vol. 18, no. 8

;

American

Civil Liberties

Union-News

Free Press

-ree Assemblage

Free Speech

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

VOLUME XVIII

Coast Guard Screens

Korean Vet as Security Risk

A hearing was held by the Coast Guard on June

29 in the security appeal of a war veteran whose

application for documents as a merchant seaman

had been rejected on security grounds. The man

had received an honorable discharge from the

Army last. December 6 after four year's service

and after being wounded twice in the Korean con-

flict. He is a registered Republican and no longer

interested in sailing, but he is interested in clear-

ing his record.

On September 15, 1951, he married a girl who

is apparently the innocent cause of his present

troubles. She had worked for the federal gov-

ernment and, in the course of her employment,

she received an interrogatory from the Regional

Loyalty Board of the US. Civil Service Commis-

sion. She answered the charges in writing but the

matter was never adjudicated because she left her

federal job for personal reasons and took other

employment in California.

At the hearing, the Coast Guard was not par-

_ ticularly interested in the husband but in the wife.

It was her record that was being tried. He had

merely married into the wrong family.

Of course, the Coast Guard had not furnished

any specification of charges but, fortunately, the

wife had the charges furnished to her by the Re-

gional Loyalty Board. If the latter group could "

furnish a bill of particulars without damaging

security, it is difficult to understand why the

Coast Guard could not do so.

In any case, there were six charges brought

against the wife by the Regional Loyalty Board.

1. It was alleged that she had attended a party in

San Diego that was really a recruiting party for

the Communist Party. She answered that she did

attend the party, but no one attempted to prose-

lyte her and she had no knowledge that it was a

communist recruiting party.

2. She was accused of being nominated by Com-

munists as their candidate for the Executive Board

of the PCA in San Diego. She answered that she

had never to her knowledge been nominated by

anyone for such a position.

3. She'was accused of close friendship and asso-

ciation with three persons alleged to be Commun-

ists. While two of them were not close friends,

she answered that she had no knowledge that any

of them were Communists. oe

4, She was accused "on numerous (but un-

' specified) occasions" of referring to the com-

munistic "system" as better than that of the

United States. She denied making such statements

or even holding such a belief.

5. "You have numerous books and publications

on Marxism and Communism in your private

library." That was also a puzzler because she

doesn't have such books in her library.

6. It was alleged that back in New York in 1945

the Communist Political Association had listed

her as one of its "best contacts." This was also

something she had no knowledge about.

`Membership Drive Reaches

Almost 80% of Its Goal

Additional returns last month brought the

ACLU's special membership drive to almost 80%

of its financial and membership goals, While the

branch sought $3000 and 450 new members, it

secured $2370.50 and 349 new members, as well

as 23 separate subscribers to the News.

Elizabeth Hiner's Oakland team became the

fifth area to go over the top on its membership

goal when it reached a figure of 104%. It fell

short of its financial goal by only ten percent.

_ The campaign resulted in securing replacements

for the persons who joined up in the 1952 member-

ship campaign and who have thus far failed to

_ renew.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST, 1953

No. 8

Local ACLU States Its Policy on Certain |

Quizzing of Witnesses byLegislative Committees

The Executive Committee of the ACLU of

Northern California recently adopted the follow-

ing policy statement entitled, `Statement of policy

concerning witnesses who are questioned by legis-

lative committees concerning their religious opin-

ions and associations":

Legislative investigating committees, both

State and Federal, have, in recent years, conducted

inquiries into the religious and political opinions

and associations of many citizens. As a necessary

and proper part of our legislative processes, the

investigative committee device has traditionally

had the primary functions of obtaining informa-

tion so that the legislative bodies may pass wise

`and needed legislation, and also, of checking ad-

ministrative agencies in their enforcement of

laws and expenditure of funds. It is not a function

of such committees to set standards of orthodoxy

in thought and conduct for America, nor to place

men on trial before a court of public opinion.

All too often such committees have conducted

their proceedings ag trials without due process

and with a disregard of constitutional rights. (c)

Questions have been asked which were irrelevant

to legitimate purposes of: investigation, and the

Is Your Landlord A `Red'?

Last month, the Union represented an em-

ployee of the Military Sea Transportation

Service, Pacific Area, in a security hearing,

reputed to be the first in this area under the

new Executive Order. One of the charges in

the case reads, in part, as follows:

"You are presently maintaining a residence

at .... Place, San Francisco. It is noted that

this address is owned by Mrs........ Mrs....

is known to have been a Communist Party

member in 1946 and to have continued her

interest in such activities."

Apparently, the employee should have dis-

`covered his landlord's politics before he mov-

ed in. Maybe in these times landlord and ten-

ant should exchange loyalty oaths.

Another fantastic charge in the case states:

"You have admitted to current affiliation with

the Northern California Chapter of the Art-

ist's Equity Association. The leaders of this

organization are publicly sponsored and

praised by the Communist Party." This or-

ganization keeps out of politics and has never

gotten on the Attorney General's list. But a

group apparently becomes suspect if the

Communists ever praise any of its actions.

NINETEENTH ANNIVERSARY

MEETING SET FOR OCT. 27

The nineteenth anniversary meeting of the

ACLU of Northern California will be held at the

Marines' Memorial Theatre, 609 Sutter St., San

Francisco, Tuesday evening, October 27, 1953.

