vol. 10, no. 10

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. X SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER 1945 No. 10

MEMBERSHIP MEETING OCT. 19

Dr. Hubert Phillips Speaks On "Civil Liberties For Racial Minorities In Post-War California"

A membership meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California will be held at the California Club, 1750 Clay St., San Francisco, on Friday evening, October 19, at 8:00 p. m. Dr. Hubert Phillips, Professor of Social Science at Fresno State College, will speak, on the subject, ‘Civil Liberties for Racial Minorities in Postwar California.” Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons, national vice chairman of the Union and chairman of the Executive Committee of the local branch, will preside.

In addition, short addresses will be given by Dr. Howard Thurman, co-pastor of the Fellowship Church of All Peoples, San Francisco’s inter-racial church, on leave from his post as Dean of Chapel at Howard University, and Joe Masaoka, secretary of the local chapter of the Japanese-American Citizens League. They will discuss the postwar civil liberties problems of Negroes and Japanese respectively. In additicn, ‘a brief report will be given by Ernest Besig, the Union’s local director.

Dr, Phillips is a graduate of the University of Chattanooga, and holds M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University. He has been Professor of Social Science at Fresno State College since 1923. Dr. Phillips is known to San Franciscans because of his appearances before the Commonwealth Club. He has been a member of the local branch of the Union since its inception. The meeting will mark the 11th anniversary ’ of the local branch which was started in September, 1934.

The Executive Committee sincerely hopes that the meeting will be well supported and that the membership will make it an occasion to invite their friends. There is no admission charge. The meeting is open to all who are interested.

California Alien Land Law to Come Before State Supreme Court

A California law prohibiting the ownership of land by Japanese aliens will be appealed to the State Supreme Court and eventually to the United States Supreme Court, A. L. Wirin, attorney for the Southern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union announced last month:

-Wirin made his announcement after Judge Joe Shell of the San Diego, Calif., Superior Court upheld California authorities in seizing under the law a small farm belonging to Fred Oyama, and his family near Chula Vista, Calif. The outcome of the appeal is expected to affect some 30 other escheat suits filed by the California Attorney General against Japanese in California involving land worth several hundred thousand dollars.

Attorney Wirin who represents the Oyamas in a private capacity said that he will present evidence in the higher courts to prove that the law was adopted and enforced as part of a program of racial discrimination against orientals in general and Japanese in particular, and that such discrimination violates the due process and equal protection of the law guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. He said that the Civil. Liberties Union, the National Lawyers Guild, the Japanese American Citizens League, and other organizations interested in protecting the rights of minorities are expected to support the appeal.

U.S. TO DEPORT NISEI WHO RENOUNCED CITIZENSHIP

The Justice Department intends to deport 5,500 citizens of Japanese ancestry who re- nounced their citizenship during the past eight months under a special act of Congress. The Union is informed that the renunciants will shortly be moved from the Tule Lake Center to internment camps. Thereafter. they will be “removed” from the country pursuant to the war-time alien enemy statute providing that “. . all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, removed as alien . . The President is authorized ... by, restrained, secured and enemies. . his proclamation thereof ... to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside in the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom.

The Justice Department will presume that the renunciants are citizens of Japan because of their renunciations and expressions of loyalty for Japan during a war with that nation. In many cases, the renunciants have acknowledged dual citizenship, althought they have never taken affirmative steps to secure it. In other cases, affirmative steps were taken to renounce Japanese citizenship, acquired by operation of law, but it may be difficult to prove such renunciation. Legally, there is a question whether re- nunciation of American citizenship leaves the person state-less, particularly where the factor of dual citizenship is not present. The authority of the government to deport state-less persons to Japan will undoubtedly be tested in the courts, and numerous other legal issues as well.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California has received hundreds of letters from renunciants at Tule Lake. In most of the cases the charge is made that they renounced under duress. Nationalists groups at Tule Lake openly threatened Nisei with bodily harm if they did not renounce, and coached them in their answers at the 10-minute hearings they received. Rumors were current in the center that untess citizens renounced they would be thrown out of the center to face hostile Caucasians and economic insecurity. In other cases, and these are very numerous, parents forced 18, 19 and 20- year-old boys and girls to renounce their citizenship. Also, because of the imprisonment, a serious legal question exists whether the renunciants ever did exercise a free choice in renouncing.

Many tragic situations have developed. In some cases, only one member of a family re- nounced and faces deportation. Thus, in one. case, a mother alone faces deportation and separation from her family. In other cases, only the husband renounced.

A typical case has come to the Union’s attention at Topaz. A nineteen-year-old boy was forced to renounce by his parents. His parents and sisters have left the center to begin life anew in; California, but the boy has been sent to the Santa Fe, New Mexico, internment camp to await deportation to Japan. The parents have advised the Union that he never held dual citi-zenship.

