vol. 23, no. 5

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXIII

San Francisco, California, May, 1958

Distr

ict Court

Against (c)

`Employees

The California District Court of Appeal in San Francisco,

on March 28, ruled that four former P.G. and E. employees,

who had been fired as "poor security risks" at the urging of

the State Committee on Un-American Activities, could not

sue the Committee members and the Committee's counsel

for damages for the loss of their

jobs.

Absolute Immunity

The District Court decided that

all the defendants, including ithe

committee counsel, had absolute

legislative immunity from any

civil liability for acts within the

scope of their legislative author-

ity, no matter how indefensible

and injurious those acts might

be. The court suggested that the

proper remedies for such action

might be impeachment of the

defendants, or their defeat at the

polls, but not a civil action for

damages. The court did not ex-

plain how these remedies could

apply to the committee's coun-

sel, who is not a legislator or an

elected official but who is also

charged with responsibility for

the letter the Committee sent to

P.G. E.

Didn't Act As Legislators

The ACLU agreed, of course,

that legislators were and should

_ be protected by legislative im-

munity from suits for damages

for the results of their actions

within the sphere of their author-

ity, but argued that in this case

the acts complained of had no-

thing to do with legislative func-

tions. It is not, argued the ACLU,

a legislative function to police

private industry, or to pronounce

judgment on named individuals

as "security risks", and to im-

pose sentence of loss of employ-

ment. Such action encroaches

upon executive and judicial ter-

- ritory, is destructive of our con-

stitutional scheme of separation

of powers, and is no part of even

the most broadly conceived legis-

lative authority. Finally, the

ACLU concluded, the doctrine of

_ legislative immunity could not

apply to a non-legislator such as (c)

the committee counsel.

Hearings In 1953

The employees in question

were subpoened before the Burns

Committee in August of 1953 and

rested upon the Fifth Amend-

ment in refusing to answer ques-

tions. A year later the present

suit for $218,833 was filed against

the Committee and its counsel,

Richard E. Combs, by Patrick

Thomas Hancock, Travis Laffer-

ty, Joseph Chasin and Holden

Hayden. The company advised

the Electrical Workers Union

that the men had been dis-

charged on the recommendation ,

of the Burns Committee.

A petition for a rehearing was

denied by the District Court on

April 25, and a petition for a

hearing in `the State Supreme

Court will be filed by May 5.

The case is being handled by the

ACLU through its staff counsel,

Albert M. Bendich.

Hearings On S.F. Good

Friday Observance

Will Be Scheduled

Supervisor Clarissa S. Mc-

Mahon, Chairman of the Commit-

tee ion Public Buildings, Lands

and City Planning of the San

Francisco Board of Supervisors,

on April 21 informed the ACLU

that hearings on Resolution No.

17719, requiring flags on public

buildings ito be flown at half staff

on Good Friday, will be sched-

uled for a hearing iat the next

meeting of the committee. The

time, however, is indefinite.

On March 17, Dion R. Holm,

City Attorney, ruled that the

ordinance was constitutional. As

head of the Knights of Columbus,

he had urged adoption of the

resolution in April 1957. There

were no public hearings at that

time.

The ACLU has attacked the

resolution as being discriminatory

and as violating the separation

of Church and State.

meeting.

Committee of ACLU.

lap 8-3240.

last year's affair.

Felen Gahagan Douglas

Speaks June 13

Helen Gahagan Douglas will be the speaker Tuesday,

June 13, at Marin Chapter's 1958 potluck supper and

welcome-to-new-members in the gardens of Roger Kent's

home, 260 Woodland Ave., Kentfield. Mrs. Douglas is

flying out from her present home in New York for this

Helen Gahagan Douglas is especially remembered in

California for her spirited race for the United States

Senate in 1950. She then was serving her third term as

Congresswoman from California and as a member of the

House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was alternate

delegate to the United Nations Assembly in 1946. She

has had a distinguished career on the stage as an actress

and also as an opera and concert singer. She is married

to Melvyn Douglas, long-time member of the National

Please mark June 13 down on your calendar. All

ACLU'ers and friends of ACLU are invited. Cocktails -

and the potluck will begin at 6 p.m. The speaking part

of the program is scheduled to start at 8 p.m. Marin is

asking donations of $1 per person to cover expenses. To

obtain reservations, send your dollar to ACLU-Marin

Chapter, 253 Cascade Drive, Fairfax, enclosing a stamped

return envelope. For further information, `phone DUn-

Warm weather is confidently expected at this year's

potluck, as it is taking place some three weeks later than

"Number 5

Bishop Parsons

90 on May 18

Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons -

will celebrate his ninetieth

birthday on May 18. For those

who may wish to send our be-

loved Bishop Parsons birthday

greetings, his address con-

tinues to be 2901 Broderick St.,

San Francisco. (Please don't

phone!)

Bishop Parsons was for fif-

teen years chairman of the

Board of Directors of the

ACLU of Northern California

and he is still a valued mem-

ber of the board. On this hap-

py occasion the ACLU of

Northern California sends

Bishop Parsons its affection-

ate greetings and best wishes.

ACLU

Supports

Hleikkila

Federal Judge Edward P. Mur-

phy last month issued an order to

show cause why Bruce Barber, re-

gional director of the Immigra-

tion Service, and Stanley Olson,

his assistant, should not be held

in contempt of court for disobey-

ing a restraining order prohibit-

ing the Immigration Service and

all persons acting in concert with

them from deporting William

Heikkila to Finland. The matter

will be heard on May 2.

ACLU Supports Motion

The ACLU, through its staff

counsel, Albert M. Bendich, ap-

peared as amicus curiae in sup-

port of the motion to issue the

show cause order. The ACLU ar-

gued it was necessary to hold the

hearing in order that the court

might vindicate its own authority.

Only if a hearing were held could

it be determined whether the Im-

migration Service had wilfully

violated the court's restraining or-

der.

Moreover, the administration

of justice in this country had suf-

fered world-wide injury as a re-

sult of what the Immigration

Service had done. A hearing was

therefore necesary in order that

the public might be reassured

that Gestapo practices could not

be engaged in by the Immigration

Service with impunity.