The subject of the meeting is a current one: the

refusal of witnesses appearing before legislative

investigating committees to testify on the grounds

of either the First or Fifth Amendments.

There will be two speakers. Rev. Harry F. Me-

serve has already agreed to handle the question

of the Fifth Amendment. Rt. Rev. Edward L. Par-

sons will preside. ee

After failing to make the financial grade in

1926, after one year's existence, the ACLU again

came into being in this area on September 15, 1934

and has been operating ever since. Dr. Alexander

Meiklejohn and Helen Salz, local vice-chairmen,

are the sole survivors of the original Executive

Committee.

individuals involved have been subjected to pres-

sures for conformity that have amounted to inti-

midation and terrorization, Frequently the result

has been the loss of job and damage to reputation,

fully as serious as a fine or imprisonment. While

recognizing fully the necessity of investigative

committees when properly conducted, the Ameri-

can Civil Liberties Union of Northern California -

at the same time believes that the constitutional

rights of witnesses before such committees should

be protected, both in fact and in spirit.

The rights about which we are presently con-

cerned spring from the First Amendment to the |

Federal Constitution, which protects the citizen

in his freedoms of religion, speech, press and as-

semblage, and the Fifth Amendment, which de-

clares that "No person . . . shall be compelled in

any criminal case to be a witness against him-

self ...." The courts have held that the privilege

of the Fifth Amendment may be asserted not only

in criminal cases but also in legislative hearings

and other proceedings.

In connection with this general problem, the _

ACLU` of Northern California recognizes (1) That |

both the State and Federal courts have thus far

not upheld witnesses who have rested upon the

Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer questions

as to their political opinions and associations. It

believes that further court tests should be under-

taken; (2) That there is a so-called "immunity

statute" in California, which provides that a wit-

ness called before a State legislative committee

"cannot be held to answer criminally or be sub-

ject to any penalty or forfeiture for any fact or -

act touching which he is compelled to testify."

Thus, by this grant of "immunity" a witness is

compelled to testify before California legislative

committees or face possible contempt proceedings.

This statute, however, fails to protect a witness

from federal prosecution or from a prosecution

resulting from leads derived from such required

testimony and thus does not provide the immunity

which it professes. Rather than protecting rights

of a citizen called upon to testify, such legislation

further abridges his rights. Nevertheless, im-

munity statutes of this type have so far been up-

held by the courts.

I. The ACLU of Northern California believes

that if a witness is called before a State or Fed-

eral legislative investigating committee and asked

questions concerning his opinions and associa-

tions, the First Amendment of the U. S, Constitu-

tion should protect him against having.to answer 0x00B0

- Such questions. In our opinion, such inquiries may

abridge the freedoms of religion, speech, press

and assemblage. The ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia will, therefore, support to the limit of its

abilities, anyone who under such circumstances

claims the protection of the First Amendment.

II. A teacher's refusal to answer the questions

of a State or Federal legislative committee con-

cerning his opinions and associations under the

claim of protection of the First or Fifth Amend-

ment, in. and of itself, should not be grounds for

Suspension or dismissal from his teaching post.

The ACLU of Northern California believes that

the privilege of the Fifth Amendment was in-

tended to protect the innocent and, therefore,

Carries no imputation of criminal guilt in the

eyes of the law. The ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia will support, to the limit of its abilities, any

teacher Suspended or dismissed, or endangered of

suspension or dismissal solely because of his claim

of protection of the First or Fifth Amendments.

In offering these principles, the ACLU of North-

ern California recognizes that strict adherence to

them by a witness before a legislative investigat-

ing committee may cause damage to his reputa-

tion, loss of employment and possible prosecution, ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Eligibility for Public Job

Not Lost by Signing Petition

The mere signing of a petition for nomination

of a Communist to public office is no grounds for

dismissal of a person from a Civil Service eligible

list. =

This decision was handed down by Judge J.

Hofstadter in the New York Supreme Court in

the case of Jervey C. Hamilton, who sought an

appointment to the police force. His name was

stricken from the list on the grounds that he had

signed a Communist Party petition in 1949 for

the nomination of Benjamin J. Davis for the City

Council. The case hinged on the complete lack of

evidence that the petitioner was a Communist or

-had ever engaged in subversive activities. Judge

Hofstadter ruled that the Municipal Civil Service

Commission acted arbitrarily and directed it to

restore the petitioner's name to the eligible list.

Hamilton, a Negro, signed the petition to voice

his protest against racial injustice, and denied

that in so doing he intended to give support or

express sympathy with the Communist Party.

Five other signers of the petition, all living on the

same street, made affidavits that they were

tricked into signing, on the representation that

the petition had to do with discrimination against

Negroes, and that the top of the sheet bearing the

name of the Communist Party was invisible when

they signed. oo.

In his decision, Judge Hofstadter asserted, "If

innocent membership (in any Communist group)

cannot be ground for disqualification from public

employment, how can complete absence of mem-

bership justify it?" He stated that "however

searchingly the record is studied, in the end there

still remains against the petitioner nothing but

his signature on the Davis petition. After anxious

thought, I am led to the clear conviction that his

act alone does not and should not disqualify him

for service as a police patrolman."