Board Reverses Itself and Issues Permit To Nisei

The State Board of Equalization last month reversed itself and issued a sellers’ permit to T. Sakai, who has opened a grocery store in San Francisco. In issuing the permit to collect the State sales tax, the board notified the Union it would grant permits to American citizens of Japanese ancestry, but not to alien Japanese.

Previously, the board took the position that it would not issue permits to any persons of Japanese ancestry unless written assurances were received from “the applicants that neither the War nor Navy Departments has any objection to their reentry into California for the purpose of engaging in the activities indicated by their ap- plications.” This requirement was impossible of fulfillment because the Navy Department never had anything to do with the exclusion program, and, of course, would issue no statement con— cerning any returned Japanese.

The board explained that it has issued no sellers’ permits to alien Japanese because it is “somewhat concerned regarding the decision of vs. Stockton Theatres, Inc.” Consequently, Jim Yamada, an alien Japanese who several months ago posted security, paid the fee for a permit and relying on the assurances of the board’s local agents that he could open his store while awaiting receipt of the permit, is now operating without a sellers’ permit to collect the State — sales tax.

Incidentally, the decision in the Stockton Theatres case is now on appeal to the State Supreme Court. In it, Judge Woodward held that under the Alien Land Law, alien Japanese may not lease commercial property because the treaty under which such property was exempted from the prohibitions of the law has been abrogated. Apparently, the board argues that it would be aiding and abetting a violation of the Alien Land Law if it issued a sellers’ permit to an alien Japanese.

Damages Asked In Cal. Courts For Illegal Search By FBI

Suits for damages against the FBI for illegal search and seizure of Arthur L. Bell and eleven other members of “Mankind United,” a semireligious organization in California, were filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court recently after the Federal Circuit Court of Ap-Tlonorable M. G. Woodward, Judge of the “Sup74 -erior Court in San Joaquin County, in re Palermo peals in San Francisco had refused to hear them.

A motion by the FBI to dismiss the suits was denied and the cases set for hearing next December. An appeal is also being taken to the U. S. Supreme Court against the refusal of the Circuit Court to entertain the suits, according to A. L. Wirin, attorney for the Southern California branch of the ACLU, who is cooperating in the suits.

Wirin said there was a clear issue of civil liberty involved and cited a statement by Judge Albert Stephens of the San Francisco Federal Circuit Court that “there can be no question that the complaint states a strong case, and if. the allegations have any foundation in truth, the plaintiffs’ legal rights have been ruthlessly violated.” The Circuit Court ruled, however, that the suits would have to be filed in the state court.

The plaintinffs whose convictions are still on appeal claim that the FBI gathered prosecution data by illegally searching houses without warrants and arresting members of ‘Mankind United” and holding them incommunicado.

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Let Freedom Ring

Terrorists Face Trial October 2 .

James and Claude Watson of Auburn, ‘Placer County, face trial in the U. S. District Court in Sacramento on October 2 on charges of unlawful possession of dynamite and conspiracy to— violate the law. The case arises out of the attempted dynamiting of the property of Sumio Doi last January. ‘The Watsons were acquitted by a jury on State charges of attempted dynamiting and arson on their.attorney’s plea that “this is a white man’s country.”

Collier’s Approves $1000 Reward

Collier’s for September 22, 1945, has the following comment about the Union’s $1000 reward offer:

“The American Civil Liberties Union has taken. what looks to us like a most constructive step in the fight against anti-Japanese-American groups in California. Such things, we mean, as the dapanese Exclusion League, to which we recently had the great pleasure of paying our disrespects in this space. After quoting the reward offer in full, COLLIER’S went on to say “Good Americans also, if you ask us, will register admiration for this frontal attack with a reward offer on this latest manifestation of the Ku Klux spirit. The ACLU adds that the attack will be broadened to include Oregon or Washington or both, when and if open violence against Japanese-Americans: is reported from there.

“The only improvement on the scheme that we can thmk of would be for other patriotic organizations or individuals to chip in and inerease the amount of the reward.”

... Arrests in Terrorist Case

The Civil Liberties Union may get an opportunity to pay out $1000 as a reward in connection with a shooting case that occurred between Centerville and Newark in Alameda county on September 16. Four shotgun blasts were sent into the homes of Motonosuke Motozaki and . Toshiaki Idota. Robert F, Hailey, 36, and Charles Custom, 42, have been arrested and charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. According to District Attorney Hoyt, Custom, a Negro garage worker, admitted he drove the car from which the shots were fired but accused Hailey of doing the shooting. Both of the men had apparently done considerable drinking and Hailey resented the fact that the Japanese had returned to land on which he had previously been employed.

