vol. 10, no. 11

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. X SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER 1945 No. 11

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLAGE DENIED BY SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD

-Acting contrary to the advice of its attorney, and succumbing to a highly organized pressure campaign that was reminiscent of the days when the American Legion opposed the use of schools by Communist organizations, the San Francisco Board of Education, with two members absent, voted 3 to 2 to deny the use of a civic center to the Payroll Guarantee Association, popularly known as the Ham and Eggers, for meetings whose stated purpose was “To acquaint and educate the electorate with the proposed constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot the next general election.” The Ham and Eggers had requested the use of the Commerce High School auditorium on the evenings of October 26 and November 9, for meetings to be addressed by Gerald L. K. Smith. As we go to press the issue will again be presented to the board and legal action to compel the issuance of permits is scheduled to be undertaken if the board does not reverse its position.

The Oakland School Board, on the other hand, on the advice of their attorney supported by Clarence E. Rust, appearing for the A.C.L.U.; granted the use of Technical High School to the Ham and Eggers for October 27 and November 10, reversing their previous denial of the applications. In Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Bernardino and other communities school boards have respected the law and even though they were in hearty disagreement with Gerald Smith, granted the use of schools for the meetings. In San Diego, however, the school board turned down a request. for. the use of an auditorium and a petition for a writ of mandate was immediately filed in the Superior Court which is scheduled for a hearing on November 1.

In San Jose, the City Council denied the Ham and Eggers the use of the Civic Auditorium for a Smith meeting. Municipal auditoriums do not come under the terms of the Civic Center Act, . but since they are public buildings their use must be open to all on an equal basis. Since the auditorium had been paid for, a suit may be filed for breach of contract. Incidentally, over a year ago, Jehovah’s Witnesses were — denied the use of the same auditorium at the behest of the American Legion and similar groups, because the Witnesses do not salute the Flag. In Sacramento, public officials recognized the clear legal right of the Ham and Eggers to the Municipal auditorium and the use was granted. Only 100 persons attended the meeting.

The Ham and Eggers had originally scheduled meetings for Smith at the Elks Hall and the Scottish Rite auditorium on San Francisco, but these private owners cancelled the meetings when pressure was exerted upon them. Likewise, in other communities, private owners have taken similar action.

Refusal to allow the Ham and Eggers to use school auditoriums is in clear violation of the Civic Center Act, particularly as interpreted in the case of Goodman v. Board of Education, decided in December, 1941. The Civic Center Act provides: “There is hereby established a civic center at each and every public school building and grounds within the State of California, where the citizens may meet and discuss, from time to time, as they may desire, any and all subjects and questions which in their judgment may appertain to the educational, political, economic, artistic and moral interests of the citizens of Hie respective communities in which they may reside.”

tain to the f th citizens of the respective communities in which they may reside”

In 1941 this branch of the ‘Civil Liberties Union initiated a suit to test the right of school boards to exclude certain groups from using the schools, The Socialist Party of San Francisco applied for the use of an auditorium “for the purpose of meeting and discussing the Socialist Party’s position on the question of ‘peace’.” The school board denied a permit on the ground that it would not permit political meetings in the schools. The Superior Court sustained the board, but the First District Court of Appeal on December 29, 1941, reversed, and the California Supreme Court refused to grant a hearing.

“The only discretionary power conferred upon the board,” said the District Court’s opinion, “is that it may deny permission to use the schoolhouse by subversive organizations, the burden of proving the character and affiliation’ of the group being upon the board...If... the board is unable to prove the subversive nature of the applicant society or organization, then the public schoolhouse may be used and the group ‘may meet and discuss... all. subjects and questions which in their judgment may apper- ... political . . . interests of thhe

The court also pointed out that a board also exercized no discretion over the subject to be discussed. “. .. there may be a diversity of opinion on the advantage to the community of discussing in an open meeting subjects pertaining to politics, art or morals; the advocacy of certain social and economic views may be denounced by a majority of the citizenry of a community as repugnant to the constitution of this country; such advocacy may tend to undermine -in adult and youth, moral responsibility, or may stir up antagonism and hatred to constituted authority, but, unless it. is sought thereby to overthrow the government by force or violence, or other unlawful means, the group determines whether the discussion of the subject is in the interests of the citizens of the community.”

Prior to the decision in the Goodman case, issues had frequently arisen throughout the state involving discrimination by boards in anting the use of schools as meeting ‘places. ‘he Communist Party. had. repeatedly been denied the use of schools, over the objections of the A.C.L.U. Also discriminated against at one time or another were the American League Against War and Fascism, Friends of the Soviet Union, Workers Alliance, Tom. Mooney, the. Socialist Party, Upton Sinclair and his Epic movement, and Mankind United. During the sharp public debates in 1941 concerning issues of war and peace, the America First: Committee was barred from many public meeting places throughout the country, including San Francisco, where the subject of their meeting was held to be “too highly controversial.” And, it may be interesting to recall that Sinclair Lewis and Lewis: Browne were not allowed to debate the question of dictatorship in the San Francisco Opera House, under the title ‘It Can’t Happen Here,” because the board thought it was not a fit subject for a debate.