_ Civil Liberties Pamphiets

The following pamphlets may be secured by

writing to the ACLU office, 503 Market St., San

Francisco 5. Please accompany order by remit-

tance. :

The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties, by Osmond

K. Fraenkel. An examination of Supreme Court

decisions. 90 pages; price 50c.

Uneasy Interval. 1951-1952 Annual Report of the

ACLU of Northern California, published De-

cember, 1952; price, 10c.

- Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility.

Price, 10c. -

Democracy in Labor Unions. Price, 26c.

Dilemmas of Liberalism, by Francis Biddle. A lec-

ture presented at Columbia University on March

16, 1953 under the auspices of the Roger N.

Baldwin Civil Liberties Foundation, Inc. Price,

26c.

Are U.S. Teenagers Rejecting Freedom? A "Look"

magazine reprint on the findings of Purdue

polltakers who queried 15,000 young people on

their opinions regarding civil liberties. Price,

10c.

Loyalty in a Democracy, a Public Affairs Com-

mittee roundtable report by leaders in the civil

liberties field. Price, 26c.

The States and Subversion. Related federal meas-

- ures; the state laws; the "Un-American" Com-

mittees; the ACLU stand; what's to be done?

Price, 20c. ;

Thirty-five Years with Freedom of Speech, by

Zechariah Chafee, Jr., of the Harvard Law

School. 40 pages; price 26c.

Does Silence Mean Guilt?, by Norman Redlich and

Laurent B. Frantz. A consideration of the Fifth

Amendment controversy. Reprinted from the

June 6, 1953 issue of `"`The Nation." Price, 10c.

The Need-and the Chance-for Equality, by

Malcolm Ross, former chairman, President's

Committee on Fair Employment Practice. Re-

printed from The New York Times Magazine,

Sunday, May 25, 1952. Price, 10c.

What to Do About "Dangerous" Textbooks, by

Edward N. Savath, Reprinted from Commen-

tary. Price, 10c.

Are We Losing Our Civil Liberties in Our Search

for Security? Reprint of Town Meeting of the

Air with Patrick Murphy Malin and Represen-

tative Harold H. Velde. Price, 10c.

The Smith Act and the Supreme Court. The

ACLU's analysis, opinion and statement of po-

licy. Also includes the Supreme Court opinions (c)

in Dennis v. United States. 39 pages; price, 26c.

Security and Freedom: the Great Challenge. The

last available annual report of the national of-

fice of the ACLU. Price, 36c.

The Crisis in Freedom, by Dr. Alexander Meikle-

john. Reprinted from the June, 1952, issue of

The Progressive. Price, 10c.

The ACLU (National Office) Is Suffering

From "Homogenization',

Dwight MacDonald has written a lengthy "Pro-

file' about Roger Baldwin and the Civil Liberties

Union which appears in the July 11 and 18 issues

of The New Yorker. The ACLU (national office)

-and Baldwin are both taken apart by Mr. Mac-

Donald in skillful fashion. Here are the concluding

two paragraphs in this article:

"I may be a little immodest, but I think the

Civil Liberties Union is in better repute than ever

before,' Baldwin remarked just before he retired

as director. "We have moved from a position of

suspected subversion to one of unexpected respec-

tability. The times have caught up with us. We

have not changed." The last remark is hardly true.

"In the old days, we used to go into the coal fields

or over to New Jersey and hold test meetings and

get ourselves locked up," Arthur Garfield Hays

has reminisced. `We were right in the front lines

then. Now we file a brief. Governors speak at our

dinners. I think we were a more effective `organi-

zation before we became respectable. Hell, there

was a time when we were all jailbirds together."

Few of the present Board have prison records.

Most are respectable lawyers or respectable liber-

als or both. The only members who by any stretch-

ing of the term might be called radicals are the

aging Norman Thomas and the venerable John

Haynes Holmes. In 1918, the conservative Albert

DeSilver was the exception. Today, it is the So-

cialist Thomas. Over the coffee cups after dinner,

a Board member recently tried to define the dif-

ference. "We don't lose our tempers about civil

liberties any more," he said. "We treat the ques-

tion in a gentlemanly way. And, practically speak-

ing, I think it's good to have a predominantly con-

servative outfit, as the Union is today, defending

the rights of dissenters. More effective."