aS Resurgence of Terrorism in September

September saw a resurgence of terrorism against returning Japanese. Besides the Center- ville case, Mrs. K. Imada, a widow, living near Lodi, reported that a shot had been fired into her home from a passing automobile on September 14. Mrs. Imada’s eldest son is in the Army. Also, the day before Mr. and Mrs. S. Sakamoto returned to Rocklin on September 19, their home was burned to the ground. The Sakamotos are the parents of four veterans, one of whom was killed in action and two decorated for bravery. In addition to these incidents, on September 20 hocdlums tossed beer bottles and pieces of plaster through the windows of the Buddhist Temple in San Francisco. The Temple presently houses 150 Japanese. On September 21, railroad workers in Stockton walked out in protest against the employment of James Tsujimoto, Japanese American from Tracy, but returned to their jobs when they discovered he was an old employee who had been secretary of their labor union, Also, on September 17, the Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture in the Pajaro Valley announced its members had voted 414 to 1 against employing returned Japanese and against renting or selling property to them, and 5 to 1 in favor of transferring them to the Middle West.

No Reliet for Japanese

Last month the Board of Supervisors. of Placer county adopted a resolution refusing to grant relief to indigent Japanese returning from relocation centers. Thus far, several applications for relief of Japanese have come before the county welfare agents but have been turned down because they did not satisfy a usual requirement for assistance.

‘Tulare county also refuses to grant relief to indigent Japanese. The Union is informed -that this matter will come to a head very shortly when a Japanese otherwise eligible is shipped to the county from a relocation center.

Mass Exclusion of Pacific Coast Japanese Denounced As ‘Our Worst | Wartime Mistake’

The September issue of ‘“Harper’s” carries an article by Eugene V. Rostow, professor of law at the Yale Law school, denouncing our wartime treatment of Pacific Coast Japanese as “Our Worst Wartime Mistake.” “As time passes,” declares Prof. Rostow, ‘‘ it becomes more and more plain that our wartime treatment of the Japanese and the Japanese-Americans on the West Coast was a tragie and dangerous mistake. That mistake is a threat to society, and to all men. Its motivation and its impact on our sys tem of law deny every value of democracy.”

One hundred and twelve thousand people of Japanese ancestry, two-thirds of them American citizens, “‘were arrested without warrants and were held without indictment or a statement of charges, although the courts were open and freely functioning. They were transported to camps far from their homes, and kept there under prison conditions, pending investigations of their ‘loyalty.’ Despite the good intentions of the chief relocation officers, the centers were little better than concentration camps.”

Prof. Rostow points out that “On the East Coast enemy aliens were controlled without mass arrests or evacuations,’ and although Hawaii, where 32% of the population was ot Japanese decent, was certainly a more active theater of war, a less drastic procedure was followed than on-the Pacific Coast where less than 2 per cent of the population were persons of Japanese ancestry.. “ewer. than 800 Japanese aliens were sent. to the mainland for internment, and fewer than 1,000 persons of Japanese ancestry, 912 of them being citizens, were sent to relocation centers on the mainland.”

Prof. Rostow examines carefully General DeWitt’s assertions that the mass exclusion and detention program was dictated by “military necessity.” He declares that ‘The evidence supports. one conclusion only: the dominant element in the development of our relocation policy was race prejudice, not a military estimate of a military problem.” He criticizes the Supreme Court sharply for upholding the government’s program, particu- larly at a time when “the crisis which was .supposed to justify it had passed.” “In avoiding the Mistake” in its entirety risks of overruling the government on an issue of war policy, it weakened society’s control over military power—one of the ‘controls on which the whole organization of our society depends. It failed to uphold the most ordinary rights of. citizenship, making Japanese-Americans into second-class citizens, who stand before the courts on a different legal footing from other Americans. It accepted and gave the prestige of its support to dangerous racial myths about a min- ority group, in arguments which can easily be applied to any other minority in our society.”

Prof. Rostow concludes that the Japanese exclusion programs “rests on five propositions of the utmost potential menace:

“1, Protective custody, extending over three or four years, is a permitted form of imprisonment in the United States.

“2. Political opinions, not criminal acts, may contain enough danger to justify such imprisonmen.

' “3, Men, women; and children of a given racial group, both Americans and resident aliens, can be presumed to possess the kind of dangerous ideas which require their imprisonment.

“4, In time of war or emergency the military —perhaps without even the concurrence of. the legislature—can decide what political opinions require imprisonment, and which groups are infected with them.

“5, The decision of the military can be carried out without indictment, trial, examination, jury, the confrontation of witnesses, counsel for the defense, the privilege against self-incrimination, or any of the other safeguards of the Bill of Rights.”

' Prof. Rostow advocates three forms of “repar‘ation”’: 1st the obligation of the federal government to protect the returning evacuees from “organized and unorganized hooliganism; 2nd, “senerous financial indemnity”; and, 3rd, “the basic issues should be presented to the Supreme Court again, in an effort to obtain a prompt reversal of these wartime cases.”