Indecent Haste

In addition to supporting the

motion to bring the contempt pro-

ceeding, the ACLU at the outset

of the case had denounced the ac-

tion of the Imigration Service in

seizing Heikkila as he'left work

and flying him out of the country

without an opportunity to pack a

bag, call a lawyer or his wife or

to obtain funds. The ACLU

charged that this was indecent

haste and smacked of Nazi and

Communist practices. It at once

urged U. S. Attorney General

William P. Rogers to order. the

immediate return of Heikkila and

to investigate the high-handed

practices of the Immigration Serv-

ice. The ACLU also supported a

proposed Congressional investi-

gation of the Immigration Service

by the Hennings Committee. ~

Harsh Law

Even if the Immigration Serv-

ice is compelled to allow due proc-

ess of law to operate in this case,

there is, of course, no assurance

that Heikkila can escape deporta-

tion. The proceeding is based on

the harsh Internal Security Act

of. 1950, which provides that

"Aliens who, at any time, shall be

or shall have been members of...

or affiliated with the Communist

Party of the United States' are

deportable.

Only five months ago the U. S.

Supreme Court construed this

law in the case of Rowoldt v. Per-

fetto (decided Dec. 9, 1957). A

majority of the court decided

-Continued on Page 4

Navy Surrenders

The San Francisco Naval Shipyard has just reinstated to

his job an employee who twice in the past three years has

been the subject of dismissal proceedings-first on security

grounds and then on so-called suitability charges.

The security charges were filed against the employee on

Good Progress

e

in Membership

e

Drive

On April 24, ten days after the

official starting day, the ACLU's

membership drive had netted 221

new members and $1,745.70. Not

reflected in these totals are the

returns of many communities

which have not yet held home

meetings and others where pros-

pects have still to be contacted.

Goals of the Northern Califor-

nia drive are 500 new members

and $3,000. Fifty-eight per cent

of the monetary goal had been

achieved on April 24 and 44 per

cent of the membership goal.

Last year, although the drive

started a month earlier than this

year, and with larger goals (600

members and $5000), only 248

members and $1568 had been se-

cured by April 25.

Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross, a San

Francisco board member, heads

the campaign committee, which

solicited names of prospects from

members, recruited area leaders

and prepared materials for the

drive.

Close to 4000 prospective mem-

bers are being contacted during

the drive. Early last month they

received literature and a mem-

bership invitation from the San

Francisco office, which is now

sending out follow-up letters.

Meanwhile, area campaigners

have been contacting most of

these prospects.

A more complete report on the

results of the drive will appear in

the June issue of the NEWS.

Fert Mason Risk

Restored to Job

After Five Years

Nelson Tucker, 54, Oakland,

who was fired from his Army job

as a civilian fork lift operator on

security grounds more than four

years ago, after being suspended

from his job for a year, was final-

ly restored to work at Fort Mason

last month. :

On June 11, 1956, the U. S. Su-

preme Court decided that the

Federal employee's security pro-

gram did not apply to non-sensi-

tive jobs. Thereupon, Tucker,

who held a non-sensitive job, sued

for reinstatement to his job in

the Federal Court in Washington,

D.C.

The Government contended that

Tucker had waited too long be-

fore filing his suit, but the Court

of Appeals said last December

that `a dismissed government em-

~ ployee acts reasonably, and is not

guilty of laches (delay), if he

awaits the result of a suit by an-

other employee who was dis-

missed under similar circum-

stances."

Tucker was represented by the

' local ACLU in his security hear-

ings and by the firm of Dickstein,

Shapiro and Friedman of New

York, who handled the Cole case,

in his court appeal.

The Army indicated that Tuck-

er has about $20,000 in back pay

coming to him. His only job dur-

ing the past five years has been

as a part-time janitor at night, a

job which he also held while he

worked at the Presidio of San

Francisco.

February 1, 1955, about six

months after he went to work for

the shipyard as a welder. In

brief, it was claimed that he was

an active member of the Commu-

nist party and the Communist Po-

litical Association from 1943 to

1945 and in the Communist party

"during the summer of 1947

through 1948," as well as a mem-

ber of the Daily Worker Press

Club in 1943 and the American

Youth for Democracy in 1949, In

addition, he was charged with

having subscribed to the "Daily

Worker" in 1943. None of these

charges were given in detail. -

Sworn Denial]

All charges were denied under

oath and the Government was

challenged to prosecute the em-

ployee on perjury charges. The

Government produced no witness-

es at the security hearing and re-

fused to amplify its general charg-

es on the ground that they were

as specific as security considera-

tions permitted.

Finally, on April 12, 1956, the

Secretary of the N avy ruled that

the charges had been sustained

and the employee was dismissed

from his job. On June 11, 1956,

however, the U. S. Supreme Court

ruled in the Cole case that the

President's security program for

Federal employees did not apply

to non-sensitive jobs. Thereafter

the employee applied for rein-

Statement to his job and, finally,

on January 2, 1957, he was put to

work. While he was entitled to

back pay, since he had earned

more than he would have earned

had he been on his Shipyard job,

nothing was due him.

Suitability Charges

The employee had returned to

his job only three weeks, however,

when he was served with a 30-day

notice that he would be removed

from his job on February 25,

1957, for "falsification, intention-

al misstatement, exaggeration or

concealment of material fact in

connection with employment and

Investigation." Specifically, he

was charged with having falsified

his application for employment

on August 14, 1954, by not sup-

plying an accurate record of his

employment history. Obviously,

Management was hard put to find

some `excuse to fire a man who

had escaped its security net.

New Charges -

A hearing was scheduled for

February 14, 1957, but the day

before the hearing it was called

off without explanation. Nothing

more was heard from the Ship-

yard until June 11, 1957, when the (c)

employee received new charges _

that were substantially the same

as the old ones. The new charges

were made necessary because

Management had not given a

prompt hearing on the old ones,

as required by the regulations. In

the meantime, too, it had accumu-

-Continued on Page 2

in This Issue...