However that may be, the fact is that the Amer-

ican Civil Liberties Union has evolved into a wor-

thy cause almost as sedate as the Children's Aid

Society. "The Union began outside the legal sys-

tem and in opposition to the government," ob-

serves Clifford Forster, the Union's special coun-

sel, who was Baldwin's right-hand man from 1941

to 1950. "But in recent years it has gradually be-

come assimilated into both." This is part of a gen-

eral process of compromise, merging, and adjust-

ment that has been going on in the nation since -

1936. "Left" and "Right" have become ambiguous |

terms. Our politics, like our milk, are now homo-

genized. American capitalists compete with liber-

als in supporting the Bill of Rights-with a few

reservations on both sides about national security

in wartime. The Left also has become homogen-

ized, or in a sociologist's sometimes useful patter,

institutionalized. Today even protests against the

social system have become part of that system,

just as the avant-garde in culture is now a battal-

ion of the regular army. Picasso gets top prices

for his pictures, the Museum of Modern Art deals

on terms of perfect equality with the Metropoli-

tan, T. 8. Eliot writes a Broadway hit, and the

Department of Justice has its Civil Rights Divis-

ion, which defends the rights of some citizens

while the rest of the department is busy taking

away the rights of others. The Union's evolution

has been part of a far-reaching historical process

-as has Baldwin's own development, for that mat-

ter. But if the Left has become ideologically homo-

genized, it has also, from another standpoint, be-

come over-specialized to the point of disintegra-

tion. Time was when the Union's world, together

with the worlds of the political radicals, the avant-

gardists in culture, and the Village bohemians,

formed a Left universe whose inhabitants did a lot

of interplanetary travelling. Figures like Max

Eastman and Floyd Dell were active in all these

worlds; even Baldwin used to publish "experimen-

tal" poetry. It was symbolic of this homegenity-

u a

Says "New Yorker

as opposed to homogenization-that in the early

twenties Max Eastman's Liberator (the successor

to the Masses) had its editorial offices in the same

red brick building on West Thirteenth Street that

Baldwin's Union occupied, while a few doors down

the street were the offices of the Dial. In the thir-

ties, Communism held things together for a while

longer, but the foundation was unsound; the jerry-

built structure began to creak with the Moscow

trials, and finally fell apart after the Nazi-Soviet

Pact. By now, `The Village' has become a geo-

graphical expression, and such avant-gardists and (c)

radicals as have escaped homogenization are not

to be found around the Union, which, like almost

everything else, has become respectable and spec-

talized. This trend, indicated by the recent pre-

dominance of lawyers on its Board, was formal-

ized in 1950, when John Hays Holmes was suc-

ceeded in the chairmanship by Ernest Angell.

Holmes, pastor emeritus. of the Community

Church, is an old-style pacifist liberal, while An-

gell is a Republican (homogenized) and a lawyer.

The old order changeth, yielding place to new;

the moralist is replaced by the specialist; Jere-

miah and Savonarola have given way to the tech- |

nicians of worthy causes. In this new world, Bald-

win, a contradictory-or, in modern terms, ambi-

valent-person, is just as much and just as little

at home as he was in the good old days of the

twenties and thirties.

Court Refuses Review of

`Death Sentence' Deportation

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review

the appeal of a Yugoslavian alien who argued

that his deportation to Yugoslavia would result in

his physical persecution.

Nicholas Dolenz was once a member of the

Yugoslav Communist Party, but now claims to

be violently against it. When ordered deported be-

cause of his illegal entry into the U.S., he raised

the claim of physical persecution. The McCar-

ran Internal Security Act of 1950 provides that

aliens cannot be so deported if the Attorney Gen-

eral finds that they would be so subject to physi-

cal persecution. :

_ Dolenz introduced personal and two witnesses'

testimony to the effect that he would be subject

to persecution, possibly death, if he were returned

to Yugoslavia. No contradictory testimony was

introduced by the government. Nonetheless, with-

out such testimony, the Commissioner of Immigra-

tion (as delegate of the Attorney General) ruled

that he did not find that Dolenz would be subject-

ed to physical persecution, if returned to Yugosla-

via. The case was taken to the Court of Appeals,

which affirmed the deportation order by a 2-1

vote. The appeal to the Supreme Court had the

full support of the ACLU on the grounds that

Dolenz's right to due process of law was violated.

Commented ACLU staff counsel, Herbert Monte

Levy, "This refusal of the Supreme Court to re-

view the case makes a mockery of the provision

of the McCarran Act intended to prevent deporta-

tion of aliens subject to physical reprisals. Unless

the Supreme Court based its action upon tech-

nical grounds, which we cannot tell, this decision _

- would mean that no matter what evidence the

alien presents showing that he would be subjected

to physical persecution, he can nonetheless be de-

ported, even though there is absolutely no evi-

dence in the record to disprove his contention.

Though the Government of Yugoslavia has stated

publicly that there would not be persecution in

cases such as Dolenz's, this statement was never

a part of the case, and the precedent set is bad

and may govern other similar cases where no such

statements were ever made." 0x00B0

FINAL RESULTS OF SPECIAL MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN"

(TO JULY 27, 1953)

Membership Financial Subs New Per Cent Money Per Cent

s a Goal Goal To`News' Members. of Goal Received of Goal

erkeley 2 115 $ 715 5 89 89% 502.00 65

Carmel 10 15 -_ 13 130% , 56.00 wBee

Davis : 5 40 -_ 20 400% 78.00 195%

Hayward 5 40 1 8 160% 46.00 115%

Marin County............. 0. 25 1%5 1 12 48% 65.50 37%

Modesto 2 10 15 - 3 30% 15.00 20% (c)

Oakland (2 25 1%5 3 26 104% 158.00 90%

Orinda, Laf., ete..........-..-.-------- 10 WD 3 1% 170% 96.50 129%

Peninstla 40 2715 2 28 10% 146.50 538%

Sacramento 25 175 1 13 52% - 67.50 39%

San Francisco....................-..-..---- 125 850 |, 7 2 94 15% 966.00 114%

San Jose 10 15 1 4 40% 32.00 41%

Santa Cruz... 5 40 3 3 60% 30.00 15%

Stockton: (c). 10 79 - 6 60% 30.00 40%

Miscellaneous __..................--.--. 30 225 1 13 43% 81.50 36%

450 $3,000 23 349 18% $2,370.50 19%

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page 3

Former CP Membership no Bar

To Washroom Attendant Job

Justice Aaron Steuer of the N.Y. Supreme

Court has ruled that the mere fact that a person

had once been a member of the Communist Party

did not disqualify him as a New York employee,

for work as a washroom attendant.

