chas. (Mr. Wehr) but he advised me to destroy while the Ship Murder Case was pending and then he would make new note for me.”

. When Mrs. Vickerson was examined as a juror in the murder case, she testified that she did not know Mr. Wehr personally; that she knew Mr. Harris, one of the defense attorneys, better than she knew Mr. Wehr, and that she knew Mr. Harris only as a witness in a divorce proceeding. Said she of Mr. Harris, “I don’t know that he even remembers me, but I know who he is.” She testified further that Mr. Wehr had represented a friend in a real estate transaction, and that on two occasions she had accompanied the friend to Mr. Wehr’s office. Moreover, in January, 1937, both she and Mr. Wehr made affidavits that no material fact regarding their acquaintanceshi had been withheld. s

Since Mrs. Vickerson had apparently loaned $8500 to Mr. Wehr prior to her selection as a juror, she withheld information that might have led to her disqualification asa juror, and since the verdict in the Ship Murder Case is apparently infected with fraud, the Immigration Service should not be allowed to take advantage of it, even though it had no hand in the fraud. ‘“Under the circumstances,” said the Union’s letter to the Board of Appeals, ‘“‘we believe that the only fair course is to reopen the hearings to allow the introduction of the newly discovered evidence.”

Heretofore, the Union has always taken the position that no evidence had been pre- sented by the Defense Committee which proved that the defendants in the Ship Murder Case had been “framed.” The evidence showing that the defendants were not tried by an impartial jury should now be tested in formal proceedings of some Kind,

According to the Defense Committee, the Immigration Service on April 6 postponed further action in the Ramsay case for six months.

HOUSE BILL TO CLOSE SCHOOLS OPPOSED

“An “obvious infringement of academic freedom” was scored by the American Civil Liberties Union last month in a bill introduced in Congress by Representative Carl Hinshaw of California and referred to the House Committee on Education. The bill (HR 6820) provides that the President in time of war may order closed any school where instruction is carried on in a foreign language, or where the “culture current in such a foreign nation” is inculcated.

The Union has requested to be heard against the Hinshaw bill, when and if hearings are held. It pointed out that the bill would permit the closing of numerous refugee schools in the United States.

Hearing On Alien Detention Bill Asked

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked for a hearing on a bill introduced by Senator Russell (S 1232) and referred to the Senate Committee on Immigration which would provide for the supervision and detention of deportable aliens. The bill is understood to be an amended edition of the Hobbs “Concentration Camp” bill which was defeated last year.

The Russell bill provides that deportable aliens guilty of no crime may be detained for five months, and those previously convicted of crime for longer periods. Deportable aliens are required to submit to psychiatric investigation and extended inquiries into their past private lives and as-sociations. The bill also would make deportable any alien who acts “‘in behalf of” any foreign group or party, naming specifically the Communist Party, the GermanAmerican Bund, and others.

In opposing the Hobbs bill last year the Union scored similar provisions for investi- gation as “inquisitorial” and stated that “no consideration of public safety requires that law-abiding aliens be segregated. If they commit offenses they can be tried and imprisoned. Otherwise they should be free on bond, available whenever deportation becomes practicable.”

SWEENEY CASE DECISION BLOW TO FREEDOM OF PRESS

A blow to freedom of the press is seen by the American Civil Liberties Union in the | 4 to 4 decision of the U. 8S. Supreme Court handed down April 13 in an appeal from a ‘decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that it is libelous per se to accuse a public official of racial intolerance. The Supreme Court tie vote sustained the pleadings in a libel suit brought by Representative Martin Sweeney of Ohio against the Schenectady (N. Y.) Union Publishing Co. for publishing a Pearson and Allen syndicated column implying that Sweeney was an anti-Semite.

The suit was one of about 75 brought by the Congressman against publishers throughout the country. The ACLU filed a ‘brief in the Supreme Court urging that the suit be dismissed, and pointed out that if it were sustained, as it now has been, newspapers, at least in New York state, would be hampered in discussing political issues for fear of llibel suits.

