vol. 8, no. 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VIII SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY, 1943 No. 2

CONVICT PARENTS IN FLAG CASE

Charged With Failing To Send Expelled Child To Public School

Following the expulsion of eleven-year-old Ora Lea Beamish from the Benecia Ele- mentary School, her parents, on January 6, 1943, were convicted in the Justice Court for failing to send her to school. Mervin Beamish, the father, was sentenced to serve five days in the county jail, while the mother, Lenora Beamish, was sentenced to pay a fine of $10. An appeal has been taken by counsel for the children, Clarence E. Rust, of Oak- land, to the Superior Court. The A.C.L.U. intends to file a brief as friend of the court.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

.The parents and the child are all mem‘pers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The child testified that her refusal to salute the flag © was based upon her study of the Bible, which forbids persons to bow down before graven images. Flag-saluting, to the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, comes within the inhibition.

The Superintendent of Schools, J. H. Henderson, testified that Ora was a very good student and that her conduct was excellent except for her refusal to salute the flag, which she told him was contrary to her Christian teachings. Though she stood at attention during the flag salute exercise, he expelled her from school on November 9, 1942. :

Reinstatement Appeal Failed

The parents made every effort to have her reinstated in school. A petition was presented to the school board setting forth their religious beliefs as regards the salute, but the board refused to order the child’s return to school. No other school is available in the community except a parochial school, and since Jehovah’s Witnesses are strongly opposed to Roman Catholicism, as to all ‘organized religion,’ the parents would not consider sending the child to that school. The parents testified that they are without funds to employ a tutor, and that they have never instructed their child not to salute the flag.

This is the second California prosecution of parents for violation of the compulsory school attendance law following the expulsion of a non-saluting child. Near Modesto, several years ago, the parents of two nonsaluting children were arrested, but the prosecution was dropped when it was discovered that the children had been enrolled in the Oakland schools after their expulsion from the local schools.

Prosecutions Failed In Other States In other states, there have been numerous prosecutions and convictions of parents for failing to send their expelled non-saluting children to school. In all instances, however, the higher courts have set aside the convictions.

At the present time, too, the United States Supreme Court in a West Virginia case is reconsidering its opinion that nonsaluting children may be expelled from school, even though their religious scruples are violated by a compulsory flag salute regulation. If this decision is reversed, the conviction in the present case must also be reversed.

An added factor before the Supreme Court today not present when originally it considered the flag salute issue, is an act of Congress, approved June 22, 1942, provid- ing “civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention.’ Ora Beamish did stand at attention during the: flag salute exercise, and, consequently, did show the respect demanded by law.

A. C. L. U. Intervenes In

“Mankind United” Prosecution

lite sufficiency of the government’s indictment against the leaders of the Cali- fornia “money” cult, Mankind United, charged with conspiracy to interfere with the conduct of the war and to incite disloyalty in the armed forces was challenged by the Southern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. when a demurrer to the indictment was argued in the federal court at Los Angeles last month.

The Union’s participation as friend of the court was limited to the point that ‘‘an in- dictment which alleges a conspiracy and then limits the charges to ‘acts’ consisting exclusively of utterances, publications and meetings, must state the circumstances un- der which the utterances and publications were made so as to disclose a ‘clear and present danger’ of substantive evil to the government, the military forces or the con- duct of the war.”

This test laid down by the Supreme

Court is not met in the present indictment and therefore the freedom of speech, press, and assemblage of the defendants is being violated, the Union’s memorandum said. | In explaining the interest of the A.C.L.U. the memorandum declared that ‘‘with the views expressed by the defendants, as alleged in the indictment, we have no concern. Most if not all of the statements charged to the defendants are to us highly objectionable. We enter the case as amicus curiae not as friend of the defendants but as a friend of the court in the interests of free speech.”

Circuit Court Hears Japanese Test Cases On Feb. 19 a.