Bonaventura Pinggera, who had in previous

loyalty checks revealed he had been a Communist

from 1936 to 1939, denied in his application for

employment by New York City that he had ever

been a member of an organization advocating the

vilent overthrow of the government. The New

York Civil Service Commission had ruled that, in

view of all the circumstances, Pinggera was unfit.

Judge Steuer held that loyalty was one of the

elements of character that the employer had a

duty to inquire about, but that the evidence in the

case was not such as to enable the Commission

to make that determination. He pointed out that

Pinggera had been expelled from the Party in

1939, after having joined it in the belief that it was

working for better conditions; that this did not

show present disloyalty and hardly showed that

Pinggera had ever actively opposed the govern-

ment. The City tried to rebut the testimony on the

sole ground that Communist Party members al-

ways deny their association with the Party, but

Justice Steuer, while stating that this might be

considered in connection with other facts, in con-

sidering positions where national security was in-

volved, he felt that in this case "it is a bit

difficult to visualize how a washroom attendant

in his official capacity can give aid to his coun-

try's enemies. To believe that the conspiracy invol-

ved `in going underground' would be employed

to obtain such a position borders on the fantastic."

The fact that Pinggera has disclosed his Commu-

nist leanings, ruled the Court, meant that it could

not be reasonably deduced that Pinggera had

sought to mislead the Commission by denying

. past membership in an organization advocating

violent overthrow of the government. Though the

burden of proof might be on the employee to es-

_ tablish his loyalty, the Court pointed out that in (c)

this case Pinggera had not been told the object of

his hearing or what he was required to prove.

The case had been handled by the New York

Civil Liberties Union, through attorney Carl

Rachlin, a member of its board. '

Ordinance Banning Religious

Meetings In Parks Invalidated

In an unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme

Court has held unconstitutional a city ordinance

of Pawtucket, Rhode Island which prohibits reli-

gious meetings in a public park. The ordinanc

permits church services in the parks. ;

The decision was handed down in the case of

William B. Fowler, a minister of the Jehovah's

Witnesses sect, who was arrested while addressing

the Pawtucket Congregation of Jehovah's Wit-

nesses in a local public park. Two loud speakers

were used at the meeting, which was orderly and

did not create any disturbance or breaches of

peace. Fowler was arrested after he had been

talking only a few minutes. He was charged and

convicted and fined $5.00 on grounds of violating

the ordinance.

Fowler appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme

Court on the grounds that his rights under the

First and Fourteenth Amendments had been in-

fringed. He argued that the Constitutional guar-

antee of freedom of assembly makes no exception.

of religious assembly. The State Supreme Court,

in its first decision on the 37-year old ordinance,

concurred in the local decision.

In the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme

Court, the Attorney General of Rhode Island con-

ceded that the ordinance did not prohibit "church

services" in the park. The Court, speaking

through Justice Douglas, held that the ordinance

could not be interpreted or administered so as to

treat religious meetings conducted by Jehovah's

Witnesses differently from religious services of

other sects, which amounted to "the state pre-

_ferring some religious groups over this one."

The Court said: "It is no business of courts to

say that what is a religious practice or activity for

one group is not religion under the protection of

the First Amendment. Nor is it in the competence

of courts under our constitutional scheme to ap-

prove, disapprove, classify, regulate, or in any

manner control sermons delivered at religious

meetings. Sermons are as much a part of religious

service as prayers... To call the words which one

minister speaks to his congregation a sermon, im-

mune from regulation, and the words of another

minister an address, subject to regulation, is

merely an indirect way of preferring one religion

over another."

ACLU Points |

in

ACLU has issued a statement pointing up viola-

tions of civil liberties inherent in the new federal

employee security program that went into effect,

as the result of an executive order by President

Eisenhower, on May 27.

Patrick Murphy Malin, ACLU executive direc-

tor, took the government to task for failing to

establish an independent board of review to which

government workers could appeal their cases and

also failing to provide hearings for probationary

employees, applicants, or aliens denied employ-

ment as poor security risks.

The Union's views were made public after they

had been discussed by ACLU representatives with

U. S. Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers

and Philip Young, chairman of the Civil Service

Commission.

"The new program contains some substantial

improvements over the old federal loyalty-secu-

rity program, but serious defects, harmful to civil

liberties, have been carried over and some addi-

tional ones created," Malin said. "The major de-

fect taken over from the old program is the failure

to provide cross-examination in security hearings,

a right which is basic to a fair hearing."

Among the improvements noted by the Union

was the shift in the program's emphasis from a

loyalty to a security risk designation. "The defi-

nition of a security risk has been broadened to

include other criteria than loyalty, so persons who

are dismissed will not be so severely stigmatized,"'

Malin said.

The ACLU spokesman also praised the recog-

nition of the principle that certain government

posts should be labeled as sensitive because of

their special relationship to national security, and

the idea of transferring possible security risks to

non-sensitive posts.