In March and April of 1940, Harry Bridges of the C.1.O. was permitted to speak in’ certain school auditoriums but was turned. down in others, such as Vallejo. The issue at that time, according to a statement by Louis Goldblatt, State Secretary of the C.1.0., “involves the right of the C.LO. to use public buildings on an equal (Continued on Page 4, Col.1)

Dr.. Clinton J. Taft, ACLU So. Calif. Director, Retires |

Dr. Clinton J. Taft, director of the Southern California branch of the ACLU since 1923, has resigned his post effective November 1 and will be succeeded by Rev. Allan A. Heist, long asso-. ciated with the branch. Dr. Taft relinquishes his post after twenty-two years in order to devote himself to his private affairs. He is 68 years of age. He will continue as a member of the directing committee of the branch. A dinner in his honor was held in’ Los Angeles on October 25.

| Primary Vote for Georgia Negroes | Seen in Federal Court Decision

Another step toward the enfranchisement of the Southern Negro is seen by the American Civil Liberties Union in the decision of the Federal District Court at Macon, Ga., on October 12, holding that Negroes are entitled to vote in Georgia’s Democratic primaries. The decision by Judge T. Hoyt Davis on a suit brought by Primus King of Columbus, Ga., against local Democratic Committee members held that primaries are an integral part of the election machinery and pointed out that “the Democratic party is the dominant and controlling political party in Georgia. No other party has held a state-wide primary during the last forty. years. Judge Davis ruled that Mr. King had not been permitted to vote on account of his race, and that this constituted violation of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution.

PROSECUTION AGAINST TERRORISTS FAILS WHILE ANOTHER PENDS

Another prosecution against persons terrorizing returned Japanese ended in failure last month when a jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento acquitted James and Claude Watson on charges of unlawful possession of dynamite and conspiracy to violate a law requiring’ a permit from the Bureau of Mines. The case arose out of the attempted dynamiting and arson of the property of Sumio Doi in Placer county. They were acquitted of state charges on their attorney’s’ plea that “this is a white man’s country.”

In another case, attempted murder and assault charges are still pending against Robert Hailey and Charles Custom, who on September 16 sent shot gun blasts into the homes of two Japanese near Centerville, Alameda county.

House Adopts Bill Allowing Citizens of India to Acquire U.S. Citizenship

On October 10 the House of Representatives adopted, by a vote of 207-83, H.R. 3517, which provides that Indians resident in the United States may become citizens, and authorizes an immigration quota based, like other countries, on the 1890 census of Indiaris then resident, allowing about 75 to 100 admissions annually. This bill does for the citizens of India what was done for the citizens of China by the repeal of the Chinese exclusion laws.

May we urge you to address Senators Downey and Knowland, and the Chairman of the Senate Immigration Committee, expressing your Support of H.R. 351i?

JUSTICE HOLMES — ‘If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR MINORITIES —

Following is the address of Dr.Hubert Phillips, Prof. of Social Science at Fresno State College, entitled “CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR MINORITIES IN POSTWAR CALIFORNIA,” delivered at the Eleventh Anniversary Meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, held in San Francisco on October 19, 1945.

An address on the subject assigned me can quite naturally follow two lines of approach: one being somewhat akin to prophecy, and the other being a reaffirmation of convictions and ideals. Insofar as I shall venture into the field of prophecy, it will only be to conjecture upon probabilities—to conjecture on what is apt to happen because of local factors and because of what has gone before.

A pioneer society is almost perforce an intolerant one, at least a lawless one. California, until. quite recently, could properly be called a frontier state—a state which has had a record for direct action against groups economic, political or racial that many citizens thought at a particular time endangered the social structure. If one were to recall only the peaks of such activities, they would include the anti-Chinese riots of 1877; the agitation for, and the passage of, the Criminal Syndicalism Law of 1919; the IWW trials of 1919-20; and, most recent of all, the attacks upon land titles of some of Japanese descent, and the movement in certain communities to exclude all future residents of Japanese ancestry.