The. Circuit Court of Appeals in. San Francisco has set February 19 for arguments in four cases seriously affecting the rights of citizens of Japanese extraction. Instead of the usual three-man court, seven judges will hear the cases.

Set for argument are the Fred T. Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi evacuation test cases, the Minoru Yasui curfew test ease, and the Regan case challenging the citizenship of American-born Japanese. .. Originally, the arguments were set for January 30, and did not include the Yasui -case. But on January 25 the court continued the arguments until February 19: in order to allow counsel in the Yasui case an opportunity to file their briefs and argue the case with the others.

Two more cases, testing the right of the military to detain citizens of Japanese ex- traction once they are evacuated from military areas, are still undecided in the U. S. District Court. In the Mitsuye Endo case, Judge Roche of San Francisco has informed counsel that the case will not be decided until the Circuit Court passes upon the pending test cases.

There have been no developments in the Wakayama cases argued before a threeman bench in the U. S. District Court in Los Angeles about four months ago.

A.C.L.U. Attorney Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco has not only filed extensive briefs in the Korematsu appeal, but also an amicis curiae brief on behalf of the national office and the local branch of the © Union in the Regan case.

MISSISSIPPI GRAND JURY | INDICTS LYNCHERS >

For the first time since 1903 and for the third time only in its history, the Depart- ment of Justice last month obtained a federal grand jury indictment against lynchmob suspects. The indictment was returned against four private citizens and a deputy sheriff, all of Jones County, Miss— issippi, charged with violation of the federal civil rights statutes in the lynching of Laurel Wash, Negro, last October.

The deputy sheriff who was serving as county jailer was charged with depriving Wash of his constitutional rights in refusing to protect him by locking a “mobproof” steel door, delivering him up in— stead to the mob. The others are accused of conspiracy to cause a state official to deprive Wash of his life without due process of law, to deny him equal protection of the law, and to inflict upon him “un| usual and different punishment” because | of his race and color.

Page 2

Local Branch Requests ACLU WARNS OF GROWING POST OFFICE CENSORSHIP

Reconsideration Of Res. of Oct. 19

The Executive Committee of the Northern California branch of the Union on January 7 unanimously endorsed the letter of Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn opposing the “Resolution of Oct. 19.’ At the same time, it requested the Board to reconsider its action and it is understood that the matter will come before the meeting of Feb. 1.

In its request for reconsideration, the Committee restated its opinion that the Board should have consulted the various local committees before undertaking a fundamental change in the Union’s policy. The Committee felt there was no doubt that the resolution is a basic change in policy because it constitutes a departure from the Union’s traditional policy of defending the civil liberties of all without distinction. In fact, it would seem to read into the federal constitution a qualification not heretofore existing.

The Committee not only opposed the resolution in principle but also suggested that any effort at clarification should be contained in the resolution itself. Finally, it insisted that the application of any policy in a given area should be left to the local committee instead of the national board.

In the meantime the national board of the A.C.L.U. has issued a statement seeking to clarify its ‘Resolution of Oct. 19,” which establishes a policy of providing no help in cases ‘where, after investigation, there are grounds for a belief that the defendant is cooperating with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” The board’s statement is as follows: :

Some have conceived the resolution to constitute a change in basic policy, which is not the fact. The resolution is substantially a guide in the selection of cases in war-time. It rests on the proposition that we do not defend freedom of speech and ‘publication for those acting on behalf of the enemy, a position which was taken by the Union’s predecessor in World War I. It does not mean thereby that we do not wholly support the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, but rather that we are establishing a war-time basis for selecting cases through which to support those guarantees.

Except in rare cases all the issues of due process and the maintenance of civil rights can be raised in cases which do not fall -within the resolution, as already indicated by the test cases authorized under the military evacuation orders, the Post Office censorship, etc.