' May we suggest to our readers that they ‘should read the story of “Our Worst Wartime

Suppression of Foreign Films To Be Reviewed by Gov'ment

Pollowing protests against the withdrawal from sale of German and Austrian motion pictures the Alien Property Custodian in Washington, D. C. has informed the American Civil Liberties Union that a special committee will be formed to.reconsider the withdrawal. A letter from Francis J. McNamara, Deputy Custodian, asks the Civil Liberties Union to submit .nominations for the committee which will serve “in an advisory capacity only,” and says that Rep. Helen Gahagan Douglas of California, an advocate of suppression of the films is also being asked to submit nominations.

The Civil Liberties Union had written the Alien Property Custodian protesting that more than a hundred of the films withdrawn from sale after public protests against their alleged Nazi propaganda content, were in fact “entertainment and musical films devoid of any propaganda whatever.”

In a letter to Roger N. Baldwin, director of the Union, Mr. McNamara says in part: “The issue raised by divergent points of view presented by you on one hand as to censorship, and by other persons to the contrary as to suppression of. the films seems to make it desirable to appoint a Committee comprised of persons who are competent, able and willing to consider the issue, and to be charged with responsibiity for exploring the entire question of releasing German’ and Austrian motion pictures for distribution and exhibition in the U. S. at this time. The Committee will first determine whether their ‘ recommendation to the Custodian shall be that all pictures of this type be suppressed, or whether this prohibition shall extend only to those considered. to contain political propaganda. In the latter event the Committee would be established as a Board of Review to pass upon those pictures selected for exploitation.

“The proposed Committee would, of course, serve the Custodian in an advisory capacity only. You are requested to submit the names of three such persons. A similar request is being presented to the Honorable Helen Gahagan Douglas, M. C. on behalf of the advocates of suppression of the films.” |

“STRANGE FRUIT” CONVICTION UPHELD.

Another round in the battle against Boston censorship was lost on September 17 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in a 6 to 1 decision upheld the conviction of a Cambridge bookseller for selling a copy of Lillian Smith’s novel, “Strange Fruit.” The American Civil Liberties Union arranged the original sale by bookseller Abraham Eisenstadt as a test, and with the publisher, Reynal and Hitchcock’ of New ‘York, carried the case up to Massachusett’s highest judicial authority. The Supreme Court decision upheld Superior Court Judge Edward F. Hanify of Boston who last December found — Hisenstadt guilty of selling an “obscene” book to Cambridge author Bernard DeVoto. Eisenstadt drew a $200 fine.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that “Strange Fruit” contains “much that even in this post-Victorian era would tend to promote lascivious thoughts and arouse lustful desire in the minds of substantial numbers of the public,” and that ‘“ the matter which could be found objectionable is not necessary to convey any sincere message the book may contain and is of such a character and so pervades the work as to ‘give the whole a licentious quality calculated to ‘produce the harm which the statute was intend- ‘ed to prevent.” The decision was the first under the revised Massachusetts censorship law requiring consideration of a book as a whole rather than isolated passages.

While the majority also found in the words of the statute that the book “manifestly tends to corrupt the morals of youth,” Judge Henry T. Lummus in a minority dissent said: “Under normal conditions I think that the book could do. no substantial harm to the morals of youth, for few juveniles would ever see it, much less read it”

A new Massachusetts censorship law is due to go into effect October 1, providing a civil proceeding against a book beside the established --eriminal proceeding against booksellers. The Civil Liberties Union did not support the new law, backed by the booksellers and the Massachusetts Library Association, but says “it may do-some good in curbing the censors.”

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page 3

RETURNING EVACUEES JAMMED INTO HOSTELS

While the government last month contended that housing was being made available to Jap- anese who are being forced out of its concentration camps, hundreds of evacuees returned to the Pacific Coast to find little or no housing available except so-called hostels into which they have been jammed like sardines.

In San Francisco, for example, over 150 Japanese are crowded into the Buddhist Temple. The auditorium of that building is filled with cots, and the sanitary facilities are grossly inadequate. Similar situations exist in two smaller hostels. In one of these, baths are rationed to two a week per person. The government has provided cots and bedding, but the Japanese must pay for their keep. While these hostels were in- tended as temporary living quarters, inability to secure regular living quarters has compelled the evacuees to stay on under the most primitive conditions.

Five hundred men, women and children were supposed to be housed in the old barracks at | Fort Funston, which is 1144 miles from a car line, but the San Francisco Health Department finally came along and condemned the camp as a habitation for families and is restricting its use to single men. It may be that the department’s objections can be overcome and the camp put to use after considerable delay, but even if that occurs, the urgent problem of scouting for jobs and permanent housing is made extremely difficult for anyone residing there because hours will be consumed in going to and from the camp.