Bill of Rights

Not Self-Enforcing .... p.2

Fraenkel Condemns

Instrusion Into Thought. p. 2

Legal Action Taken In

Worthy Passport Case.. p. 4

Letters to the Editor .... p.2

Political Signs Banned in

Davis and Burlingame ... p. 4

Propose Labor Union

Bill of Rights ........ p. 3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California,

503 Market Street, San Francisco 5, California, EXbrook 2-4692.

Second Class mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, Calif.

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

Subscription Rates-One Dollar and Fifty Cents a Year

Fifteen Cents Per Copy

Helen Salz

Philip Adams

Theodore Baer

Prof. James R. Caldwell

William K. Coblentz

Richard De Lancie

Rabbi Alvin |. Fine

John M. Fowle

Howard Friedman

Rev. Oscar F. Green

Zora Cheever Gross

Alice G. Heyneman

Mrs. Paul Holmer

J. Richard Johnston

Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Prof. Theodore J. Kreps

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. John Henry Merryrnan

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn

SECRETARY-TREASURER: William M. Roth

HONORARY TREASURER: Joseph M. Thompson

HONORARY MEMBER: Sara Bard Field

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

Rey. F. Danford Lion

Seaton W. Manning

Rev. Robert W. Moon

Lloyd L. Morain

Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons

Clarence E. Rust :

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Fred H. Smith, IV

Theodosia B. Stewart

Stephen Thiermann -

Franklin H. Williams

GENERAL COUNSEL

Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL

Albert M. Bendich

Bill of Rights

Not Self-Enforcing

A federal court judge appealed to the San Francisco

- Lawyers' Club the other day to take cases in defense of un-

popular or needy persons.

The poor man, he said, is often helpless against the legal

forces arrayed against him, and `when there is a public

clamor for the blood of an unpopular person . . . authorities

are most tempted to be indifferent to rules of fairness in

their attempt to win a popular victory."

We who live in the United States are proud of our fore-

fathers' belief in freedom and individual rights. We contrast

this belief with the Communists' theory and practice, which

subordinates the citizen to the state. We assume that we all

enjoy the blessings of liberty because the founders intended

us to and because the Bill of Rights says we shall.

Unhappily, the record shows`that the Bill of Rights is not

self-enforcing. Again and again through the years, these

"suaranteed" rights have been violated-sometimes because

the victim was too poor to defend himself, sometimes be-

cause his views were unpopular and those who might have

defended him were afraid; sometimes by means of laws en-

acted in fear or hatred, and sometimes by mob action indif-

ferent to legality.

If the Bill of Rights is to be a living faith that distinguishes

us from communism's degradation of the individual, Amer-

icans must be active in defending its principles and prevent-

ing its violations.

One way to do-this is by membership in the American

Civil Liberties Union, an organization that has stood stead-.

fastly for the Bill of Rights for 32 years, often under fire

from those who distrust freedom and want to curtail it in the

name of patriotism, or morality, or the mistaken notion that

killing what America stands for will somehow save America.

The ACLU is dedicated to defending the articles of the

Bill of Rights, taking legal action against any law or person

violating those rights, assuring constitutional liberties even

for those whose opinions are antidemocratic, and promoting

legislation to safeguard and extend civil rights.

Northern California headquarters of the ACLU are at 503

Market St., San Francisco. Those who believe that a dynamic

defense of our constitutional rights is a defense of American

democracy can put their beliefs to work by joining.-KEdi-

torial, Palo Alto Times, April 23, 1958.

Fraenkel Condemns

Intrusion Into Thought |

Following is the "San Fran-

cisco News" report of Osmond K.

Fraenkel's address on "Dirty

Books and Clean Communities"

delivered at a public meeting of

the ACLU of Northern California

held at the Marines' Memorial

Theatre in San Francisco on Ap-

ril 14. The story sums up Mr.

Fraenkel's remarks very neatly.

The American Civil Liberties

Union, one of its officials de-_

clared here last week, strongly

opposes suppression of thought

-by censorship or statute.

Osmond K. Fraenkel, the.

ACLU's general counsel said

that, to him, the major crime is

invasion of privacy, or as he

ealled it "intrusion into thought."

"We should have the right to

buy and read what we choose,"

he told a Marines Memorial Au-

ditorium audience at the open-

ing of the ACLU's sixth annual

membership drive.

"Tf a group of us wants to show

stag movies, that's our concern.

If some of us want to read `dirty'

books, that's our concern.

"Present obscenity laws large-

ly are based on the contention

that some printed matter will

move some humans to action,"

he said.

People who set out to burn

printed matter more often than

not call themselves champions

of teen-age purity, Fraenkel said.

He doesn't agree: If juvenile

delinquents seem more numer-

ous, it's because juveniles are

more numerous.

Still, Fraenkel would support

a law making it improper to pass

adult reading matter on to juve-

niles. In the same way he sup-

ports laws prohibiting the sale

of liquor to minors.

But even this restriction he ac-

cepts reluctantly. "No matter

how violent or meager the

thought," he said, `we (members

Letters to the Editor...

Army Character Guidance

Editor: My family has been

forwarding the ACLU News,

which is a most welcome remind-

er of civilization. I note you have

been active against publicly-

sponsored expressions of sectar-

ian religious faith. Some of us

- do feel that the Union is going

too far in fighting the presenta-

tion of Christmas plays in public

schools. However, after being

forced to attend the monthly

Army classes in "Character Guid-

ance," I can sympathize with your

indignation.

Has the ACLU ever studied

these "Character Guidance" class-

es, which are mandatory for all

enlisted men? Usually they con-

sist of a few sincere but vacant

generalities by the Chaplain,|plus

a Moody Science Institute film

whose religious content is inoffen-

sive. But not always. Some

`months back we were treated to

a class on "`authority" where we

discovered that God commands us

to obey our sergeants.

On March 22 we were shown

the film, "Shield of Faith," a pro-

duction of the Lutheran Church,

Missouri Synod. It was headed

by an Army training film title

block, indicating that it is offi-

cially sanctioned. "Shield of

Faith" contrasts two small town

families, one overtly Christian,

the other "secular" and appar-

ently agnostic. The agnostic, run-

ning for mayor, proposes that a

playground be given preference

over construction of a church.