Even as to those cooperating with or acting on behalf of the enemy we will make: exceptions where the fundamentals of due process are involved which, as we interpret the phrase, means so flagrant a denial of rights as to constitute a judicial lynching. The national office will watch carefully the results in cases in which the Union declines to participate under the resolution and, if there is danger of creation of bad precedents in the Supreme Court, will recommend that exception be made to the application of the resolution.

The necessity of a uniform national policy in war-time and our obvious obligation to select war-time test cases with great care requires that all local committees and rep- resentatives refer to the national office every case, whatever its character, involv- ing persons alleged to be co-operating with or acting on behalf of the enemy. The reso- lution specifies the matters to be considered in making a conclusion in such cases. The Union has a special committee fully qualified to appraise the questions so as to carry out the national policy stated in the resolution.

RECENT BOOKS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES

Wartime Censorship of Press and Radio: Tells the story of the development of cen- sorship in World War II through newspaper and magazine articles, bringing together materials relating to every phase of censorship of news on the radio and in the press. Compiled by Robert E. Summers. H. W. Wilson Co.

Exclusion from the mails by postal authorities of individual issues of newspapers, or books and pamphlets alleged to be “‘seditious” or ‘obscene’ without charges or hearing was scored as a “dangerous extension of the trend toward unwarranted wartime censorship” in a letter of warning forwarded last month by the American Civil Liberities Union to publishers throughout the country.

Issues Destroyed Without Hearings

The Union pointed out that whereas the Department is obligated by law to grant hearings when it moves to revoke a newspaper’s second class mailing privileges, it may suspend or destroy separate issues, or books and pamphlets without specification or review. It has already done so in many cases, the Union reported, the latest involving the Militant, weekly newspaper published in New York by a group following the teachings of Leon Trotzky. Suspension of individual issues of the paper was followed recently by notice of a hearing on January 21 in Washington to decide whether its second class mailing privileges should be revoked for printing material construed as interfering with the conduct of the war.

Criticizing the Post Office Department’s procedure in the case of individual issues of a newspaper, the Union said that ‘if arbitrary and capricious judgments by bureaucratic officials are to be avoided in the present war, and if the tendencies to extend censorship already evident in this war are to be checked, the Post Office Department should promptly adopt regulations under which no action to exclude a publication from the mails should be taken without specific charges and a full hearing before a board.”

No Court Review Possible

No satisfactory review in the courts is possible, it is pointed out, ‘for the only question which a court will consider is whether the Postmaster has grossly abused his discretion under the law. While such a © proceeding will bring out the reasons which prompt a particular exclusion, it is very rarely that the courts interfere with the judgment of the Post Office.”’ The Union’s criticism of postal censorship was extended also to the hearings which have been held during the past year in the case of several score ‘“‘seditious’” and “‘obscene” publications prior to revocation of their second class mailing privileges.

Though approving the hearing procedure as entirely fair in itself, and far preferable to the procedure in exclusion of separate issues, the Union charged that the postal authorities have failed, in judging the seditious nature of publications, to apply in several cases the Supreme Court test of “‘clear and present danger,’’ condemning them instead because of a “general tendency.” The Union expressed the view that ‘‘wherever there is a doubt in the borderline area between free speech and what is loosely called sedition, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the publication, in the interest of maintaining our democratic liberties.”

Att’y Gen’l’s Recommendations Ignored

In the hearings on obscenity, involving nationally known magazines such as the Police Gazette and True Confessions, the Post: Office Department is charged by the Union of having disregarded the recommendations of the Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure that in such cases, the Department should ‘consult with outside experts, scholars in the field of art, the sciences, and literature, in order to ea opinions prior to ultimate determinaion.”

In order that the objectionable features of the Post Office procedure be eliminated, the Union recommended the adoption of the method employed in connection with the importation of seditious or obscene material from abroad. There, it is pointed out, the Customs Bureau seizes the allegedly offensive matter and submits it to a special- ist in the Customs Bureau in Washington. If the material is judged obscene or sediti- ous, a libel action is instituted against the offending matter, thereby providing a trial before a judge and jury. Meanwhile the public interest is protected by impounding the affected material.