First Biennial Conference

Of ACLU Corporation Planned

The first biennial conference of corporation

members of the ACLU (35 members of the na-

tional board; 75 members of the national commit-

tee; and, representatives from 18 affiliates), re-

quired by the proposed By-Laws, will apparently

be held in New York City from November 28-De-

cember 1, or January 2-5. Members of the cor-

poration have recently been asked to express their

preference as to the time of the conference but

not as to the place. oe

The affiliates had urged some other site for the

conference than New York in order to escape its

domination by the 35 Board members who reside

aroun@(R) New York City. In fact, it was more or

less understood that Chicago or Cleveland would -

be the site for the conference. The national office

declared, however, that "financial considerations"

and the chances of a larger attendance in New

York impelled it to select that city for the con-

ference.

In the meantime, the Union's local Executive

Committee has asked the national board to clarify

the confused By-Laws situation. The national of-

_fice ever since June 13, 1951 has been acting

"tentatively" under By-Laws proposed in 1951 on

which no final action has been taken and which

have not been filed with the Secretary of State in

Albany, New York. Legally, it would seem that

the 1950 By-Laws are still in effect, so the national

board has finally been asked to solve the problem.

Gov. Warren Signs

Seven Red-Hunting Bills

Gov. Earl Warren last month signed the three

remaining red-hunting bills pending before him,

thus raising to seven the number of such bills en-

acted into law at the 1953 session of the Cali-

fornia Legislature.

The. last three bills to be acted upon are (1)

A.B. 923, requiring a loyalty statement from all

persons and groups claiming a tax exemption

from any property tax except the householder's

exemption; (2) S8.B. 1367, requiring a special non-

Communist, oath of many California school teach-

ers, besides requiring them to answer questions

of legislative investigating committees and Boards,

of Education, relating to their opinions and asso-

ciations during the past five years; (3) A.B. 3508,

requiring all public employees except teachers to

answer the questions of legislative investigating

committees as to their opinions and associations

since September 10, 1948. :

ul Viola

tions of Civil Liberties

New Federal Employee Security Order

The Union's main fire was directed at the ap-

peals and hearing machinery of the new order.

"The elimination of the old Loyalty Review

Board, which was composed of non-governmental

employees, in favor of a board of government em-

ployees, jeopardizes the right of the individual

government worker to an independent, impartial

review of his case. Besides reducincent the number

of appeals a government worker may take, there

is no longer any outside review, a protection de-

fend to guarantee the individual fair considera-

ion."

Malin also noted that due process of law is

violated "in the absence of hearings for proba-

tionary employees, aliens, or applicants for fed-

eral employment who are otherwise qualified for

jobs, but have been found to be security risks. A |

fair hearing, no matter what the charge may be,

is fundamental to fair judgment and the guar-

antee of civil liberties in the Bill of Rights."

The Union also urged that in determining

whether or not a person is a security risk, con-

sideration of organizational associations should be

confined to organizations which had been listed,

after hearings, as "subversive" by the Attorney

General. /

"Experience under the old security program,"

Malin said, "showed that loosely prepared and un-

reliable statements about organizations were fre-

quently used. If a list is to be used, it is better to

use the Attorney General's list, a centralized

source, now prepared with respect for due process,

than to rely on loose, unsubstantiated listings."

_The Union pointed out that the campaign to re-

vise the Attorney General's procedure in listing

`subversive' organizations had won a notable

victory. In the new "program, Attorney General

Brownell has agreed to grant hearings, before a

final decision is made as to organizations' inclu-

sion on the list.

Double Jeopardy Plea

Fails In Supreme Court

The protection from double jeopardy-safe-

guarding a defendant from having to stand trial

more than once on the same charges-afforded

under the Fifth Amendment was by-passed in a

recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The case involved a unique North Carolina law

which allows a second trial when the prosecution

does not have its evidence ready at the first trial. |

The law was upheld by the Supreme Court in a

6-2 decision.

The petitioner was David Brock, an employee

on strike from a mill at Tarboro, N.C. He and two

other men had been arrested for firing shots from

a passing auto into the house of a watchman at

the mill. The other two-Jim Cook and Elmer

Matthews-were tried first and found guilty of

assault with a deadly weapon. Before judgments

were entered on their convictions, Brock was

placed on trial, and the State put Cook and

Matthews on the stand, intending to use their

testimony to corroborate that of other witnesses

Both refused to answer the State's questions on

the ground that such answers might tend to in-

criminate them, and the trial court upheld their

refusal to answer.

_After the Supreme Court of North Carolina af-

firmed the convictions of Cook and Matthews, the

State impanelled a jury for the second time. Brock

objected on the grounds that this placed him in

Jeopardy a second time, and thus denied him due

process of law, contrary to the provisions of the

oe Amendment. His objection was over-

ruled. . :

Cook testified as a Witness for the State, and

Brock was found guilty and sentenced to two

years imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme

Court of North Carolina, which affirmed his con-

viction.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Vinson

offered a strong dissent, pointing out that the

State should have known at the time of the first

trial that it could. not present a complete case

because Cook and Matthews would not be willing

to testify while their own criminal cases were up

on appeal. He pointed out that the defense could

not have the right to ask for a mistrial because it

had done poorly, and that the prosecution should -

not have greater rights.

Writing a separate dissent, Justice Douglas

stated that the North Carolina courts had them-

selves once condemned this type of procedure,

and that the promise of protection from double

jeopardy was lost by this ruling.

}

Page 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

`American Civil Liberties Union-News

Published monthly at 503 Market Street., San Francisco 5,

Calif., by the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California.