The religious or "good" father

warns the agnostic that church

training is essential to morality.

This is proved when a gambler

attempts to bribe the sons of both

families, who happen to be the

two stars of the high school bas-

ketball team. You guessed it-the

religious boy is incorruptible,

while the agnostic succumbs to

temptation, and claims he's done

nothing wrong. Christianity tri-

umphs again as the agnostic fath-

er changes his stand to support

church construction. Throughout,

the secular family is shown as

quarrelsome and vindictive, the

religious family as purveyors of

sweetness and light.

Needless .to say, I found this

film quite offensive, as did some

of the overtly religious. But for

most it was a comforting rein-

forcement of prejudice. Has the

ACLU ever considered the legal

status of forced attendance at this

sort of propaganda? Of course,

"soldiers have no civil rights,"

but still the matter may be of in-

terest to you.

Alas, I must add the usual plea

-since I have fourteen months'

active duty remaining, please de-

lete my name from any discus-

sions-Army Inductee,

Absolute Separation

Editor: As regards religious

plays and scenes in public schools

depicting alleged accounts and

happenings of a legendary age,

no infringements can be tolerated

or allowed which violate the

Fraenkel On KPFA

Station KPFA (94.1 on your

FM dial) will broadcast an inter-

view with Osmond K. Fraenkel,

General Counsel of the ACLU,

at 9:30 p.m. on Monday evening, .

May 12. The interview, con-

ducted by Dr. Harold Winkler,

head of the station, was tape re-:

corded during Fraenkel's visit to

San Francisco on April 14.

of ACLU) are opposed to its sup-

pression."

The risk that public morals will

be corrupted iis infinitely less

dangerous than the risk that free-

dom will be lost, in Fraenkel's

view: "And let us be aware that,

without risk, life does not exist."

Fraenkel contended that "on

paper" the U. S., through court

decisions, has been reassuring its

civil libertarians.

But in practice, he said, com-

munities tend to ignore the

courts, as in the issue of whether

wiretapping violates civil rights.

N

Constitution of the United States

and the principle of Separation

of Church and State, separation

must be ABSOLUTE. Secular

subjects in public places, religious

`subjects in private places for

those who desire to support such.

"The United States is in no sense

founded upon the Christian re-

ligion."--Geo. Washington-E. Lee

Smith.

Teaching About Religion

Editor: In the name of fair

play I demand equal space with

the pro-churchers, so let me add

my 2c worth before you bury the

"Separation of Church and State"

issue: I'd meet the Jim Good-

wins more than half way by not

merely allowing, but compelling,

the teaching of matters pertaining

to religion; but my mandatory

teaching would deal not with the

palpable and patently false, fic-

titious and fraudulent hokum, but

with definitely known, recorded,

documented, provable and demon-

strable facts, viz., inter alia:

1) The selling of the young lads

among CRUSADERS into

slavery;

2) The bestial sadism of the In-

quisition with its torturing;

of 100,000 men and women;

its auto-da-fe's withal garrot-

ing where the victim recant-

ed by giving all his wealth to

_ the church;

3) The venality of the self-styled

"only true church," which

for a price granted advance

dispensation for ANY crime

or absolution after its com-

mission; and this venality

permeates even secular judi-

ciary today where that church

plays a dominant role; I con-

sider San Francisco a very

good example of this;

4) The castration of between 10

and 25 thousand boys, so

their boyish soprano voices

Shipyard

Fails in |

Ouster Move

Continued from Page 1-

lated evidence to sustain

charges.

At the hearing, Management's

proof in some respects did not

support the charges, the hearing

officer (who had been called as

a witness) refused to answer

questions and Management re-

fused to produce other witnesses.

In many respects, the hearing of-

ficer violated the Navy's regula-

tions governing such hearings.

Appeal to Commission

On November 8, 1957, Manage-

ment handed down a decision to

remove the employee from his

job, so, this time he took an ap-

peal as a veteran to the U. S. Civil

Service Commission. A hearing

on the appeal was held before

John F. Jackson, Appeals Exami-

ner, on December 13, 1957.

No decision has ever been re-

ceived from the Commission. Mr.

Jackson explained that the case

had gone back to Washington and,

apparently, as a result of top level

discussion, Management re-

alized that it was in the wrong

and ordered the employee's rein-

statement. In any case, under

date of April 9, 1958, the employee

received a letter from the Ship-

yard offering the employee rein-

statement with back pay,|but with-

out stating a reason for its action.

On April 21 the employee re-

turned to work.

What Next?

Of course, there is no assurance

that Management won't try again

to get rid of the employee. Thus

far, the ACLU has had no re-

sponse to its letter asking the

Navy what its intentions were

with respect to the employee.

The employee has only about

$300 in back pay coming to him

since he was employed most of

the time since his dismissal last

November.

The employee was represented

by Ernest Besig, the ACLU's lo-

cal Executive Director, during all

stages of the foregoing proceed-

ings.

its

be preserved for the pleasure

and edification of the Princes

of the Church;

5) The Huguenot Massacre;

6) That wherever the self styled

~"only true church" is domi-

nant, it owns about 75 per

cent of all the land in agri-

cultural nations, and perhaps

the same percentage of stocks

and bonds in industrial na-

tions:

7) The abject poverty and igno-

rance of the laboring masses

wherever the self|styled `only

true church" is dominant;

8) The denial of religious lib-

erty to-all other sects and re-

ligions wherever the self

styled "only true church" is

dominant;

9) That in the MASTER AND

SERVANT (Master and Slave)

struggles, the self styled

"only true church" always

has been and is on the side

of the masters, the leeches,

despots, tyrants, fascists and

oppressors of every type;

That the story of Moses and

his 10 Commandments, which

forms the foundation stone

and starting point of all occi-

dental religions, is false,

phony and fraudulent fiction

ab initio and in toto; that the

so called Ten Commandments

' were known as the "LAWS

OF HAMMURABI" long be-

fore anybody heard of a

Moses; and since Jim Good-

win is evidently versed in

Blackstone's art, profession

or RACKET, he ought to con-

cede that when the very foun-

dation of a claim or story is

tainted with fraud, the whole

claim or story should be

thrown out sans more ado.-

Sam Roberts.