COMMENTS ABOUT THE RES. OF OCT. 19

Kindly count me as one who thoroly approves of the letter of Dr. Meiklejohn. Iam at a loss to understand what would seem to me to be the rather cowardly stand of the National Board of Directors. Apparently it refuses to maintain Civil Liberties where it would seem they were most essential.—J.R.

I feel that the Resolution of October 19th, which Dr. Meiklejohn protests, was a mis- take, and that it should be seriously reconsidered.—Mrs. C.M.B. :

Both my daughter and I approve the “Resolution of Oct. 19. ’’We are very sorry it is necessary but it seems to us only common sense since we are at war with very clever enemies. Were we to help even one Nazi spy we’d not only be fighting against our government but the whole Civil Libertee Le would be discredited.—

May we express our agreement with the argument of Dr. A. Meiklejohn anent the “Resolution of Oct. 19.”—Mr. and Mrs. G.W.

Dr. Meiklejohn’s protest against the Resolution of October 19th merits serious consideration and I am inclined to agree with him. However, I feel that the respon- sible parties within the A.C.L.U., in general, are quite capable of judging the merits of such cases as may arise under this new policy and the individual’s right to expect aid from the A.C.L.U.—A.H.G.

“With Dr. Meiklejohn, I dissent heartily with the policy expressed by the resolution of the Board of Directors.

I believe that the great loss of potential liberties possible under the resolution’s policy will be far greater than any possible gains for civil liberties it may help the already vast power of our federal and military government to protect.”—A.N.

I do not understand how any clarification of the resolution in question can make it consistent with the principles and aims of the organization. If the policy involved were applied, I should expect it to result in positive harm to the cause of civil liberties, Since cases would be inevitably prejudged to some extent, and the fact that the A.C.L. U. had refused to intervene in behalf of a defendant might make it all the more diffi- cult for him to secure his rights.—D.S.M.

LEGION TO INVESTIGATE CONDUCT OF JAPANESE RELOCATION CENTERS

The California American Legion has just established a special committee to investi- gate the conduct of the two Japanese Relocation Centers in California. Senator Jack B. Tenney has been appointed chairman of the committee. Mr. Tenney has indicated, however, that the Legion’s investigation will be carried on by the Legislature’s interim committee on un-American activities. Pursuit of Freedom: A history of civil liberties in Illinois from 1787 to 1942, published by the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee of the A.C.L.U. Edited by Edgar Bernhard, Ira Latimer and Harvey O’Connor.

Page 3

Status of Civil Liberties After a Year of War

Reviewing the status of civil liberties in America after a year of war, the American Civil Liberties Union declared that “‘while it is clear that the general condition is far better than in World War I,” the view asserted by government spokesmen that civil liberties are intact, ‘““must be qualified” by recognition of “serious exceptions.”

The chief exceptions listed are: (1) removal of the entire Japanese population from the West Coast by military authority and their detention in ‘‘virtual concentration camps,’ and the exercise of the power of removal of individual citizens from military zones without trial or civilian control; (2) the international censorship of opinion, including “unreasonable restrictions’ on the transmission to the Allied nations of facts and opinions concerning race discrimi— nation; (3) censorship by the Post Office Department of publications alleged to impede the war effort, without hearing or specifications in many cases, and without the application of the U. S. Supreme Court test of “clear and. present danger’ in others; (4) certain federal prosecutions for utterances and publications alleged to encourage disaffection in the armed forces without a showing of “clear and present danger” of illegal acts.