A Trial of an IWW in Stockton

It was during one of these so-called highlights of community intolerance that I first became conscious of the fact that the safeguards of civil liberty have to be constantly strengthened ; that man’s hard-won liberties constantly have to be defended; and that it can well be fatal to be proud of the work of our ancestors but to do nothing about strengthening and broadening their work. I became acutely conscious for the first time that they simply had laid the foundations upon which the structure of civil liberty has been reared, but the finishing of the building is a never-ending task demanding unceasing vigilance. The occasion bringing to me that conviction was a trial of an IWW in Stockton, California. The accused was an employee of mine at the ‘time he was arrested. I considered him a good man, meaning by that word “good,” not a perfect individual but all that we usually mean by it when we apply it to a man. He asked me to testify for him, which I gladly consented to do. As I look back on the experience, I think that I approached that trial with startling naivete, with a surety that it was a temporarily embarrassing and unpleasant matter that would soon be over; that, when called to the witness stand if asked about my background, I could offer quite a list of college presidents and bishops who were close friends; and if asked about the prisoner I could say that in my judgment he was trustworthy and honest; and that those factors, coupled with the fact that the prisoner was charged with no specific overt act, and had committed no such act, would end the matter and he would be promptly freed. Well, the trial was about as short as I had imagined it would be; but the outcome was quite different. The state made no charge against the prisoner of committing any criminal act. The District Attorney spent not one moment on that. The charge was one of belonging to an organization —a charge readily and, one must say, proudly admitted. The result, the usual sentence of that period, one to fourteen years in San Quentin.

From the incident just described, I received a shock from which I have never recovered, and I suppose it explains why I have belonged to this organization so many years. The shock did not come from what had happened to my friend, sorry as I felt for him, for he asked for no sympathy, and thought of himself as a martyr willing to suffer for a cause. The shock came when it dawned upon me that had I, by conviction, shared his social and economic philosophy all the years I had worked to make this a better and more intelligent world, all the character witnesses, no matter how famous, that I could have mustered, the inability of the state to prove I had ever done a serious anti-social act—all this would have meant absolutely nothing to that jury of Californians in 1919, and I, too, would have gone to San Quentin with a one-to-fourteenyear sentence.

Postwar Periods Favorable for Intolerance

Instances such as I have described, and similar ones, happened in the disturbed years following World War I. Such periods are favorable for intolerance, so I think there is no use assuming that the years ahead of us will be much different. May I remind you of the growth of the Ku Klux Klan, following World War I, until it

period.

held the balance of power politically in several of these United States. Also, do you recall the anti-Semitic campaign of America’s wealthiest — man, Henry Ford, whose Dearborn Independent is said to have been read regularly by five million people, a paper which widely publicized the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Yes, any postwar period is a fertile time for the growth of the noxious plants of racial and religious intolerance. War not only from its very nature breeds hate, but. modern governments have discovered ways of increasing and stimulating hate by playing up atrocity stories and by use of the motion picture. I need only remind you of some of the Hollywood productions of the past three years.

Now the trouble with this whole business of hate, especially the artificially stimulated kind, is that when you are through with it, or when you think it has served its purpose, it cannot be turned off as one snaps off an electric light, or as one turns off a water faucet; that it continues to plague the society that indulges in it long after the occasion producing it has passed. It is that fact that will make the postwar years dangerous ones for civil liberties—years in which it will be all too easy to set group against group, race against race, and creed against creed. Economic Malad justments

Then again, the postwar period in which thousands of men will have to readjust themselves to civil pursuits, is almost bound to be one of economic maladjustments, one of more or less unemployment, both of which things prepare a seed bed in which racial conflict easily generates and grows. Until quite recently I thought, and many others thought, that this time we were going to do a much better job of readjusting the economic strains resulting from having geared our productive machinery for war; but recent attitudes of powerful factions and groups in Congress make it impossible to be very optimistic along this line. It would seem that all too many Congressmen have learned no economics and no political science the day of World War I. What I refer to, of course, is the refusal of Congress to pass a Fair Employment Practice Act; a statesmanlike act for the reconversion of industry from war to peace production, and the evident intent to refuse passage to a proper and adequate unemployment — compensation measure for the immediate postwar

An Increase in Anti-semitism

In the light of what has been said, what are the possible infringements of civil liberties in California in the postwar years? There are several: 1. An increase in anti-Semitism. For the reasons already given there will be some of this. The psychology of any postwar period with its legacy of hate, suspicion and distrust, revivifies racial and religious strains that would otherwise lie dormant. We here on the Pacific Coast cannot hope to escape entirely the wave of antiSemitism that seems to be rising in certain parts of the Eastern United States. Incidentally, I talked this past summer with a former student and a Ph.D. from the University of California, now a lieutenant senior grade in the United States Navy, and he felt that a certain segment of the officer corps of the Navy was a nucleus for a fascist group in the United States, with its chief spearhead being anti-Semitism and its second bias being an anti-trade union one. What had led him to this conviction, rightly or wrongly, was that at least a half dozen times he said he had been asked by superior officers, after making a vigorous defense of some principle of civil liberties, “Are you a Jew?” It happens that he is by every definition, scientific and nonscientific, a Nordic. But, in the period just ahead _of us, I cannot envisage another Dearborn Independent, or any prominent industrialist lending his name and prestige to an anti-Semitic program. So, unless there is a catastrophic depression which would force men to fight like animals, as they will for survival, men of good will in the postwar world will continue to hew away at the age-old problem of anti-Semitism in the faith and the hope of its eventual disappearance.