10)

Nominating

Committee

Wants Names

The terms of the following ten

members of the Board of Direc-

tors of the ACLU of Northern

California expire next October

31: attorney Philip Adams of San

Francisco, Prof. James R. Cald-

well of U.C., attorney William K.

Coblentz of San Franciseo, Rabbi

Alvin I. Fine of Temple Emanu-

El, San Francisco, Rev. Oscar F.

Green of All Saints Church, Palo:

Alto, Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn,

former President of Amherst

College, of Berkeley, Prof. John

Henry Merryman of Stanford

Law School, Rev. Robert W.

Moon of the San Leandro Meth-

odist Church, Helen Salz, San

Francisco artist, and Franklin H.

Williams, regional director and

counsel of the N.A.A.C.P. At pres-

ent, there are no vacancies on

the 30-man board.

The By-Laws provide that

"Every year, the May issue of the

ACLU NEWS shall carry `an in-

vitation to the Union's member-

ship ito suggest names to the

nominating committee, and such

names must reach the Union's of-

fice not later than May 31 in

order to receive consideration.

Please send your suggestions

for Board members to the ACLU,

503 Market St., San Francisco 5,

Calif., giving as much biographic

information about your candi-

dates as possible. In making your

suggestion, please bear in mind

that board members must be

ready to defend the civil liberties

of ALL persons without distinc-

tion, and that they are expected

to attend noon meetings in San

Francisco the first Thursday of

every month besides serving on

committees.

"Strange it is, that men should

admit the validity of the argu-

ments for free discussion, but ob-

ject to their being `pushed to the

extreme'; not seeing that unless

the reasons are good for an ex-

treme case, they are not good for

any case."-John Stuart Mill, "On

Liberty."

ACLU NEWS

May, 1958

Page 2

Propose

Union

il of Rights

The American Civil Liberties Union, from its beginning

in 1920, has wholeheartedly supported the civil liberties of

workers and labor unions, as it has those of all other citizens

and organizations. Those civil liberties-freedom of speech (c)

and association, fair procedures, and equality before the law-

are even today, in many local

areas over the country, conspicu-

ously denied to labor unions.

Support of a labor union's-or

management's-specific economic

objectives is outside of the Amer-

ican Civil Liberties Union's spe-

cial field. But the ACLU recog-

nizes that the three civil liberties,

which are its concern, can-in our

modern industrial era - flourish

only if the workers' right to or-

_ ganize and bargain collectively is

effectively safeguarded.

Internal Democracy

The success of labor unions in

organizing millions of American

workers has been marked by wide

recognition of the unions' special

status in our society. The right

to bargain collectively is support-

ed by government. Congress has

accepted as a legitimate extension

of collective bargaining a provi-

sion in a contract between a labor

union and an employer that all of

his employees must join the un-

ion if the majority of them so de-

cide. An organization with far-

reaching control over the power

of its members to earn a living

must guarantee to them in inter- .

nal democracy the equivalent of

what the Constitution requires

government to guarantee to its

citizens - free speech and fair

procedures and non-discrimina-

tion. A free society needs the

practice of civil: liberties, not

only by government, but by all

of its other great institutions.

Double Purpose

Toward this end, the American

Civil Liberties Union has for 15

years been urging the organized

labor movement to adopt im-

proved internal practice of civil

liberties. The public attention

which has recently been given to

labor union administration pro-

vides an opportunity to propose

the following "Labor Union Bill

of Rights'"-with the double pur-

pose of advancing both the civil

liberties of members within their

unions and the civil liberties of

unions within the community.

Section I-Freedom of Speech,

Press and Assembly.

1. Every member of a trade un-

ion shall have the right to speak

freely on matters affecting the

union, and every trade union shall

respect this right of freedom of

speech. Any member of a trade

union shall have the right to

reach other members in order to

present his point of view. In re-

spect to this right, no labor or-

ganization shall deny a member

the right to:

(a) Fair and reasonable access to

the official union publication

for the presentation of a point

of view;

(b) Circulate petitions on union

policy;

Publish and distribute leaf-

lets, newspapers and all other

written material, or to pre-

sent his opinions through

other media;

Have access to the names and

addresses of officers of|locals,

or other sub-units in the un-

ion, where the local is offi-

cially recognized as the bar-

gaining agent for its mem-

bers.

2. Every member of a union

shall have the right to assemble

freely with other members for

the purpose of exchanging views

on union welfare.

(c)

(d)

Section II-Freedom of Elections

and Balloting.

1. In a membership organiza-

tion, the freedom of election and

ACLU NEWS

May, 1958

Page 3

balloting is the ultimate and most

important freedom in the demo-

cratic conduct and control of the

group. Therefore:

(a) Every member shall have the

right to vote, on an equal

basis with all other members,

without fear of reprisal.

Other than voting in a repre-

sentative body (e.g., a con-

Vention, or a shop stewards'

council, or a city labor coun-

cil) where the individuals

represented have the right to

know how their delegates vot-

ed, the secrecy of the ballot

shall prevail, and an honest

count, free from intimidation

shall be guaranteed through

the presence at the count of

opposing candidates, or their

representatives, and, if nec-

essary, through the supervi-

sion of an impartial, outside

agency. This supervision

should be required if a peti-

tion containing the signatures

of at least 10 per cent of the

union membership is pre-

sented.

Any member of the union

shall have the right to stand

for and hold office, subject

to fair qualifications uni-

formly imposed. No elected

officer shall be removed from

office except after reasonable

notice and a fair hearing on

the charges.

2. To insure proper discussion

and reviewl|of union policies, there

shall be regular meetings at rea-

sonable intervals :and elections

with reasonable and uniform no-

tice to union members. At the

local union level, notice should

be given through individual let-

ter or in such forms as bulletin

board notices or union publica-

tions.

(a) Every national labor organi-

' zation shall meet in open, na-

tional convention within a

reasonable period of time

(such as at least once every

four years) for the purpose

of a full and open discussion

of union policy. The election

of officers shall take place at

this convention or through a

referendum.