The Union noted that no opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court in deciding the case. Most of the libel suits brought by Sweeney in other states have been dismissed on the ground that it is not libelous per se to imply that Sweeney is an anti-Semite. The New York case will now go to trial.

Censorship of ‘‘News” Reversed

The March issue of the A.C.L.U.-News was refused delivery in Hawaii on the ground that it contained military information. When the Union asked the Army Intelligence what it was all about, they informed us that “There is no reason why this particular issue should have been returned to you. We have corrected this and wish to inform you of our action.”

Results of A.C.L.U. Poll

Two hundred and ninety-nine ballots were cast in the A.C.L.U. poll to determine the views of the Northern California membership on issues arising out of the Army’s Pacific Coast evacuation orders. The eighteen late ballots did not substantially alter the results announced in the April issue of the ““News.”

Another C. O. Camp in State

California’s second conscientious objector camp (Civilian Public Service Camp No. 31) is scheduled to open on May 1 at a former CCC camp a few miles out of Placerville on U. S. Highway 50. It will be under Mennonite direction and its members will work under the U. S. Forest Service.

REHEARING ON TEXAS ANTIPICKETING DECISION ASKED

The American Civil Liberties Union has just filed in the U. S. Supreme Court a brief supporting a petition for a rehearing of the Texas case in which the court recently up- held an injunction forbidding the Carpenters and Joiners Union of Houston, Texas, from picketing a local cafe.

The A.C.L.U. brief signed by Osmond K. Fraenkel, New York attorney, says the Supreme Court decision that the Carpenters Union could not picket the cafe because the dispute at issue did not involve the cafe itself constitutes. a serious limitation on freedom of speech. It also points out that the decision opens the door to a flood of cases in which courts will be obliged to pass upon conditions where picketing is permissible.

eted the cafe because the owner’s house in another part of Houston was being built by non-union labor.

The A.C.L.U. holds that so long as picketing is peaceful and the public order is not disturbed men have the right to carry signs anywhere, just as they have the right to speak their minds. The brief points out that the Supreme Court decision, based upon the non-existence of a business relation between the Carpenters Union and the | cafe, introduces a new and untenable criterion for free speech.

SUPREME COURT REHEARING ON CITIZENSHIP FOR INDIGENTS ASKED

Following a 4 to 4 tie vote in the U.S. Supreme Court on the appeal. of Louis Weber, indigent California alien refused citizenship by Federal Judge Harry A. Holzer of Los Angeles last year, the American Civil Liberties Union through Attorney A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles has filed a peti— tion for a rehearing of the case. The Suing the decision of Judge Holzer, which the Union opposes on the ground that poverty should be no bar to citizenship.

The petition for rehearing signed by | Arthur Garfield Hays of New York City, general counsel for the ACLU, and Senator Robert W. Kenny, Carey McWilliams, Leo Gallagher, Charles J. Katz, and Leonard Weinberg, California attorneys, says the high court tie vote constitutes an “unsatisfactory’ conclusion of the case, especially since no opinion is handed down in tie decisions.

The petition points out that the United States Solicitor General had supported the Weber appeal urging the high court to reverse the Los Angeles decision, and says that the attorneys did not make an oral argument because they thought the Solici‘tor’s recommendation made a favorable decision almost certain. It also points out that the failure of the court to deliver an opinion leaves unsolved the main question of whether an indigent can become a citizen.

RECORD FILED IN MINNEAPOLIS : SEDITION APPEAL

The record of the sedition case in which 18 members of the Socialist Workers Party and C.I.O. were convicted in Minneapolis last December on charges of violating the Smith “Gag Act’ was filed with the clerk of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Mo., late last month, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is supporting an appeal.

The Union says the time for filing the briefs of the defendants has been extended to July, and that the government has until September to file its replies. It is estimated that argument on the case will be heard before the Circuit Court next October, and decision reached soon thereafter.

The A.C.L.U. is supporting the appeal on the ground that the 18 were unconstitution- ally convicted for mere utterances in the absence of any ‘clear and present danger”’ of illegal actions.