Considerable publicity was given in the bay area press to the housing that was to be made available at the public housing project in Richmond and at Hunter’s Point, San Francisco. In the former place, however, the management has resisted the entry of Japanese and very few families have been accepted at the Hunter’s Point project.

‘Abe Fortas, Under Secretary of the Interior, who supervises the work of the War Relocation Authority for the Interior Department, in answer to the protests of the ACLU of Northern California against dumping evacuees on their former Pacific Coast communities without adequate provision for housing, declared, “ .. . the War Relocation Authority is negotiating with the Army to take over a number of Pacific Coast installations which will be operated by the Federal Public Housing Authority as temporary hostels, providing living quarters until the evacuees obtain more permanent facilities. The Federal Public Housing Authority has also recently relaxed its restrictions concerning occupancy of war housing to include persons who have been displaced as a result of the war program. Evacuees are now moving into housing projects in Seattle under this provision and the War Relocation Authority anticipates that the evacuees will soon be able to occupy some of the public housing in California as well.”

The Union had also taken issue with the manner in which the evacuees are being forced out of the concentration camps. Families are instructed to come to the camp office to make departure arrangements. If they fail to appear, police “escort” the head of the family to the office where he is advised of the date on which his family will be required to leave the center. If the evacuee fails to pick a destination, transporta- tion is arranged to his place of legal residence. If the resident refuses to pack his personal effects, the packing is done for him to insure departure on schedule. If he refuses to board the train, he is forced on by police.

Mr. Fortas declares that “These scheduled departures . . . are simply a means to complete relocation on an orderly basis and to prevent any large last-minute disorganized movements which would make an undue demand on transportation and housing facilities.” The regulations, Mr. Fortas admits “also paves the way forsmoving any persons who do not voluntarily leave the centers. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is an unavoidable necessity. However, information received from the centers indicates that there will be few, if any, of these people and that virtually everyone is planning to relocate within a short time.”

A further protest has been sent to Mr. Fortas against forcing the evacuees from the concentration camps while housing is unavailable or grossly inadequate.

State Personnel Board Ends Discrimination

The State Personnel Board informed the Union last month that in the future identification cards would not be required of applicants for civil service jobs who were of Japanese ancestry. The Union had protested against this procedure because the requirement was over and above anything required of other job applicants.

Japanese Files Suit To Compel State Board | Of Equalization To Issue Sales Tax Permit

A petition was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles county on September 23 for a peremptory writ of mandate to compel the State Board of Equalization to grant Kenzo Sugino’s application for a sales tax permit. Defendants in the action are George R. Reilly, James H. Quinn, R. E. Collins, William G. Bonelli and Harry B. Reilly, board members, and Dixwill L. Pierce, board secretary. The case is scheduled for a hearing on October 15.

Sugino is an alien whom the Army allowed to return to the Pacific Coast more than a year ago. He is a. Doctor of Optometry, a licensed optometrist, and was engaged in the practice of optometry from 1920 until the spring of 1942, when he was evacuated from California. Sugino’s son, Arthur, is in the United States Army with the U.S. occupation forces in Japan. In order to engage in the practice of optometry, Sugino must secure a permit from the State Board of Equalization to collect a sales tax for the sale of lenses and glasses.

Sugino applied for a permit on September 12, paid $1.00 for it and posted security of $50. His petition alleges that he has been denied the permit because the board has “pursued a policy of discrimination solely because of race, against all persons of Japanese descent.”

The petition alleges that the policy was adopted by the Board last July 18. “The re- spondent William G. Bonelli (a board member). stated at said meeting that the Board would require express recommendation from the United States Navy and the United States Army made to the Board that each particular applicant who was a person of Japanese descent, should receive a permit to engage in business as a seller of personal property. Thereupon said Board and said respondents were advised that the United States Navy had no authority, interest or concern in the matter and would not make any such recommendation; and said respondents were further advised that the United States Army could make no such express recommendation, said United States Army having, however, made use of a clearance procedure whereby only those persons of Japanese descent found by said United States Army be loyal would be, and were being, permitted to return to California. Said respondents were further advised that their attitude pertaining to the issuance of permits aforesaid was unreasonable and failed to place any confidence in the Army’s clearance procedure.

Federal Indictment of Rev. llsley Boone, Leading Nudist, Protested

Indictment of the Rev. Ilsley Boone, leading American nudist, by a federal grand jury in Newark, N. J., on September 6 was protested to U. S. Attorney General Tom Clark by the American Civil Liberties Union last month. In a letter signed by Roger N. Baldwin, director, the Civil Liberties Union said: “We note that Isley Boone secretary of the National Sun Bathing Society, was indicted by a federal grant jury at Newark for sending an indecent magazine through the mails. The magazine was his own publication, ‘Sunshine and Health’.”