On the favorable side, the Union listed: (1) relative freedom of debate and critic- ism; 2) the lack of witch-hunting, mobviolence, and spirit of persecution; (3) the action of the Attorney General in removing the restrictions on enemy aliens of Italian nationality; (4) the prosecutions undertaken by the Justice Department for peonage in the South, and the federal investigation of lynching; (5) the activity of the Fair Employment Practice Committee in combating discrimination in employment on racial and religious grounds. ,

“On the whole,’ the Union concluded, ‘though the over-all picture is favorable to the maintenance of democratic liberties, | particularly in freedom of public discussion by press and radio, in the growing protection of Negroes’ rights, and in the :reason- ably satisfactory adjustment of labor’s claims, constant vigilance and effort are plainly necessary to protect the rights of those minorities which inevitably suffer pressure and injustices under the tensions of war.”’

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED TO “JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

U. S. District Judge Michael Roche has refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of Charles Thomas Fiedler, Jehovah’s Witness of San Francisco, who was indicted recently for failure to report for induction into the Army. Fiedler charges that his draft board acted arbitrarily in failing to recognize his claims as a minister in view of the fact that at the time of classification and now for almost a year he has been spending full time in the work of the society.

Judge Roche held that there can be n inquiry into the arbitrary action of a local draft board unless a registrant submits to induction into the Army. His decision is contrary to that of Judge Yankwich in Los Angeles.

Pending in the Circuit Court of Appeals is the Crutchfield case which raises the question whether arbitrary action on the part of a draft board can be raised at a criminal trial of a registrant charged with failing to report for induction. A decision is expected in the near future.

“TENNEY COMMITTEE” CONTINUED

The Legislature has voted an additional $10,000 to continue the so-called ‘Tenney Committee,” which has been investigating “subversive activities’ in California during the past couple of years. It will function as a joint committee of the Senate and Assem- ,bly, with Senator Tenney as chairman.

A REVIEW OF CIVIL LIBERTIES BILLS IN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

As-might be expected, aliens, and especially Japanese aliens, are the chief target of suppressive legislation proposed at the Fifty-fifth Session of the California Legis- lature which convened on January 4. Almost as numerous are the anti-labor bills, all but one of which originated in the Senate. None of the latter bills, introduced by a few irreconcilables, have a chance of being adopted, however, since it has been agreed by the interested groups that because of the war the usual legislative fight between the opposing interests will be called off.

Little Red-Baiting

Issues of religious liberty are raised in four measures, whereas the once popular whipping boys of the Legislature, the Communists, come in for little attention. That, attention is limited to two bills, both of which have the object of eliminating the Communist Party from the ballot. Finally, several miscellaneous suppressive measures have been introduced, besides a minimum of bills in aid of civil liberties.

This review, however, is being written several days before the scheduled adjournment date of the Legislature. Consequently, it may not set forth all of the bills af- fecting civil liberties. Also, it should be borne in mind that the local Executive Committee has not yet reviewed the various measures examined herein.

Undoubtedly, some kind of measure will be enacted to strengthen the present alien land law in order to eliminate the various devices whereby Japanese aliens despite the law have enjoyed a real if not a nominal ownership of land in California.

Citizenship of Japanese Attacked

Assemblyman Thurman has introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 3 memorializing the President and the Congress “to enact the necessary Federal legislation or Con- stitutional Amendment as will prohibit and prevent any Japanese, either alien or na- tive born, from becoming a citizen of the United States, or to own, hold, enjoy, oc- cupy or use any of the agricultural lands in any or either of the states of the United States of America.”

Another resolution, A.J.R. 5, by Mr. Lowrey, asks the Congress to determine the identity of Japanese and others holding dual citizenship and to forfeit their citi- zenship, and “to prohibit any person now or heretofore holding or exercising a dual citizenship from being or ever becoming an American citizen.”

Since anti-Japanese measures have a certain popular appeal, it is a foregone con- clusion that no legislator will dare to oppose them. On the other hand, there is an outside chance that they can be killed because any mistreatment of our minorities at this time is grist for the mills of the totalitarian propagandists. —

The Legion’s Pet Measures

The American Legion has again advanced a couple of its pet anti-alien measures. A.B. 194 and S.B. 273 would require foreign language newspapers to print English translations of all stories in adjacent columns. The effect would be to put the Chinese, French and other foreign language newspapers in this state out of business.