The Field of Labor

A more probable area of conflict and of denial of certain civil rights will be in the field of labor. Here, as in practically all aspects of the denial of civil liberties, one finds example of the irrationality of man under certain circumstances. Labor unions that twenty years ago were denounced as a menace to society, will now be acclaimed sound and safe, and an honor to our society, by the very same men who then denounced them; but newly organized labor groups, or the extension of older organizations into formerly unorganized fields of activity will be viewed with alarm, will have to fight for their right to exist and for the right to extend their activities into new areas of organization.

It is probable, I suspect, that it is in this field we will see some of the bitterest strife in the postwar period. Some industries which accepted organization of their employees during the war as a “war necessity’ will try to return to a nonunion basis in the postwar years. Two such industries, airplane and automobile manufacturers, have come out of the war years with a great backlog of war earnings which will in all probability be increased by tax refunds, so they can sit back and let the fight come. Whereas the organized workers in such industries must win their fight for a higher peacetime wage scale, and for union recognition, before the strength of their unions is dissipated by lay-offs and by hunger. On the one hand, the struggle will be fought by powerful industries determined to break the organization of their workers, and on the other hand by men the standard of living of whose wives and children is at stake. The prospect is not a pleasing one.

; Mexicans Face Discrimination

Not only the Mexican national who remains in this country illegally, but also the long-time resident of Mexican extraction, faces, I fear, when unemployment comes, a recrudescence of the latent. dislike of the Mexican on the part of many Californians. You will recall an article in | Fortune magazine about a year ago describing one of the largest ranches in this state, and which stated that the manager of this particular ranch, while he used Mexican labor, felt they were of a lower order of human beings. Many share that view, and when one holds such a view it is easy. to practice discrimination against: this person of a lower order because along with that attitude seems to go the other assumption that such people do not have the civil rights one claims for himself or for his group. That the people of Mexican origin in this state fear trouble is shown by a recent statement of the pastor of a church of Mexican com- municants. He said that for years he had urged his people, with some success, to become citizens; but that recently they met such a suggestion by coolly informing him that after witnessing what happened recently to citizens of Japanese ancestry, they would rather trust the strong protective arm of the Mexican government, if they remained citizens of that country, than to trust the fine phrases of patriotic orators regarding the dignities and opportunities of American citizenship. ;

: Question of the Negro

When one turns to the question of the Negro, many people fear that the absorption into peacetime industry, the proper housing, and the making available, on equal terms, of cultural and religious opportunities to the thousands of Negro newcomers to California, presents us with one of the greatest challenges of the postwar period. Before we look at the less pleasant side of this picture it ought to be noted that nationally the situation of the Negro has improved during the war years. The Army, and especially the Navy, have practically undergone a revolution in the removal of discriminatory rules and practices. When one recalls that when the recent war started, no.Negro was taken into the Navy except in a servile position, and then when one reads the Guide to Command of Negro Naval Personnel, issued by the Navy early this year, one has one more proof that man, in his relation to his fellows, is on the way up no matter how devious and slow and indirect the path may be. For those of you who have not seen the document referred to, I should like to read you one paragraph:

“The Navy accepts no theories of racial differences in inborn ability, but expects that every man wearing its uniform be trained and used in accordance with his ' maximum individual capacity determined on the basis. of individual performance.”

There has also been some improvement in the status of the Negro in his civilian relationships. Labor unions are open to the Negro today that have heretofore been closed to him. In some cities it is possible for him to be decently and healthfully housed, thanks to the enlightened policies of some public housing project authorities. We cannot be too complacent on this phase of the subject, however, for this city of San Francisco was recently warned by Lester Granger that any attempt to limit Negro residence anywhere in the city in areas where the Negro has a cultural and economic background comparable to the residents already there, and to limit Negro residence to the Fillmore District, will ‘inevitably result eventually in a sub-standard Harlem with all the attendant evils that always

Bruges

There is one aspect of Negro-White relation(Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

ANNUAL JUDGE JACKSON H. RALSTON DIES

Judge Jackson H. Ralston, honorary chairman of the local branch of the Civil Liberties Union, and for ten years a member of its Executive Committee, died at his home in Palo Alto last month.