“We have protested time and again to the Department of Justice against the attempt to penalize Mr. Boone. Review of the proceedings would show how ridiculous they are. They rest on the assumption that nudism per se is obscene, a contention which is hardly supported by enlightened opinion anywhere. May we urge that the Department look into this matter with a view to dropping the prosecution. It could serve no public purpose.”

Congressional Bills Affecting — Civil Liberty Summarized

A summary of bills dealing with issues of civil liberty now before Congress was released by the ACLU last month. Heading the list are bills in the House and Senate to establish a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee, and to abolish the poll tax in federal elections, which passed the House last year. Both are supported by the Union. Also favored are: a bill to grant citizenship to Filipinos resident in the U. S. which passed the House unanimously last spring; a bill providing for a plebiscite to determine the future status of Puerto Rico; and bills in both houses transferring the power of censorship over the mails from the Post Office Department to the courts.

The respondents were further advised that the position taken by them was at variance with the statements made by the Governor and the Attorney General of the State of California respectively, to the effect that all persons Japanese decent cleared by the United States Army were loyal and were entitled, upon their return to California, to the same treatment, and to the same rights and privileges, as other loyal persons. To these statements ... William G. Bonelli replied he didn’t gave a ‘damn’ what. those individuals said. Thereupon said Bonelli and respondents were advised by Deputy Attorney General J. L. Nourse that the Board did not have discretionary powers with respect to the issuance of permits in connection with the collection of the sales tax; and that the Board did not have the right to refuse a permit to an applicant who had otherwise complied with the require— ments of the law; thereupon . . . Bonelli replied that he would let the courts decide that point if he would let the courts decide that point if necessary, and that even if the Board didn’t have that authority they could see to it that plenty of time was taken to investigate an application and that in view of the amount of business the Board had to handle and the shortage of help it might be a very long time before a decision could be reached on a specific case. Thereafter said Bonelli stated that the Board’s action in | making it difficult for persons of Japanese des‘cent to secure permits to engage in business would encourage such persons to settle elsewhere than in California, which after all is what he and the Board wanted.”

The Board notified Sugino that it would be necessary for him to have written assurance that neither the War or Navy Departments have. any objection to his re-entry into California for the purpose of engage in the practice of op© tometry.

Prior to the establishment of this policy, the Board issued Sales Tax Permits automatically to all persons who made application in writing, paid the fee and furnished security. Usually, within ten days after an application is filed, a formal permit is issued out of Sacramento. Aliens of German and Italian ancestry have at -ho time been discriminated against.

Sugino is represented by A. L. Wirin, counsel — for the Southern California branch of the A. C. L. U. and Daniel G. Marshall, chairman of the Catholic Interracial Council. The case is a test suit and will affect all'Isseis desiring to do business in California.

Paroles For Conscientious Objectors Urged On Justice Department

Further representations to secure the more speedy parole of over 3,009 conscientious objectors in prison have been made to Attorney General Tom Clark by the ACLU. It is understood that the Department of Justice has under consideration a plan to effect the release of a substantial number of Jehovah’s Witnesses who constitute three-fourths of the imprisoned objectors.. Most of them refuse special paroles which restrict their freedom, but it is thought that most would accept regular paroles accorded to any prisoner, free of the special restrictions surrounding Selective Service violators. Paroles have been very few in recent months, and commitments to prison continue as the draft quotas are called up.

Representations have also been made by the Union for releasing objectors from Civilian Public Service camps and units. General Lewis B. Hershey announced a point system similar to that for soldiers, but withdrew it upon protest by veterans’ organizations and Congressmen.

FACTS ABOUT THE MEETING

’ Time: Friday evening, Oct. 19, at 8:00 p. m. | Place: California Club, 1750 Clay St., San San Francisco (between Van Ness Ave. and Polk Street.)

Chairman: Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons. Speakers: Dr. Hubert Phillips, Dr. Howard Thurman, Joe Masaoka, and, Ernest Besig

No Admission Charge! Bring Your Friends!

‘Page 4

‘AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

American Civil Liberties Union-News Published monthly at 216 Pine’ Street, San Francisco, 4, | Calif., by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

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 3, 1879.

Subscription Rates—One Dollar a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

Open Forum

Disagrees With Union’s Policy

Editor: — I regret extremely that you should have taken the opportunity to sabotage the struggle women have been making for the past 98 years in this country for legal recognition of citizenship by your articles in the September issue of the ACLU News.

Your opinion that the Equal Rights Amendment as sponsored by the National Woman’s | Party, vizer

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex,” is “vague” can have no basis in fact. That the proposed amendment is “sweeping” is true since it affects half of the adult population of the country. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States barring women from legal equality, but various and sundry learned (and otherwise) men have ruled that unless equality is specifically stated it does not exist, we are compelled to include in the said Constitution, therefore, a clear and definite statement that our rights in this regard shall not be denied or abridged. 2 ;

-As for the “protective legislation” we are hearing so much about, your reputation for intelligence is too well established for me to tell you that it is far often more prohibitive than protective.—Jennie Scott Griffiths, Sec.-Treas., for California National Woman’s Party.