The Carpenters Union had pick— -preme Court tie has the effect of sustain-—,

A Refugee Pleads For Hearing Boards For Anti-Fascist Aliens

In the following letter, a refugee tells the need for loyalty hearing boards for anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist refugees subject ‘to evacuation from the Pacific Coast. “|. I appreciate very much what you are doing in the interests of us loyal prodemocratic, anti-Fascist aliens. It is certainly an incredible cruelty that we refugees after just having established ourselves here and after years of trying hard to make a living should again be forced to leave our homes. The disappointment of the refugees who have been received so generously by the United States and feel deep gratitude to live in a country of liberty would be profound if they once again would be persecuted just because they are not long enough here to be citizens. For many people it definitely is a question of life or death! Very few have any financial resources of their own besides their incomes from their jobs which they then would lose and would hardly be able to start once more from the bottom in another city. The situation of doctors who have only their California license and can’t practice anywhere else would be absolutely desperate. All this refers only to voluntary evacuation, of course; if we should be put into an internment camp the whole situation would be very different. How many persons of the older generation would be able to survive that I cannot tell! “Anyway, I want to tell you one thing: it is indeed a good idea to establish hearing boards for us, but it would be perfectly senseless to do that after the evacuation. Imagine that people after moving their property from San Francisco and having given up everything and lost all contacts ‘would be given a hearing after six months for instance! It wouldn’t do them any good to return to California then because their places would have been taken, their connections finished, and they themselves probably still looked upon with suspicion and distrust. Only before the evacuation would hearing boards be of any use.

‘Besides, since we came to this country a few years ago, we have been going (like all immigrants) through such a lot of hearings, questioning, filling out blanks, etc., that itseems unthinkable that the immigration authorities haven’t the fullest knowl- edge of our past, our European background, our activities here and there, and our opinions.—C. F.”’

FREE SPEECH FOR TRADE UNIONIST SUPPORTED IN NEW JERSEY

The American Civil Liberties Union through Attorney Arthur Vanderbilt of Newark is aiding a suit in the Chancery Court of New Jersey supporting the right of Samuel Keller, former employee of the Bound Brook plant of the American Cyanamide Co., to criticize his union, the Chemical Workers, A.F.L.

Keller, a resident of Old Bridge, New Jersey, was dismissed from his employment several months ago when union officials complained to the company that Keller was privately criticizing the union among employees for having “sold out’? members in a strike and for having signed a contract limiting the freedom of speech of union members. Keller was dismissed under a elause in the contract signed between the Chemical Workers Union and the Cyanamide Co. last October which said in part: “In the event any employees engaged in activity in the plant calculated to undermine the status of the Union as a bargaining agency, the Company agrees to take appropriate disciplinary action.”

The court is asked to declare the application of this part of the contract void as an infringement of the free speech rights of union members and to order Keller reinstated in his job and to grant him damages. Answers to the suit have already been filed, and the case has been assigned to Wilfred Jayne, judge of the Chancery Court. The date for hearing has not yet been fixed.

Opinions by ACLU Members on the Government's Evacuation Orders

PRO

Citizenship does not necessarily imply loyalty. Safety is paramount. Temporary sacrifice of civil rights must be made if national safety is threatened. Evacuation is an unpleasant necessity and should be carried out with no feeling of enmity—and with as much regard for minority rights as a democracy can safely give.

Unfortunate necessity justifies the orders.

As long as we are at war, I favor leaving things largely to the military. DeWitt must know more about the situation than I can. Organize. powerfully to prevent the military forces being used to force reactionary ends after the war.

“Freedom as usual” is part of “business as usual” attitude, which is dangerous in war times.

In this war, organized groups sympathetic to the enemy have played an important and continuous role. With regards particularly to the Japanese, it is very difficult to know just where their sympathies lie because of language difficulties. Also, it is not impossible that removal of such aliens may prove rather to their benefit than to their detriment.

The sabotage at Pearl Harbor should be Iesson enough for us.

A war emergency exists. The responsible military leader should be allowed to meet it as he thinks best. If he doesn’t think he should be removed. We can’t run his business for him.

Lock up all known alien and native Hitlerites and quit legalistic quibbling.

By nearly all citizens the present is held to be an acute emergency. Attempts at modifications will be ineffective. We should strive to prevent abuses and above all act so the post-war period shall find us with prestige and influence. Then we may do something.