Judge Ralston was active in the fields of labor, taxation, international law and civil liberty. For 27 years he was national counsel of the American Federation of Labor. He represented the United States as agent and counsel in the first dispute to be submitted to the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague under the Hague convention of 1899. He also appeared as umpire or counsel in other international disputes and wrote numerous books on the subject of international law. In. the field of taxation, he was a follower of Henry George, writing, lecturing and campaigning for tax rereforms.

A little over a year ‘ago I received a letter from Judge Ralston submitting his resignation as a member of the Executive Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. ‘When one has considerably past ‘ eighty-seven years,” said the letter, “it is full time that one should be declared emeritus if so lofty a word can be applied to a more or less modest individual. Performance either for . good or ill has pretty well come to an end. In addition to the foregoing is the practical fact that to go to San Francisco by train calls for little less than a day’s time, something of real moment to me... May I be allowed to add that the cause of Civil Liberties has ever offered a real appeal to me. I can recall with pleasure the fact that, particularly from 1919 to 1924 in » the City of Washington, it was my fortune often —and I may add frequently with good effect— to have fought for Civil Liberty before committees of both branches of Congress and the Courts. I can never be indifferent to the subject.”” Because of our love and admiration for Judge Ralston, we were reluctant to end a hap- py association of ten years, so in May, 1944, we elected him Honorary Chairman of the local Executive Committee of the Union in recognition of his significant contribution to the cause of evil liberty. —

In California, it seems to me, Judge Ralston’s greatest contribution to the cause of civil liberty occurred between 1926 and 1927. Asa member of the Executive Committee of the then existing Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which was under the chairmanship of Prof. Guido Marx, he also served as chairman of a sub-committee for repeal of the California Criminal Syndicalism law. Concerning that law, Judge Ralston said, it “represents nearly every principle in legislation that is bad. Its existence is a sign of warning of some fundamental wrong. Let that be abolished and agitation against the community will automatically cease. ‘“He drafted the bill introduced by Senator Fellom at the 1927 session of the State Legislature to modify the law, eliminating its anti-civil liberties features, and campaigned vigorously with leaders of the State Federation of Labor and others for adoption of the measure. While the bill was de- feated, I venture to say that because of the aggressive campaign he waged, the law was so thoroughly discredited that it was thereafter resorted to on only a few occasions, and for the last ten years has been a dead letter on our statute books.

Judge Ralston was not one who advocated civil liberties for his side alone. To him, we had no true liberty unless it was shared by all without distinction as to race, color, religion, and economic or political views. At the same time, in the Union’s work, he was in favor of “emphasizing,” as he put it, “those cases where a real injury seems to have been inflicted upon some unfortunate victim.”

He had the courage to protect the civil rights of unpopular minorities. “I have never hesitated very much,” said he, to brave opposing public opinion, but only when I felt very sure of my ground.” And, when the second World War came along, he stood for the proposition that “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances.” He vigorously opposed our war-time treatment of Japanese in

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

1

Page 3

BUDGET DRIVE BEGINS

Membership Asked To Contribute Now Towards $7000 Budget For 1946

The Executive Committee of the A. C. L. U. of Northern California has adopted a budget of $7, 000 for the fiscal year from November 1 to October 31, pes have already been sent to the union’s membership

time.

1946, and pledge cards and return enevelourging that contributions to made at this

The $7000 budget is the largest in the Union’s history. During the past year, the branch received

Public Buses for Sectarian Schools Upheld In Jersey

Transportation of children to private church schools in public school buses was upheld by the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, highest state court, in a 6 to 3 opinion handed down in Trenton on October 15. The decision was rendered in an action by A. ‘R. Everson of Ewing, N. J., vice-president of the New Jersey Taxpayers Associatfon, asking that the New Jersey school bus law of 1941 providing for such transportation be declared unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union supported Mr. Ewing with a brief holding that the law violated “the historic American doctrine of the separation of church and state.”

Chancellor Luther A. Campbell for the majority of the court held that pupils of private sectarian schools were merely sharing privileges provided for pupils of public schools, and as such were entitled to transportation. “To give aid to some parents,” he said, ‘and thus enable them to comply with the compulsory (educational) statutes, and to deny it to others in an identical physical situation on sectarian grounds, and so leave them liable to the infliction of the prescribed penalties, would be a denial of the equal protection of the laws.”

Justice Clarence E. Case for the minority held that the state was not obliged in any way to provide transportation to private schools where public schools open to all faiths were available.

The argument that such transportation to private schools did not benefit the churches concerned but merely the children, he dismissed as “an ingenious attempt to escape constitutional limitations.” He concluded that “the furnishing of such transportation to private or parochial schools cut of public money is in aid of the schools and violates constitutional provisions prohibiting such aid.”