A companion measure is A.B. 195. aE any program is broadcast in a foreign language over any radio broadcasting station in this state,” says the bill, “such program ‘shall be rebroadcast in English immediately upon its conclusion.” Since the measure makes no exceptions, we assume it applies to broadcasts of grand opera and gov, ernment short wave propaganda broadcasts. Incidentally, similar measures were defeated at the 1939 and 1941 sessions of the legislature.

The anti-labor bills do not merit detailed consideration since their death in the legislature seems fairly certain. Suffice it to say, however, that the various bills would extend the “hot cargo” law to peace times, — require the incorporation of labor unions, provide for the keeping of public financial accounts, and compel regular elections of union officers, etc., etc.

Communist Ballot Ban

Senator Tenney whose previous effort to outlaw the Communist Party from the bal— lot met with defeat at the hands of the State Supreme Court, has now introduced S.B. 54 which provides that any party advocating the violent overthrow of the government shall be disqualified from participating in a primary election.

Assemblyman Dilworth seeks to accomplish the same result in a more indirect manner. His measure, A.B. 582, provides that no party shall be qualified to participate in a primary whose registration. has fallen below 1/10 of 1 per cent of the total State registration. At the last general election, while the Communist Party had only 631 registered voters who dared register Communist, it retained its place on the ballot by virtue of the fact that one of its candidates received at least 3% of the entire vote cast. Under the proposal, the Communist Party today would also be required to have 1/10 of 1 per cent of 3,820,776 registered voters, or 3821, in order to retain its place on the ballot.

The issue of religious liberty is raised b four bills. S.B. 271 and A.B. 499 provide for compulsory military drill for high school students without providing any exemption for conscientious objectors.

Bible Instruction

A.B. 408 provides for regular courses of instruction in Bible reading and study for > credit, with the “King James” or ‘‘Authorized”? version as the basis of instruction.

The course would be provided for pupils — from the 9th to the 14th grades inclusive, | for at least one hour for 20 weeks in each school year. “Any pupil may be excused from attendance upon such courses upon the written application of his parents or guardian.” 5 A.B. 283 is similar to one vetoed by Governor Olson two years ago. It provides that pupils may be excused from school “four days per school month”’ to receive religious instruction, for which they will receive school attendance credit and grades.

The miscellaneous assortment of suppressive measures includes S.B. 46 which would allow persons convicted of vagrancy to receive suspended sentences for six months conditioned on their obtaining and continuing in employment for the period. The law, of course, would not permit the person to join in a strike and would be a splendid recruitment device for strikebreaking in agricultural communities.

A.B. 52 raises from 8 to 10 years the requirement for indigent aid. The U.S. Su- preme Court in the Edwards case suggested that such settlement laws may be unconsti- tutional, and the ten-year requirement would seem to be clearly unreasonable.

70% Grade to Vote

Finally, A.B. 30 provides that no registered elector shall be permitted to vote until he receives a 70% grade on a written examination “inquiring as to the appli-. — cant’s residence, good moral character, and understanding of and attachment to the fundamental principles of the Constitutions of the United States and California.”

Bills in aid of civil liberties are essentially limited to the field of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color and sex, while a couple of the bills make it a misdemeanor to discriminate because of race, creed or color in places of public accommodation or amusement. Identical bills by Senator Tenney and Assemblyman Rosenthal (S.B. 97 and A.B. 629) prohibit discrimination because of race, color, creed and sex in the employment of citizens not only in public employ- (Continued on Page 4, Col. 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 Entered as second-class matter, July 31, 1941, at the Post Office at San Francisco, California, under the Act of March 8, 1879. Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER FLAG SALUTE

The U. S. Supreme Court last month granted the request of the State of West. Va. for a review of the decision of a three judge federal court last October voiding a state flag-salute law as applied to children with religious scruples.