This is primarily a military matter. Keep away please.

At present we must trust the President and the Army to decide where danger lies. We don’t know. : Don’t stick your neck out on this issue.

I feel that while some will suffer unjustly, we must support our President in the present emergency for the greater good to the greatest number.

Amputation of a limb is sometimes necessary to maintain the life of the patient. The risk is so great in allowing possible enemies to remain near power lines and aqueducts that I am not disposed to object, except as constitutionality is affected.

CON

Democracy has its price like everything else. Careful regard for constitutional rights of citizens, and human and legal rights of aliens may cost us something in security, but it is worth it. Establishment of a “second class citizenship,’ and the wholesale displacement of aliens without a “clear and present danger’ may seriously weaken our democratic concept and institutions.

Orders are too sweeping—not necessary.

While it is necessary, in the military interest, to restrict both citizens and aliens, it does not seem necessary to go as far as General DeWitt, nor have all reasonable efforts been taken to mitigate hardship.

Such orders make value of citizenship questionable.

In my opinion, both orders are unconstitutional unless made to apply to all citizens, regardless of race. I feel that this is not an opportune time to test the point.

DeWitt’s order is too sweeping. Should apply to enemy aliens and citizens whose behavior is definitely suspicious.

Believe DeWitt’s order somewhat too: drastic. Am willing to trust judgment of F.B.I. as to dangerous aliens and citizens as well. However, in areas in which military activity may occur, Army should be able to clear area for operations.

American citizen’s rights should mean something, and trial by jury should not be thrown overboard.

A.C.L.U. should state its objections to present order, but seek constitutionality test only as last resort, if favorable judgment seems likely. It should not risk establishing bad precedent.

Civil liberties are too difficult te resurrect to kill them off wholesale.

Constitutionality of these orders should be contested to the limit. I have noticed many non-members looking to the A.C.L.U. for action in this matter.

We want liberty for all citizens. No dictatorship of any kind.

Distinctions should be made loyal Japanese and non-loyal.

Excepting very vital areas, I believe it would be wise to keep careful surveillance and then leave the Japanese on their tracts to cultivate produce for the nation.

Why persecute the trustworthy fathers and mothers who would have become citizens had our laws permitted?

Leave Japs where they are, but under

between

strict surveillance; that would be more economical and more humane.

Evacuation Hardship Cases

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

the hardship cases arising out of mixed marriages. Recently, a Japanese wife—a citizen of the United States, was taken from her Chinese husband. A dozen or more Filipinos in California face separation from their wives who are citizens of Japanese extraction, and, in a few cases, their children as well. Similar situations exist among marriages between Caucasians and Japanese.

In the cases of the Filipinos, the Japanese wives have been accepted as members of the Filipino community in which they reside, and are no longer accepted among the Japanese. If they are sent to camps with other Japanese they will be ostracized and have a difficult time. While the Filipinos have requested exemptions for their Japanese wives, they are ready to accept a camp separate from other Japanese.

The most that the Army will grant in the eases of mixed marriages is voluntary evac- uation. But such evacuation is practically impossible unless one has the economic means for its accomplishment.

Few Special Exemptions For Japanese — As far as we know, the only instances where Japanese have been granted exemptions is in cases of interpreters and teachers of Japanese employed by the Army. There are more than a dozen of such cases in the bay area. And, we know of at least one instance where a Eurasian has been allowed to remain.

No special consideration, however, has been shown our citizens of Japanese extraction who fought and bled in the first World War. And the known anti-Fascists among our Japanese are being removed with the others.

The Union has petitioned the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, to set up hearing boards in order to mitigate the unnecessary hardships and injustices resulting from the. evacuation orders. We understand that such hearing boards are under consideration for Germans and Italians. Please urge Mr. Stimson to establish the boards. In all fairness, too, they should apply to citizens of Japanese extraction.

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 Entered as second-class matter, July 31, 1941, at the Post Office at San Francisco, California, under the Act of March 38, 1879.

Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

Post Office Procedure vs Social Justice Protested

The first action by the Post Office Department against a publication under the war time Espionage Act, brought at the instance of Attorney General Francis Biddle, against ‘Social Justice’ of Detroit, last week drew 2 protest on procedure from the American Civil Liberties Union. A telegram to Postmaster General Frank C. Walker signed by Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel, and Roger N. Baldwin, director of the Union, said:

“While we hold no brief for the editorial policy of Social Justice and detest its intolerance, we deplore summary action by the Post Office Department. If the precedent thus established is extended, no periodical enjoying second class mailing. privileges is safe from the threat of an arbitrary censorship not subject to court review on the facts, and when desired, by the judgment of a jury.

“We have long urged for the Post Office the system which has operated so fairly and successfully for ten years in the Customs Service, where ultimate decisions of this grave character are left to courts and juries. Distribution is prevented by the right to seize and hold questionable mat-ter until decisions are reached.

“We are far more concerned with the general system than with the merits of this particular case. In time of war particularly, great care is obviously needed to pre- vent prejudiced and arbitrary judgments. While legislation is necessary to provide for court review, may we urge your consideration of creating by administrative order at least a review board to pass on all exclusions from the mails?

“May we further urge as a general policy adherence to the test laid down by the Su- preme Court in the World War cases of a ‘clear and present danger’ of direct inter- ference with the war? The discredited record of Post Office censorship in the World War should be sufficient incentive to correct the procedure now, before similar unfortunate precedents are again established.”

Stewart Internment Bill Opposed

Senator Tom Stewart’s bill to permit the War Department to intern without hearing any person, citizen or alien, who has acted or “acts as a citizen or subject” of a country with which the United States is at war, was scored by the American Civil Liberties Union in a memorandum to the Senate Immigration Comfittee April 7. The Union said the bill is “‘so clearly unconstitutional and fraught with dangers to civil rights that it is unreservedly condemned by the ACE

The Union pointed out that the bill would give blanket authority to the Secretary of War to intern anybody without specific charges or hearing and that it would open the door to all kinds of abuses based upon reported criticism of the government or war policies. It would be extremely difficult to secure court review of detention under the bill in war time, the Union said, for courts are reluctant to grant habeas corpus when military authorities are regarded as supreme.

The bill was also opposed because it would permit the detention without hearing of American citizens of Japanese descent, and any other naturalized American citizens whose countries of origin have not relinquished all citizenship claims.

Ontario License Unconstitutional by Federal Court

Federal Judge Campbell E. Beaumont, of the United States District Court of Los An- geles, has issued a preliminary injunction against the chief of police and city attorney of Ontario, restraining them from prosecuting or arresting Jehovah’s Witnesses for distribution or sale of religious pamphlets in the city of Ontario.

Twenty-two arrests have been made by the local officials, charging members of this Christian group with conducting a business without paying a license fee. One member was grabbed five times and spent ten days in jail; another was behind the bars over eight days.

Judge Beaumont ruled that the Ontario city ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to the distribution of Christian literature by Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the ground that it abridged both freedom of the press and religious liberty as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The Ontario ordinance is a common type of municipal ordinance which requires the payment of license fees as a condition for carrying on commercial businesses and for engaging in various occupations. It provides, among other things, that every person ‘‘conducting a commercial business’ shall pay a license of $4.00 per quarter or $16.00 per year. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ attorney. argued that the members of this Christian group were not engaged in a commercial business and hence such an ordinance did not apply to them; and that the efforts of local municipal officers to enforce such an ordinance, as to the distribution of religious literature published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, interfered with the right of worship and Federal Constitution.

The position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was upheld by Judge Beaumont who ruled that the requirement of the license fee of $4.00 per quarter was excessive and unreasonable.

The suit was brought jointly by the Southern California branch of the A. C. L. U. and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Similar action may be necessary in Eureka where repeated arrests have been made under a licensing ordinance. A conviction under the ordinance has just been appealed to the Superior Court, but to stop further arrests, an injunction suit in the Federal Court may be necessary.