Delegates to conventions

shall be elected by the mem-

bership they represent and

their election shall be held in

a manner clearly prescribed

in the union constitution, and

adequate notice of such an

election must be given to

each member.

(b)

(c)

(b)

Section IJI-Trusteeships and Lo-

cal Union Rights.

No international labor union

shall deprive a local of its right

to conduct its own affairs through

trusteeship or other devices with-

out reasonable cause and a fair

hearing within the union. If a

reasonable number (such as 20

per cent) of the membership of

the local affected requests it,

there should be a prompt review

of the international union's action

by an outside review board. In

no event should trusteeships or

similar control devices be em-

ployed for more than a year with--

out the settlement of charges.

Section IV-Accounting of Union

Funds. :

All labor organizations-certi-

fied local unions and their parent

bodies-shall maintain full and

complete record of accounts, with

adequate annual auditing protec-

tions. They shall compile a full

and comprehensive, itemized fi-

nancial report. Such reports shall

be available, on demand, to any

-Continued on Page 4

Area Campaign

Meetings

Scheduled

Informal meetings in San Ma-

teo and Santa Clara Counties

early this month will be among

final events of ACLU's 1958 mem-

bership drive in Northern Cali-

fornia. The meetings are to be

held in San Mateo, Palo Alto and

Los Altos.

Two San Mateo Meetings

Mrs. Emily Skolnick, San Ma-

teo - Burlingame - Hillsborough

chairman, has scheduled two

meetings for her area. The first

will be a brandy-coffee hour at

8 p.m. Sunday, May 4, in the

home of Mrs. Richard DeLancie,

1776 Lexington Ave., Eichler

Highlands, San Mateo. Lawrence

Speiser, former ACLU staff coun-

sel, will speak.

Prof. John Henry Merryman,

local chapter chairman, will

speak at the second San Mateo

meeting at 8 p.m., May 6. Mrs.

Skolnick will be hostess in her

home, 345 Parrott Drive. Pros-

pective members may attend

either meeting and can make

reservations with Mrs. Jerry

Goodman, FI 1-3513.

Big Palo Alto Meeting

A committee of 17 sponsors,

headed by Professor Merryman,

is planning a meeting for 8 p.m.

May 8 in the Parish House, 425

Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. Pros-

pective members in the Palo Alto-

Stanford area are being invited,

and members are urged to bring

guests. A large attendance is ex-

pected. -

Professors Theodore J. Kreps

and Wallace Stegner of Stanford ~

University will be Palo `Alto

speakers, and Prof. Merryman,

also of Stanford, will preside.

Other sponsors are Theodore F.

Baer, Felix Bloch, G. Arthur Cas-

aday, Mrs. Mildred Corcoran,

Ralph W. Evans, John M. Fowle,

the Rev. Oscar F. Green, Ernest

R. Hilgard, the Rev. F. Danford

Lion, Irving A, Mandel, Carl B.

Spaeth, Gilbert L. Spencer, R.

Marvin Stuart and Franklin H.

Williams.

Los Altos Meeting

Ernest Besig, executive direc-

tor of the branch, will speak May

6 at an 8 p.m. coffee hour in the

home of Mr. and Mrs. John M.

Fowle, 27060 Old Terrace Road,

Los Altos Hills. Theodore F.

Baer arranged the meeting for

present and prospective members.

Earlier membership drive meet-

ings were held in San Francisco,

Sacramento, Marin, Oakland, San

Mateo, San Jose, Watsonville,

Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Fresno

and smaller communities.

Tax Exemption

Loyalty Oath

Suits Cost $3800

Thus far, the ACLU of North-

ern California has spent exactly

$3769.79 in testing the constitu-

tionality of California's church

and veterans' tax exemption loy-

alty oath law. Contributions ear-

marked for the cases have

amounted to only $1056.36, so

there is a deficit in the defense

fund of exactly $2713.43.

Most of the expenses in the

eases have arisen since they

reached the U. S. Supreme Court.

In fact, $2707.62 has been spent

thus far on the Supreme Court

Appeals. For example, the filing

fees in the Speiser and Prince

veterans' cases were $200. Print-

ing the application for review

in these cases cost $440.64, while

printing the record and fees cost

$510. Printing the brief cost ex-

actly $423.75. Finally, the round-

trip travel to Washington for

Lawrence Speiser, who argued

the veterans' cases, was $343.97.

Printing the application for re-

view in the San Leandro Method-

ist Church and First Unitarian

Church of Berkeley cases, togeth-

er with the filing fees, cost

$453.73, while the printing of an

amicus curiae brief on behalf of

these churches (filed in the Los

Angeles church cases) cost

$267.53.

urlingame

May a community forbid the posting of political signs on

vehicles, homes and lawns? This question has recently arisen

in two communities,-Burlingame and Davis.

_ _In Burlingame, an ordinance specifically prohibits "polit-

ical signs posted or attached to any fence, pole, tree or ahy

object in a public street or place."

This ordinance wag applied by

the local police against a candi-

date for public office who at-

tached quarter cards advertising

his candidacy on the sides and

trunk of his passenger car. While

no arrest was made, the City At-

torney ruled that so long as the

vehicle was moving, the signs

would have to be covered or re-

moved if the car were left stand-

ing on the street.

Test Case Authorized

The Board of Directors of the

ACLU of Northern California con-

sidered the matter at its April

meeting and voted to test the con-

stitutionality of the ordinance if

an arrest were made under it.

Last September, the City of

Davis adopted an ordinance regu-

lating advertising vehicles. It

bans the operation of "any ve-

hicle used for advertising pur-

poses" or any sound truck "upon

any street or alley at any time...

except for community parades

and sales promotions involving a

majority of the retailers of the

downtown business district..."

Wrapping Paper Signs:

Last month, a supporter of one

of the candidates for City Council

carried signs on his car in behalf

of his candidate. The signs were

made of wrapping paper attached

to the sides and back of his ear.