A review of this decision will necessarily involve a reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s own decision in 1940 in the Gobitis case, in which local compulsory flag-salute requirements were upheld. the West Va. statute, the lower court justified its refusal to follow the Gobitis decision by pointing out that of the seven Supreme Court judges now sitting who participated in the Gobitis decision four have ‘stated their disagreement with it. One of the four was Chief Justice Stone who alone dissented in the original case. The others are Justices Black, Douglas and Murphy who took occasion to “confess their error’ in a dissent last June in a 5 to 4 decision ‘sustaining local taxes on the sale of religious literature.

‘The A.C.L.U. will Aasveiate in the Supreme Court case by filing a brief. A new point is involved by the passage by Congress last June of a national flag-salute law which requires only standing at attention. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not regard such a requirement as violating religious scruples.

| McNUTT INTERFERENCE WITH FEPC -PROBE STIRS NATIONAL PROTEST.

Chairman Paul V. McNutt of the War Manpower Commission stirred up a national storm of protest among liberal organizations when he postponed indefinitely hearings scheduled by the Fair Employment Practice Committee to probe Negro discrimination in the railroad industry.

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the many organizations to criticize this move, said in a telegram to McNutt: “In view of your assurance given us and others following transfer of the F.E.P.C. to the Manpower Commission that its independence of inquiry and action would be preserved, we are shocked to note your action to postpone indefinitely hearings on discrimination in the railroad industry. The Committee’s work is allaying rather than promoting unrest by satisfying the Negroes and others, of the government’s good faith in combating unjustified discrimination.

-Counsels of caution to the contrary do not serve the interests of democracy nor jus- tice.”

The Union disclosed that a letter received from McNutt last September said: “‘There is no intention to exercise a detailed supervision or control over any particular in- vestigation which the Committee (F.E.P.C.) ay ae into complaints submitted to it.”

RADIO CENSORSHIP AGAINST CALIFORNIA A.C.L.U. PROTESTED |

A protest was lodged last month with the Federal Communications Commission by the Southern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. against radio station KFWB of Los Angeles for its deletion from a recent broadcast by A.C.L.U. counsel A. L. Wirin of remarks concerning the rights of Japanese-Americans.

The broadcast, sponsored by the Los Angeles Committee on the Bill of Rights, was in celebration of the anniversary of the Bill of Rights. According to the committee chairman, station officials consider comment on Japanese rights “‘in bad taste at this time.”

In nullifying .

NEW YORK COURT REFUSES TO FOLLOW SUPREME COURT ON LITERATURE SALES

Refusing to apply to New York state.a 5 to 4 decision of the U. S. Supreme Court handed down last June upholding local license-taxes on literature sales, the New York Court of Appeals, highest in the state, last month reversed the conviction of a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses for attempting to sell religious tracts without a license.

The decision gives the first legal expres‘gion to the widespread opposition to the ‘Supreme Court’s ruling. Religious organizations, publishers, civil liberties groups and newspapers have expressed their view of the decision as an attack on freedom: both of the press and of religion. A petition for rehearing is now under consideration, supported by the American Newspaper Publishers Association, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In voting unanimously to free the defendant, the New York Court said: “In determining the scope and effect of guarantees of fundamental rights of the individual in the Constitution of the State of New York, the court is bound to exercise independent judgment and is not bound by a decision of the Supreme ‘Court limiting the scope of similar guarantees in the constitution of the United States. “The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution of the State and nation is not an arbitrary restriction upon the powers of the government. It is a guarantee of those rights which are essential to the preservation of the freedom of the individual— rights. which are part of our democratic traditions and which no government may invade.

‘At times when a legislative body has sought to invade a field from which, under the Bill of Rights, the government is excluded, and has violated rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the courts must refuse to recognize or sanction the legislative decree.