Phone: EXbrook 2-3255

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 and Fifty Cents a Year.

Fifteen Cents per Copy -151

Denver School Board Adopts

Book Criteria For Schools

The Denver School Board has banned from the

schools any book whose author does not support

"the principles of American constitutional gov-

ernment."

`The action came when the Board unanimously

approved new criteria for the selection of text-

books and other instructional materials. The text-

book criteria were developed after a long study

by the schools' committees on instruction, and

were presented to the Board, and endorsed, by

Dr. Kenneth E. Oberholtzer, superintendent of

schools, last December. The Colorado branch of

the ACLU, the Citizens Committee for the Denver

Public Schools, the Denver Federation of Teach-

ers, and the Denver Americans for Democratic

Action were among the groups opposing the adop-

tion of the criteria.

The opposition was directed mainly at two re-

quirements; the first that, "so far as can be

ascertained, the author supports the principles of

American constitutional government;" and the

second that, "the nature and content of the mate-

_ rial are consistent with the principles of American

constitutional government." The Colorado ACLU,

in presenting its objections, to the School Board,

noted that these criteria would keep primary in-

formation regarding other forms of government

away from school children since its'authors ob-

viously wouldn't support American constitutional

government, and advanced an alternative set of

criteria which included suggestions that:

"Material should be judged in terms of its use-

fulness in developing students capable of parti-

cipating creatively in the free institutions of a

democratic society. This requires that students

be exposed to the doctrines of differing systenis

and ideologies. To insure that their education shall

`be founded on full and true understanding, no

material should be forbidden or removed from

classrooms solely on the grounds of political,

economic, or social views expressed therein." _

One of the criticisms of the new criteria is that

it would prevent the works of Shakespeare from

being used since the author believed in the monar-

chial form of government. Dr. Oberholtzer replied

that the criteria were only a guide and that

Shakespeare's works would not be dropped, and (c)

that texts by foreign authors, `on mathematics,

for instance," could be read.

The criteria were codified and made formal, ac-

cording to Dr. Oberholtzer, because of criticism

voiced against the banning, over a year ago, of 52

Public Affairs Committee. pamphlets from the

Denver schools. Among the pamphlets removed

from the shelves at that time were Roger Bald-

win's "Human Rights," "Cartels or Free Enter-

prise" by Thurman Arnold, and "What About

Communism?" by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

After adoption by the Denver School Board of

the criteria, the ACLU queried Dr. Oberholtzer on

the following four points:

(1) On what ground was "Human Rights"

dropped in 1952? (2) Has it at any date been re-

stored to the reading lists? (8) Are the "new cri-

teria' now officially in operation? (4) If `""Human

Rights" is still off the list, is it because of the

original judgment, or has action been taken under

the "new criteria?"

Dr. Oberholtzer replied that Mr. Baldwin's

pamphlet had been dropped because the review-

ing committee found in it "many broad and rather

dogmatic generalizations," and that "to date it

- has not been returned to the lists.": A new review

committee, he said, working under the `new

Criteria and Procedures" will undoubtedly be

asked to "review `Human Rights' and other pub-

lications that have been questioned" in the fall.

Of the 52 pamphlets originally dropped, only

one, "Races of Mankind" has been restored to the

lists, after certain "deletions."

Membership At New High

The membership of the ACLU of Northern

California has reached a new high. As the News

goes to press, the branch has exactly 3160 paid-up

members compared with 2909 a year ago. In addi-

tion, there are 239 separate subscribers to the -

"News," and a paid mailing list of 3399.

ACLU Members Tell What They

Think About

The National Board's 3 Policy Statements

Last month, the News asked for comments from

its readers on three proposed policy statements

adopted by the ACLU's national board which will

be submitted to the members of the corporation

for their consideration. We print below some of

the replies that have thus far been received. More

replies will be printed in the September "News." "

Emphatic Agreement

The News wants to know what the members

think of the three policy statements. The answer

of this member is simple: he emphatically agrees

with them.-O.J.M.

What May I Think?

Concerning policy statements the ACLU-NEWS

asks, ``What Do You Think?" After examination

of said statements it seems pertinent that I ask

what may I think ?"-A.K.

P.S.: The black half of this typewriter ribbon

is worn out. But I refuse to swear I used the red

with or without prejudice.

P.P.S.: Call a national conference. Call Besig to

attend.

A Bit Uncertain

, As to the 3 policy statements, the intricacy of

phraseology on certain points, especially in No. 3,

makes me a bit uncertain. I have in mind some

cogent statements on the subject which were

made two weeks ago on the radio by the Editor of

Yale Law Review, and which seemed to give ade-

quate legal grounds for refusal to answer such

questions. I pprove No. 1 and No. 2.-C.M.LF.

Repudiation of Heresy

If you want my opinion of the proposals sent

out by the National Office, all I can say that is

printable is that they are damning evidence of

the sad fact that the ACLU nationally seems to

have succumbed to the current hysteria. Never

was there a time in American history when what

the ACLU has always stood for was so badly

needed, and it is tragic and could be catastrophic

to have it hedge and trim now, as in these pro-

posals it is obviously doing. By all means, at the

very least, there must be a referendum-and if

this is the unchangeable attitude of the National

Office, then I should say it was about time that

the Northern California Branch seceded. To do

so under the circumstances would not be heresy,

but the repudiation of heresy.-MLS.