JUSTICE DEPT. CITIZENSHIP REVOCATION CASE HIT

Objection to proceedings by the Department of Justice to revoke citizenship of naturalized Americans by evidence of “‘disloyalty” after naturalization was voiced by the American Civil Liberties Union last month in a letter to Attorney General Francis Biddle by Arthur Garfield Hays and Osmond K. Fraenkel of New York City, and John F. Finerty of Washington, attorneys for the Union. ;

The lawyers expressed ‘“‘profound misgivings” over the Attorney General’s recent statement that he was authorizing proceedings against several hundred naturalized citizens for disloyalty, determined by “‘subsequent conduct,” holding that only fraud at the time of naturalization is a legal ground for action. They emphasized that the Union approves revocation proceedings where there is concrete proof of fraud or disloyalty at the time of naturalization. The Union’s letter says in part that ‘‘since all naturalized citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as native born citizens, their citizenship has never been revoked for conduct subsequent to naturalization, except under a special law relating to protracted residence in their countries of origin. To do so under the pressure of war-time conditions would establish a precedent under which no naturalized citizen would feel secure in his citizenship.”

Since the evidence to be used in the prosecutions would deal with opinions as well as conduct, the Union said, the proceedings “would inevitably create fear on the part of all naturalized citizens to express themselves on public issues.” The letter states that the Union will “offer its support to any naturalized citizen proceeded against where we are convinced that the government is relying chiefly on evidence of matter which occurred after naturalization and where no real basis exists for inferring that naturalization was fraudulently obtained.”

Loyalty. Oaths and C. O.’s

Attorney General Earl Warren on April 1 ruled that a bona fide claim as a conscien- tious objector under the Selective Service ‘Act does not justify revocation of a teach- er’s credentials for violation of the State’s loyalty oath. The opinion arose out of the case of Ronald Chinn, Sacramento Quaker and high school teacher whose draft board unsuccessfully sought his dismissal as a teacher because of his classification as a conscientious objector. Mr. Chinn is now registered at the San Dimas C.P.S. camp.

ATTACK ON JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LEADS TO TEHAMA COUNTY GRAND JURY PROBE

The Grand Jury of Tehama County will be called into special session either on May 1 or May 4 to inquire into the refusal of the Justice of the Peace of Corning to take the sworn complaint of Aleck Bangle and. to issue a warrant for the arrest of one Henry A. Gumble who is alleged to have attacked him.

Mr. Bangle, a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was pushed and kicked ‘“‘the length of an entire block” when he handed a publication to Mr. Gumble, who threatened to beat Bangle again if he found him distributing magazines on street corners. The same day, Gumble drove by a corner and saw Bangle distributing his literature. He parked his car and proceeded to kick and beat Bangle, besides dumping the contents of his magazine bag in the dirt. The Chief of Police intervened and Bangle entered his ear. As he did so, Gumble again attacked him. The Chief failed to arrest Gumble.

On the basis of these charges, supported by witnesses, Mr. Bangle sought to have Gumble arrested. The Justice of the Peace on three different occasions turned down a request for a warrant. Instead, the J. P. advised Bangle to consult the District Attorney, but the latter refused to recommend the issuance of a warrant and tried to induce Bangle to quit distributing literature.

On the advice of the A.C.L.U., Mr. Bangle then requested Superior Judge Gans of Red Bluff to issue the warrant in his capacity as magistrate, but he declined to act al- though he did offer to present the matter to the Grand Jury. When a Justice of the Third District Court and then a Justice of the State Supreme Court also refused to issue the warrant, Mr. Bangle availed himself of Judge Gans’ offer to present the matter to the Grand Jury. The only issue there, however, is whether the Justice of the Peace was guilty of misconduct in refusing to issue the warrant. If the Grand Jury fails to act, the Supreme Court Justice has agreed to reconsider the question of issuing a warrant for Gumble’s arrest.

Unless a magistrate is willing to issue a warrant, the complainant is practically without a remedy and may continue to suffer grievous assaults and molestation. The instant case is important because during the last few months Jehovah’s Witnesses have suffered repeated molestation in Corning. If these attacks can be made with impunity, really serious trouble can be anticipated because, as is their custom, Jehovah’s Witnesses will continue to return to Corning in order to distribute their literature.