Attorneys for the Civil Liberties Union, who expressed disappointment in the decision, said they would support an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court if one is taken. They pointed out that the same issue has arisen recently in several other states, notably Wisconsin and Oregon.

U. S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW DECISION IN “ESQUIRE” CASE

The U. S. Supreme Court last month decided to review the Circuit Court’s unanimous decision in the case of “Esquire” magazine, involving a question of censorship by the Posmaster General. The Circuit Court, in a decision by 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 a revocation of “Esquire’s” second class rates in 1943, on the ground that the magazine was not in the public interest and “bordered on ob- scenity.”’

The ACLU maintains that second class rates are vital to freedom of the press, and that the power of revocation should be taken away from the Post Office Department and given to the courts.

WENDELL PHILLIPS —No matter whose the lips that would speak, they must be free and ungagged. The community which dares not protect its humblest and most hated member in the free utterance of his opinions, no matter how false or hateful, is only a gang of slaves. If there is anything in the universe that can’t stand discussion, let it crack.

this country and helped fashion the policies of the local branch of the Union in challenging in the courts the government’s right to exclude and detain in concentration camps citizens of Japanese ancestry who had committed no wrong.

Judge Ralston firmly believed that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. He battled bravely and unceasingly for freedom. and justice. His was a great soul. Fe bad the courage of our convictions. —E.B.

the required membership dues. those who are suffering from war-time affluence contributions of only $6250, so an additional $750 must be secured in new memberships and increased contribuitions, if the dudget is to be met.

Annual Appeal

The branch has established the practice of making a budget appeal annually in November. If you contribute NOW for the year’s work, you may be assured you will receive no further appeal for funds for another year. What’s more, you not only enable the organization to be placed on a business-like footing, but you help us to concentrate our fund raising activities so that there is a minimum of interference in the handling of civil liberties issues.

Don’t forget, the local branch of the Union receives no financial support from any foundation or other agency, or from the national office of the Union. Every dollar used in the work must be raised among the Union’s local membership. Since that membership is only 863, the regular $2 annual dues is insufficient to finance our activities. Therefore, we turn to our supporters each year to ask for pledges from those who can afford to make them.

How Much Should You Give?

How much should you pledge? The Union needs some $50 and $100 contributions from those who can afford them. We hope, too, that the general contributions will contain many $25, $15 and $10 donations. Indeed, such contributions are necessary in order to secure an average contribution of $8.00 per person from our present membership to fill the budget. After all, some members cannot afford to give more than We hope that will increase their contributions this year. Sending as much of your pledge as is con- venient, or the entire amount, will save us the cost of future billing. _.. ‘The Union has tried not to solicit donations from persons. who have made recent contributions, so please excuse it if you receive one of our appeals by mistake.

The Budget Following is the budget adopted by the Executive Committee:

Salaries: Director 2 $3600 Part-time secretary _..... 1080 $4680.00 Printing and Stationery _......... 823.00 Rent 457.00 Postage 200.00 Telephone and Telegraph ............. 175.00 Traveling 100.00 Taxes and Insurance ................-.. 65.00 Publicity 25.00 Miscellaneous ___......-.------2-n-nee 75.00 Reserve for Special Cases ......_... 400.00 $7000.00

Review Granted in Unlawful Search and Seizure Case Against FBI Agents

The United States Supreme Court last month agreed to review a decision of the Ninth Circuit ‘Court of Appeals in San Francisco which ruled that damage suits for unlawful search and seizure against FBI agents, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, must be filed in the State courts. The particular case involves Arthur L. Bell and eleven other associates of “Mankind United.”

Commenting on the charges against the FBI agents, Circuit Judge Albert Lee Stephens de- clared, “There can be no question but that the complaint states strong cases, and if the allegations have any foundation in truth, the plaintiff’s legal rights have been ruthlessly violated.”

The Northern and Southern California branches of the American Civil Liberties Union appeared before the Supreme Court as amici curiae in a brief prepared by attorney Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco. The Union contends that where a federal official acts under color of federal authority, but in excess federal authority, the federal courts should provide relief,

Page.4

American Civil Liberties Union-News

Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, San Francisco, 4, . Calif., by the American ‘Civik Liberties Union : “of Northern California. Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG .......

Post Office-at' San*Francisco, California, under the Act of, March 3, 1879. . Subscription Rates—One -Dollar,a Yéar., Ten Cents per Copy.