Pro and Con Statements Desired

Unless I see convincing arguments to the con-

trary, I would endorse these three statements of

the national board. I'm sorry we have not been

furnished pro and con statements.-E.N.

ACLU Has Fallen On Its Head

I have always sympathized with the ACLU in

its practical problem of how to be effective in

defending civil liberties while at the same time

maintaining its own strict neutrality, politically

speaking. However this time in its attempts to

lean backwards to avoid being labelled subversive,

it has fallen on its head. Statement number one

is uncalled for. Perhaps some will say that since

the ACLU exists to defend civil liberties in a court

Court Order Signed in Coast

Guard Security Screening Test

Federal Judge Edward P. Murphy of San Fran-

cisco on July 13 finally signed an order requiring

the Coast Guard to furnish, upon demand, a bill

of particulars setting forth the grounds for screen-

ing seamen as security risks. The decree declares

that a screened seaman must have available to

him "Upon demand a statement of particulars.

setting forth the alleged acts, associations or be-

liefs or other data which formed the basis for the

determination that such seaman is a poor security

risk or is not entitled to security clearance, pro-

vided however that such bill of particulars need

not set forth the source of such data, nor disclose (c)

the data with such specificity that the identity of

any informers who have supplied such allegations

or data will necessarily be disclosed to the said

seaman or to other persons."

As to seamen who have already been screened

as security risks, the decree is not effective "for

a reasonable period of time following the signing

of this Decree" so as to permit the Coast Guard

to revise its procedures.

It is not known at this time whether the Com-

mandant of the Coast Guard will comply with the

decree or take an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The decree was handed down in the case of Parker

vs. Lester, decided last April 21.

4

of law and elsewhere, it is part of its functions to

make its own subversive list; i.e. the list of all

those organizations which are subversive of civil

liberties. I will not debate this point although I

think that the overall effect of such a move is

against the spirit of the organization as I envision

it. Yet after reaffirming its basic principle re-

garding the defense of the civil liberties of all

individuals "regardless of the associations of

individuals to whom they may be denied," it seems

sinister to assert that voluntary associations will

be "taken into account." In what way does one

take into account such associations in defending

civil liberties? It seems to me that either the

phrase "taking into account such associations" is

ambiguous and hence empty, or there is a specific

meaning intended to deny the ACLU's active sup-

port of the civil liberties of individuals who belong

to associations that the ACLU feels are anti-

democratic. I need not say that the latter interpre-

tation destroys the ACLU's raison d'etre.

In the light of part (a) of statement #2, the

further remarks made in statement #3 (by way

of amplification?) seem at best irrelevant and at

worst a retraction of 2(a). For sake of time let us

only consider the case of a teacher who pleads the

First Amendment before an investigation commit-

tee. 2(a) affirms the support by the ACLU of the

teacher's right to free association and intellectual

commitments. Yet, on the other hand, the ACLU

also allows the employers of teachers the right to

question such association, and if refused, "to take

into account that refusal and give such weight

as may be appropriate in the particular circum-

stances." Again that ambiguous phrase "take into

account." Perhaps its specific content is given in

the prior statement of the ACLU's stand with

reference to those who plead the Fifth Amend-

ment, ie. "But the exercise of that privilege does

not challenge the propriety of the question to

which the answer is refused or the competency

of the authority asking it, nor does it carry pro-

tection against any consequences of having exer-

cised it except imputation of criminal guilt." If

this is what is meant by taking into account a

veacher's refusal to answer questions on grounds -

of the First Amendment, then the ACLU has

literally refused support of those who uphold the

principles which the ACLU has proclaimed in 2(a).

Yet, if this interpretation is incorrect, again, how

does one take into account a teacher's refusal to

answer questions on grounds of the First Amend-

ment? I'm afraid that the only way one takes

such things into account is by firing. 'm aware, of

course, of the possibility of being charged with

contempt by pleading the First Amendment be-

fore a legislative investigating committee. How-

ever, the statement in question seemed to refer

to any "authorities legally responsible for em-

ployment." The question of being forced to plead

the Fifth Amendment instead of the First before

a legislative investigating committee is also some-

thing the ACLU seems to have overlooked in mak-

ing its statements of policy.-H.F.

Questions Implications of Statements

In general, I agree with the three statements.

However, I do not believe that I understand all

their implications.

Specifically, I should like to ask whether the

ACLU in general believes that a person who re-

fuses to answer whether or not he has been a

Communist is justified on the ground that two.

false. witnesses could testify against him thereby

making him guilty of perjury. A.M.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

American Civil Liberties Union of No. Calif.,

503 Market. St.

San Francisco 5, Calif.

1. Please enroll me as a member at dues of

ee ae for the current year. (Types of mem-

bership: Associate Member, $3; Annual Member,

$5; Business and Professional Member, $10;

Family Membership, $25; Contributing Member,

$50; Patron, $100 and over. Membership includes

subscription to the "American Civil Liberties

Union-News" at $1.50 a year.)

2. 1 pledge $.. Ae per month........ or

$258 per yr.

8. Please enter my subscription to the NEWS ($1.50

Der Veer) 32 es

Enclosed please find $.......00..000000.000000... Please bill

Me

Name :

Street `

City and Zone .....

LS Occupation...