ACLU To Support ‘Esquire’ Before U.S. Supreme Court

Continuing its battle against Post Office censorship the American Civil Liberties Union will support the Department of Justice’s application to the U. S..Supreme Court for a review of the Circuit Court’s decision in the case of ‘‘Esquire”’ magazine. The Justice and Post Office Departments are appealing the unanimous decision of the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals last June written by Thurman Arnold, castigating Postmaster General Frank Walker for attempting to censor “Esquire” by revoking its second-class mailing rates.

The Civil Liberties Union supported ‘Esquire’ in the lower courts, and recently urged the Department of Justice not to appeal.

Justice Arnold held that the Postmaster General was exceeding his authority in attempting to impose his own literary and moral views on the public by the revocation. Mr. Walker originally moved to revoke ‘“Esquire’s’’ second-class rates in 1943 on the ground that the magazine was not in the public interest and “bordered on obscenity.”” In appealing to the U. S. Supreme Court the Department of Justice said that the ruling left the Post Office Department “at sea” as to just what its powers over second-class rates are. The ACLU maintains that second-class rates are vital to freedom of the press, and that the power of revocation should be taken away the courts.

National Conference Speeds Campaign For Permanent Federal FEPC

Efforts to speed action on the bill for a permanent*Fair Employment Practice Committee pending in Congress were organized at a national conference held in Washington on September, 12th and 13th under the auspices of the Na: dancing pavilion in the park on August 26 at tional Council for a Permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee. Negro and white dele‘gates from many parts of the country attended, interviewing Congressmen and Senators and ’ planning a campaign to force the bill to a vote in the Senate and to a vote in the House by a discharge petition. Only half the necessary signatures have yet been obtained. It is felt that if | : : ‘later reported in the press as stating that the the bill comes to the floor for vote, it will be passed overwhelmingly. A filibuster again threataires woul if found guilty of discrimination.

ens in the Senate.

UNION URGES HEARINGS FOR GERMAN SOUTH AMERICAN INTERNEES HELD HERE

Hearings to correct “possible grave injustices” against German nationals brought here from South America during the war and now scheduled for deportation to Germany have been urged on the U. S. State Department by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU submitted to Albert Clattenburg, State Department official in charge of 1,000 South American internees scheduled for deportation a memorandum pointing out several cases among those interned at Fort Lincoln, North Dakota, where deportation would seem to be “unduly harsh and unfair.’ The ACLU said it would be reluctant to start court actions on behalf of the internees which could be “easily avoided by extending to them the same hearing rights granted to enemy aliens resident in the U. S. by the Department of Justice.”

Typical of the exceptional cases cited was that of Dr. Willi Lewald, born,in Germany in 1910, half Jewish and a Roman Catholic by religion, who left Germany in 1933 when Hitler came to power. A resident of Guatemala until deported to the United States in 1942, Dr. Lewald has a Guatemalan wife and three year old child. He claims to have never dealt with German or other fascist countries after leaving Germany, having worked for Belgian and American firms. He was granted parole while interned here, tried unsuccessfully to volunteer in the American army, and donated blood to the Red Cross. His parole was revoked without explanation. His wife who speaks no German is unwilling to accompany him to Germany, where his home in Silesia has become part of Poland, and his family have be- come refugees. The Guatemalan government has indicated that it is willing to have him return.

The deportation of the German South Americans is being undertaken by the State Department under a presidential proclamation of September 8 based on Resolution VII adopted at the Mexico City conference of the Americas last March. The resolution provides for the elimination of Nazi influences in Latin America. The State Department is understood to have refused to. return internees in several cases where return was requested by Latin American governments, holding that these governments lost jurisdiction when they sent the aliens to the United States. Under the presidential proclamation the Secretary of State is empowered to deport “outside the limits of the Western Hemisphere” all those whose continued residence in the Hemisphere is deemed by the Secretary “prejudicial to the future security or welfare of the Americas.”

During the war Latin American countries sent to the United States for internment about 5,000 Germans, 200 Italians, and 1,200 Japanese. Exchange arrangements with enemy countries repatriated 4,000 of the Germans, all the Italians, and 400 of the Japanese. It is planned to deport all the remaining Germans to Germany together with Latin American wives and children willing to accompany them. The State Department claims to have examined all internees, but hearings were not accorded them, like other enemy aliens in the U. S., except in a few score cases investigated for parole from internment pending deportation.

Renew Inquiries As To Press Freedom In Yugoslavia

Representations to the U. S. State Department concerning reported restrictions and censorship of American correspondents in Yugoslavia were renewed by the American Civii Liberties Union August 28 following a reply to an earlier inquiry received from Assistant Secretary James C. Dunn. Mr. Dunn informed the Union that “the Yugoslav government for several months has not refused entry into Yugoslavia to any American correspondent who has made application.”