The City Manager claimed the

signs violated the ordinance

against advertising vehicles and

directed a police officer to ad-

monish the owner of the car to

remove the signs. The latter ap-

pealed to the City Attorney, who

ruled (in contrast to the Burlin-

game ruling) that the car with its

political message could be parked

on the street but that the message

would have to be covered while

the car was moving on the city

streets. :

Amendment Sought

No arrest was made and the

local election is now over. Oppo-

nents of the ordinance hope to

have it amended by the City Coun-

cil to permit signs relating to re-

ligious, political and similar pub-

lic matters.

In both Burlingame and Davis

police have also required prop-

erty owners to remove political

signs from their lawns. It is also

noteworthy that in Burlingame,

buses and taxis are permitted to

carry business signs attached to

the backs or sides of such vehicles.

Aesthetic Purpose

The expressed reason for adopt-

ing the Burlingame ordinance is

to protect citizens from unsafe

signs and to make the community

more attractive.

The ACLU knows of no court

decision respecting the foregoing

issue. The U. S. Supreme Court

has upheld the constitutionality

of a New York ordinance prohib-

iting advertising on automobiles

but the case involved business ad- ,

vertising on the trucks of the

Railway Express Agency.

Persons Carrying Signs

Before the war, a San Fran-

cisco ordinance which forbade any

person to carry signs on streets

and sidewalks was held to be un-

constitutional as applied to signs

dealing with religious, political,

economic or other public issues.

The same free speech arguments

that support the carrying of po-

litical signs by individuals and the

distribution of hand bills would

seem to apply to political signs

attached to automobiles during a

campaign.

Tax Exemption Loyalty

Oaths Throttle Free Speech

The national office of the Amer-

ican Civil Liberties Union has an-

nounced its opposition to Califor-

nia court decisions denying tax

exemption to two churches which

refused to sign a non-Communist

loyalty oath.

Such action, the ACLU assert-

Army `Risk' Case

Wins Honorable

Discharge

As a result of the decision of

the U. S. Supreme Court in the

Harmon and Abramowitch cases

holding that an Army discharge

may not be based on pre-induction

activities but on the inductee's

military record, an Honorable

Discharge was issued last month

to a Bay Area inductee who had

received an Undesirable Dis-

charge almost three years ago.

Besides charges against his fa-

ther and step-mother, the Army

alleged that the inductee had rest-

ed on his constitutional privileges

in executing loyalty forms, that

he had received the People's

World in 1953, that he had been

"reported as having been a sub-

scriber to New Challenge" (no

time stated), and that he had

"Listed as a character reference

an individual who was associated

with Communist front organiza-

tions."

The ACLU has about a dozen

similar cases which come within

the terms of the Supreme Court's

decision in the Harmon case, in-

cluding one in which a formal

appeal was taken a year ago,

which have not yet been reviewed

and acted upon by the Army.

ed, manages "to throttle in ad-

vance freedom of speech and re-

_ligion and to breach the wall of

separation of church and state."

Brief Filed

The Union's position was de-

tailed in a friend of the court

brief presented to the U. S. Su-

preme Court in the two cases.

The cases concern the First Uni-

tarian Church of Los Angeles and

the Valley Unitarian-Universalist

Church v. the County of Los An-

geles. Both churches challenged

the section of the California state

constitution barring tax exemp-

tion to any person or organization

who advocates violent overthrow

of the government or supports a

foreign government against the

United States "in the event of

hostilities." A 1953 act by the

legislature implemented the state

constitution's `declaration. The

California Supreme Court ruled

in favor of Los Angeles County in

both cases by a 4-3 vote.

Four Arguments

The ACLU's motion claims that

the state Supreme Court's rulings

Should be reversed for four rea-

sons. They are:

1. "The oath requirement con-

stitutes an unconstitutional prior

restraint on the exercise of free

speech and religion." The Union

asserts "there was no finding and

there was no charge or evidence,

that petitioners had engaged or

were engaging in such advocacy"

(of unlawful overthrow of the

government) ... "Here, the denial

of a tax exemption was based sole-

ly on petitioners' refusal to sub-

scribe to a declaration or oath...

-Continued on Page 4

assport

Case

The opening round in a new legal challenge of the State

Department's power to deny passports to American citizens

was fired on April 8 in the Federal District Court in Washing-

ton, D. C.

~ An attorney appointed by the American Civil Liberties

Union filed a suit asking that

Secretary of State Dulles be re-

quired to grant a passport tonews-

man William Worthy, Jr. The

suit, started by William M, Kunst-

ler of New York City, charged

that as an American citizen and a

representative of the press,

Worthy has "a constitutional right

to a passport." Worthy, a foreign

correspondent for The Baltimore

Afro-American and special corre-

spondent in Communist China for

The New York Post and CBS

News, was refused his passport

by Dulles on March 24 because

he would not abide by the govern-

ment's travel restrictions and his

activities abroad would be "preju-

dicial to the orderly conduct of

foreign relations of the United

States." Worthy, who visited

Communist China and Hungary in

1956 and 1957 despite the State

Department ban on|travel to those

countries, had sought renewal Me

hi assport for over a year.

Dulles Aesision upholding the

Board of Passport Appeals opened

the way for the legal test in the

federal courts. ;

Arbitrary Action

Asserting that the State Depart-

Ist Amendment

Defense in Grady

Contempt Case

_ Louis Earl Hartman, 43, the

former Jim Grady of "San Fran-

cisco Today" on Radio Station

KCBS in San Francisco, was 1n-

dicted on April 24 by the Federal

Grand Jury for contempt of Con-

gress. Hartman is charged with

refusing to answer seven ques-

tions posed by the House Commit-

tee on Un-American Activities at

San Francisco hearings on June

19, 1957.

In refusing to answer questions,

Hartman did not rest on the in-

crimination clause of the Fifth

Amendment but cited the First,

Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Amend-

ments. Hartman attacked the

mandate of the Committee and

claimed that the questions "con-

cerning my political beliefs and

associations under the circum-

stances of the hearing abridge my

rights of freedom of speech and

association protected by the First

Amendment."