“We may not impute to a legislative body. an intent to adopt a statute or ordinance which might be used as an instrument for the destruction of a right guaranteed by the Constitution which executive and legislative officers of government, no less than judges, are sworn to maintain. For that reason, an ordinance or statute should be © construed whenever possible in a manner which would remove doubt as to its consti- tutionality, and possible danger that it might be used to restrain or burden freedom of woe or freedom of speech and press.”’

Negro Draftee Loses Court Contest of Jim-Crow Quota

The federal district court at Brooklyn, N. Y. refused last month to grant a writ of habeas corpus to Winfred Lynn, Negro gardener who challenged his induction in the army on the ground that it was based on a color quota in violation of the U. 8. Constitution and the Selective Service Act.

Important witness at the hearing was New York Selective Service Director McDermott who testified that the U. 8S. Army had set up separate draft quotas for Negroes and that Lynn had been called for induction last September as part of a Negro quota.

This is the second time Lynn’s petition for a writ has been denied. In December, Judge Mortimer Byers in the Brooklyn federal court refused to issue a writ on the ground that an induction order cannot be challenged until the draftee has submitted to it. Following the court’s direction, Lynn offered himself for induction a few days later and then sought release from the army through another writ. This was dismissed in the latest court action, the judge holding that since Lynn had originally refused induction, and had thereafter accepted it ,he was a volunteer and could not challenge it.

Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union who handled the case for Lynn, announced that an appeal will be taken. He charged that the local board in later accepting Lynn was acting on the September order which is in violation of that section of the Selective Service Act which states that “‘in the selection and training of men for the service, there shall be no discrimination on account of race, creed, or color.”

CIVIL LIBERTIES BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE

(Continued from Page 3, Col. 3) ment but in industries engaged on defense contracts. At the same time, however, the measures do a bit of discriminating of their own by providing, “The provisions of this act shall not apply to citizens, or subjects, , or the descendants of citizens or subjects, of any country or State with which the United States is at war.’’ In other words, these benefits would not be extended to Mayor Rossi’s children.

A resolution by Assemblyman Augustus Hawkins memorializes Congress to adopt a poll tax bill.

A. C. L. U. PUBLISHES PAMPHLET : ON JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

A new pamphlet, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the War,” published by the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union is now available for distribution at the local branch offices in San Francisco at a price oF 10c. foreword (6 the gamphiet signed by -gome of the nation’s leading clergymen says — that “this extraordinary record of war-time attacks upon the liberties of a religious organization constitutes a challenge to democratic liberties and religious tolerance. The record in these pages shows that thousands of children of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been expelled from the public schools all over the country for refusal to salute the flag; that several hundred men of military age are imprisoned for refusing compulsory military service; that they alone have been the victims of ‘patriotic’? mob-violence; that hundreds of their members have been arrested for distributing literature—and that they have been compelled to bring more cases in the courts involving their rights, and thereby the rights of all of us, than other organizations in the country.”

CONGRESS CONSIDERS THE FATE OF AMERICAN-BORN JAPANESE

Not satisfied with sending Pacific Coast Japanese to relocation centers in isolated | parts of the interior, a movement is now on foot.to turn the centers into virtual concentration camps by placing them under military control. At least, that is the recommendation of Chairman Reynolds of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, who feels the evacuees are being ‘‘pampered.” And, Senator Wallgren of Washington has introduced legislation to affect the change.

In the meantime, a sub-committee of the Military Affairs Committee is investigating the charges of “‘coddling.’”’ While the chairman of the sub-committee, Senator Albert B. Chandler has said nothing about the charges of ‘‘coddling,”’ he has announced that two-thirds of the evacuees ‘‘are mostly loyal Americans who want to work and fight.”

In the lower house, Congressman Jerry Voorhies of San Dimas, California, has in- troduced a constitutional amendment, which, according to press reports, would have the effect of cancelling the American © citizenship of Japanese who are dual citizens and do not renounce their Japanese citizenship.