S.F.School Board Denies | Freedom of Assemblage

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

footing : with ‘any other organization It involves the right of the public to gather in open forum, to hear for themselves and’ judge for themselves.” The District Attorney of Solano county in requesting an opinion from the Attorney General had pointed out in his letter that “Immediately upon permission being given by the School ‘Board, numerous protestations were filed with that ‘Board by various reputable fraternal -and social organizations of this city requesting that the Board revoke the privilege previously granted. We believe it may be conservatively stated that, from -the tenor of the protests filed with the School Board, it might reasonably be assumed that discord and possible riot might have resulted. from allowing Harry Bridges to speak in this city.” In: protesting at that time the Union: declared, “To withhold permission to use the civie center because of threats of lawlessness by opponents is to bow to the will of the mob.”

Some of the groups that were themselves the victims of discrimination in years gone by were the chief protestants at the hearing before the San Francisco School Board. Essentially, it was a gathering of the Communist Party and the groups it dominates. Also present and lined up on the side of the Communists were Trotskyites (both..wings). It was not long ago that their own civil liberties were invaded in Minneapolis. Many of the speakers implied that they intended + to stop Smith from speaking, even if it were necessary to resort to mass picketing, which might, result in physical violence and destruction of property. That’s the kind of talk we used to get from the American Legion. The National Lawyers’ Guild came in with an amazing statement that no civil liberties issue was presented by denying a hall to. Smith. The statement was never clarified, It is rather shocking, however, to find a group of lawyers boldly urging a public body to violate the law. Ernest Besig, local director of the Union, in supporting the right of the pension group to the permits, declared, “I venture to say that-our membership heartily disagrees with Mr. Smith, but at the same time we do.defend his right to speak, and the right of the pension group to the use of the civic center. If civil. liberty means anything, it means the right of unpopular groups to present their views on precisely the same basis as others.” Mayor Lapham, in a press statement, very courageously came out in support of Smith’s right to speak. The sole lawyer on the board expressed his disagreement with Mr. Smith but insisted the board had no legal right to deny him a permit. Reports: from Los Angeles indicate that the same pressure tactics as were used in San Francisco failed there. The board voted unanimously to grant a ‘permit for the use’ of Polytechnic High School: auditorium on. October 17. For three hours, the:same type of groups that appeared in San Francisco sought to pressure the board into denying a permit. Failing in that effort, mass “picketing” was resorted to. A veritable barricade: was thrown around the school. Rev. Robert P. Shuler, pastor of Trinity Methodist Church for the past 25 years, tells his experience trying to get into the meeting. He says: “When I attempted to enter the Polytechnic High School building, I was set upon by this mob, with police looking on, was kicked, struck over the head with a stick*and twice pushed to one girl, though I had never spoken a word. I saw an old lady, trying to enter the building, soundly beaten by two, young women. Finally, the old lady turned and left, crying as she went. The mob congregated in all entrances and blocked them, literally hundreds of hoodlums seeking to prevent people from entering. If the police made any efforts. to clear. the entrances, I did not see. them make them. I spent close to an hour in that mob.” Rev, Shuler’s testimony was confirmed by many other observers.

Editor Entered as second-class matter, July 31, .1941, at the 151— es : my knees. I was cursed, called a vile name by

AMERICAN CLVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR MINORITIES IN POST WAR CALIFORNIA

‘(Continued from Page 2, Col. 3)

_ship in postwar California that is going to tax our intelligence, good sense, tact and forebear--ance to the limit. The Negro population of this state has doubled in the past four years. In some urban areas, San Francisco for example, ait has increased five-fold. Most of the Negro newcomers to California have come from states in which they have been denied many of their constitutional and legal rights. Thousands of Negroes in this state are free to exercise those rights for the first time in their lives. Some of them. will: make themselves obnoxious in the assertion of their rights. So would you and I in a comparable situation. One learns to exercise his rights in any society by having the right to exercise them and abuse them just as one learns to walk by running the risk of falling down.

The Returning Japanese

Finally, there remains tne question of the readmission and the reabsorption into the commercial, civic, and cultural life of our state of several thousand persons of Japanese ancestry, citizen and non-citizen. Many of them return from three years enforced confinement behind barbwire; but: some of them return from service in the United States Army where they have won as great renown as ever was gained in the whole history of the United States Army. If any country ever found itself in a more anomalous situation I do not know of it—the liberties of fathers and mothers restrained and restricted by a government, while at the same time the sons of those fathers and mothers were winning renown for that same government.

There are those who believe that what has happened to citizens of Japanese descent, through Army action, and with the final approval of the Supreme Court, constitutes the most grievous injuries ever inflicted upon the fundamental concept of American citizenship. Commenting on that Court’s decision in the Korematsu case, Eugene V. Rostow says, in the September, 1945, issue of Harper’s:

“In avoiding the 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 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 minority group, in arguments which can. easily be applied to any minority . in our society.”