In its latest communication signed by Director Roger N. Baldwin, the ACLU says: “While we do not wish to minimize the importance of the accomplishments achieved, we are nevertheless particularly concerned with reports that American and other foreign correspondents have had material subjected to censorship in Yugoslavia and. have. been restricted in their movements while in the country. We are desirous, therefore, to know what steps, if any, the Department has taken to assure that foreign correspondents in Yugoslavia will be relieved from onerous conditions of censorship and be free to travel within the country.”

Concern expressed some months ago by the Civil Liberties Union as to restrictions on jour-nalists in other Eastern European countries was relieved by a declaration of the Potsdam Conference on August 2, guaranteeing press free‘dom for correspondents specifically in Poland, ‘Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland. The Union then addressed the State Department asking what was being done about Yugoslavia, in from the Post Office Department and given to aview. 2 Perotlee resections Wiele:

UNION ACTS ON RACE DISCRIMINATION IN NEW JERSEY AMUSEMENT PARK

Discrimination against Negroes at a dancing ‘pavilion in Palisades Amusement Park in New Jersey brought a threat of legal action from the American Civil Liberties Union in a letter to Park Manager Irving Rosenthal on August 31.

The ACLU acted on affidavits that several Negro couples had been barred from the only the same time that several of their white friends were admitted. The ACLU wrote: “We wish to call your attention to the New Jersey Civil Rights provision penalizing exclusions from pub‘lic places because of race, creed, or color. Pending suitable response from the management we are withholding legal action.’’ Mr. Rosenthal was pavilion concessionaires would be “thrown out”

“White Caucasians”

The President of the Golden Gate Angling and Casting Club recently informed the Unien that n September 14 its membership had voted to eliminate from its by-laws a séction limiting membership to “White Caucasians.” In its place is a section providing that “any person of good moral character is eligible to membership in this €lub.” Although the club is a private organiza. tion, it has been exercising more or less supervisory control of a club house and casting pools in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. Henry ‘Fujita, national casting champion, was excluded from the organization early in the year solely because of his race.

OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, REQUIRED BY THE ACTS OF STATEMENT OF THE CIRCULATION, ETC.,

CONGRESS OF AUGUST 24, 1912, AND MARCH 3, 1933.

Of, American Civil Liberties Union — News published monthly at San Francisco, California, for October, 1945. County of San Francisco) ; State of California )

: Before me, a Notary Public in and for the State and county aforesaid, personally appeared Ernest Besig, who, having been duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the Hiditor of the American Civil Liberties Union-News, and that the following is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a true statement of the ownership, management (and if a daily paper, the circulation), etc., of the aforesaid publication for dhe date shown in the above caption, required by the Act of August 24, 1912, as amended by the Act of March 3, 1933, embodied in section 537, Postal Laws and Regulations, printed on the reverse of this form, to-wit: :

1. That the names and addresses of the publisher, edijtor, managing editor, and business managers are: Publisher—American Civil Liberties Union of No 7 fornia, 216 Pine St., San Francisco.

Editor—Ernest Besig, 216 Pine St., San Francisco. Managing Editor—None. Business Manager—None.

2. That the owner is: (If owned by a corporation, i name and address must be stated and also pumediately theres under the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding one per cent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a firm, company, or other unincorporated concern, its name and address 3 well ae te eae ee member, must be given.)

American Civi iberties Union of Northern California

Pine Street, San Francisco. Palen oe Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons, Chairman

pay ed 216 Pine St., San Ernest. Besig, Director, 216 Pine St., San Francisco.

8. That the known bondholders, mortgagees pe sara ey ae or DOWIHE 1 ae cent ion Gee total amount o onds, mortgages, or other iti : (If there are none, so state.) None. P

: 4. That the two paragraphs iving names of the owners, stockholders, and security acer 2 ‘any, contain not only the list of stockholders and security Molders as they appear upon the books of the company but also, in cases where the stockholders or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustees or in any ‘other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting, is given; also that the Jsaid two paragraphs contain statements embracing affiant’s full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees shold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a ‘bona fide owner and this affiant has no reason to believe that any other person,

next above,

: ) association, or corporation interest direct or indirect in the ‘said stock, bonds ae tee Jsecurities than as so stated by him. : 5. That the average number of copies of each i Sie publication sold Or ee through the ate oe otherwise, to paid subscribers during the twel ‘ceding the date shown above is ee

(This information is required from daily publications only.)

: : ERNEST BESIG, Editor. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of September, 1945

DOROTHY H. McLENNAN, Notary Public in and for the Francisco, State of Calrcrnie: on (My Commission expires Dec. 21, 1946.) (Seal)