_If someone wouia object to the assumption that the question of race entered into the original exclusion order of February 14, 1942, he would. have to answer the question raised by Justice Murphy in. his dissenting opinion in the Korematsu case. His question was: If the original exclusion order was not primarily based upon race, why was it not made to apply equally to Germans and Italians as well as to Japanese? In my judgment the question cannot be answered convincingly. And I and many others are deeply concerned that a doctrine intimately associated with the name of Hitler, and one that is one of the fundamental tenets of Nazi philosophy, has indirectly received the approval of the Supreme Court of the United States. .

The Principle of “Protective Custody”

But there is another aspect of this question that deeply disturbs many people. That is, that for the first time in our history the doctrine of “protective custody” has recognition and standing and also indirect court approval. You will recall that in the early days of the evacuation of those of Japanese descent from our midst, some who did not like the policy or approve of it quieted their consciences by saying it was for the protection of those removed. I am sure that most people using that argument never realized its fundamental assumption; namely, that our society was too weak to protect a portion of its members. When any society is compelled to make such an admission it had better do some heart searching. All of which leads me to say that unless at some future time the Supreme Court reverses itself in the principles of the Korematsu Case and adopts as the law of the land the minority opinion in that case of Justice Murphy, Jackson, and Roberts, then at any time in the future here in these United States any minority group can be jailed on the principle of “protective custody.”” To some of us it looks as though for the time being the Nazi principle of Schutzhaff has won over the Bill of Rights.

So much for the problem. Now what can we do about it? What can the average citizen do who not only feels unhappy about discrimination against his fellow man for. reasons of ‘religion or race; but also the man who feels that such discrimination undermines the foundation of the Republic? I should like to suggest three lines of action.

Become Joiners

Become joiners. Most of us here, I suppose, have belonged to the American Civil Liberties Union for years; some of us long enough to have had the experience of being called Reds because of so belonging. Well, that, as I see it, is one of the minor risks of life and so I would urge my fellow citizens to join the American Civil Liberties Union, to join their local Committee of Civic Unity, the Urban League, the Fair Play Committee, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and any other organization devoted to the task of combating racial and religious persecution and discrimination. This to the end that such organizations offer the most effective way of challenging violations of civil liberty and of creating public opinion in support of fundamental human rights.

Prod Public Officials

The second thing I should like to suggest is something which I do not like to do myself, and — I know that some of you dislike it as much as I. It is to prod public officials when they temporize with a racial situation fraught with danger, and to criticize both public men and institutions when they fail in their duties. If juries should fall into the habit of ignoring deeds of defendants and free them because the color of their skins is that of the majority; or if judges fall into the practice of ignoring the law of the state of California and instead ask the neighbors what punishment they shall mete out to an offender— two things which have happened recently in this state in cases involving citizens of Japanese | ancestry—then the civil rights of every citizen © would be endangered. For you and me of the majority to refuse to act in such cases is to be a party, if only by acquiescence, in the weakening of the inmost fibre of our national life.

Make a Declaration of Faith —

Finally, I should like to see it become popular for citizens to make a sort of civic declaration of faith, intention, and brotherhood that would read as follows—the wording is my own: “Believing that no social order is safe and sound in which racial and religious hate spreads rumors that result in persecution, discrimination and calumny, I, as one individual citizen, resolve that I will not be a party to the coercion con- science. I will fight for the civil and constitutional rights of any minority group, no matter how unpopular; and I will let no hate-filled opponent confuse the issue by making my stand on some. question or for some individual or organization necessarily mean my approval of that particular individual or organization. I. will refuse to believe rumors that insult my intelligence and my common sense. I will treat all men as my brothers, for, as I understand the teachings of Jesus and some of the earlier Hebrew prophets, all men are brothers and share. a brotherhood that results from the common Fatherhood of God—a brotherhood that rises superior to, and has nothing to do with, the color of one’s skin, the texture of one’s hair, the political institutions of one’s country, or the particular form of worship which commands one’s loyalty. Finally, I shall try to be intelligent and meet every issue that arises, and make my decision on that issue, not in the heat of the moment, but always with the question back in my mind, Will I be ashamed of this decision ten years from now?”

“A Pledge of the New Patriotism”

After writing the “declaration” which I have just read to you, I chanced to read Charles S. Medbury’s “A Pledge of the New Patriotism.” As a closing thought I should like to read you a part of this pledge.

“No man shall ever feel his color or his caste in my presence, for within my heart of hearts there shall be no consciousness of it. . . . No word shall ever pass my lips that hurts another in things of face, form, station or estate. My own. weaknesses, foibles, sins, shall chasten speech and spirit and deny me pride. .. . And thus I resolve, not because I am good, but that I want to be; not because I am strong, but that I fear weakness; not that I feel above others, but that with all my soul I long to be of human — kind both helped and helper. So do I dedicate my days. So do I set apart my culture. So do I receive but to give again to others.”