Hartman's refusal to answer

the Committee's questions led to

his immediate suspension from

employment by the Columbia

Broadcasting System. He later

submitted his resignation and is

now working as a free lance writ-

er. He lives at 2139 Stuart St.

in Berkeley.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible.

ment's actions are "arbitrary, ca-

pricious" and unauthorized by the

Constitution and U. S. laws, the

ACLU - backed complaint stated

that denial of the passport has in-

terfered with Worthy's practice

of his profession and caused him

financial injury. `"...most coun-

tries to which he would normally

travel in pursuit of his profession,

require such document for entry,

stay or transit," the suit charged,

adding:

",..S0 long as he is prevented

from traveling outside of the

United States (he is) in effect...

a prisoner in his own country."

No Statutory Power

Also attacked in the suit are

the imposition of political condi-

tions for use of a passport and

the failure of the 1926 Passport

Act to fix proper standards under

. Which the Secretary of State can

deny passports. "The... statutes,"

the suit declared, "do not author-

ize the...Secretary of State to

place geographical restrictions on

passports issued by him; they

give him ministerial duties in

connection with routine issuance

of passports and do not give him

the power, discretionary or other-

wise, to determine which Ameri-

can citizens may receive passports

and thus be permitted to travel

abroad."

The complaint also denied the

State Department's charge that

Worthy misused his passport to

enter Communist China and Hun-

gary, declaring that it was not

required by either country "as a

condition of entry, stay, travel in

or departure." The denial of due

process in the procedures of the

Board of Passport Appeals are

also scored in the complaint.

Freedom of Movement

Following Dulles' March 24 an-

nouncement, ACLU executive di-

rector Patrick Murphy Malin com-

mented that "the road is now clear

for a test of the central issue, the

power of the State Department to

control the freedom of movement

of American citizens." The|ACLU

head noted that the government

recently had conceded in a brief

filed with the Supreme Court in

two other passport cases concern-

ing artist Rockwell Kent and

physicist Walter Briehl that the

right to travel was a constitution-

al right. He also emphasized that

the ban on Worthy's travel abroad

affected the right of the Ameri-

can press to present news to the .

American public, "with the full

measure of freedom that the First

Amendment guarantees."

aseeteesncte

ge

Y

e

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership. ...:....2. ....5 3222-1 $100

Sustaining Membership. 7... a. 50

Business and Professional Membership ............-. 25

Family Membership. .....-- 22.55.2202 ld. 10

Annual Membership .. 0... . 56... eee. ee 5

Junior Membership (under 21) .....-....:.44.... 4) 2

ACLU News Subscription ........... ees ...$1:50

Ce

ADDRESS 2.3 ee

MEEEPHIONE NUMBER... 2... ..

ecco recor eo eee eee eee eee eo eo oO

eee ere eer ere eee eco ee eee eee ee eo

we AMT ENCLOSED... 5. | cent.

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 5

Propose |

Labor Bill

tights

Continued from Page 3-

member of the union, and ade-

quate annual summaries of such

reports shall be published in the

union publieation, om where no

such publication exists, by mail

to each member.

Section V-Equal Treatment by

the Union.

No labor organization shall dis-

criminate unfairly in its repre-

sentation of all employees in the

negotiation and administration of

collective bargaining agreements,

or refuse membership, segregate

or expel any person on the

grounds of race, religion, color,

sex, national origin, opinion or

lack of United States citizenship.

No labor organization shall deny

to a member equal rights within

the union and the protection of

the union's law.

Section VI-Due Process Within

the Union.

1. No labor organization shall

fine, suspend, expel, penalize or.

otherwise discipline any person

or local without reasonable cause.

2. No labor organization shall

fine, suspend, expel, penalize or

otherwise discipline any member

for any wrongful act without a

fair hearing at which these due

process protections are guaran-

teed: (a) a presumption of inno-

cence until proved otherwise; (b)

adequate notice in writing of spe-

cific charges with ample time to

prepare a defense; (c) the presen-

tation of evidence to support the

charges; (d) the right of repre-

sentation for the accused and an

opportunity to rebut testimony,

including cross-examination of ad-

verse Witnesses and the presenta-

tion of witnesses by the accused;

(e) hearings, wherever possible,

shall be open to all members of

the union; (f) the trial committee

shall be composed of impartial

persons who are not, by virtue of

office, responsible to the individ-

ual or individuals making the

charges, or selected, if agreement

cannot otherwise be achieved,

from an agency or group com-

pletely outside the union; (g) a

written decision by the trial com-

mittee, based on the evidence,

with a copy sent to the accused

prior to any public release there-

of; (h) a prompt and orderly ap-

peal procedure not requiring

more than one year for exhaus-

tion, and where possible, staying

of the penalty recommended un-

til the final appeal is decided;

(i) a final review by an outside

board. Such review shall be con-

ducted by an impartial person or

persons (1) selected by the mem-

bership of the union on a regular

or term basis in advance of the

filing of charges, or (2) agreed to

.by the labor organization and the

accused, or (3) if no such person

or persons have been selected or

agreed to, designated, upon re-

quest therefor, by any impartial

association or group such as the

American Arbitration Associa-

Propose New

S.F. Handbill

Ordinance

A proposed ordinance regulat-

ing distribution of commercial ad-

vertising hand bills has been in-

troduced before the Board of Su-

pervisors to take the place of one

the San Francisco City Attorney

ruled was unconstitutional. The

latter prohibited the distribution

"of any handbills or dodgers upon

the streets of San Francisco."

Recent Arrests

Last September, Richard J. Paul

and his wife were charged with

violating the handbill ordinance

by distributing leaflets in the Fill-

more district, protesting vagrancy

arrests in that area. Municipal

Judge Clayton Horn dismissed the

complaints. Thereafter, the ACLU

urged the Supervisors to repeal

the ordinance because it violated

freedom of speech and the press.

The City Attorney, in an opinion

handed down last December 4,

agreed that the city couldn't pro-

hibit distribution of handbills of

a political, economic or religious

nature, and suggested that the or-

dinance be repealed and that a

new one be adopted.

Freedoms Protected

The present proposal would

prohibit distribution of "any com-

mercial advertising handbill." At

the same time, it would protect

freedom of speech and the press

with the following statement.

"This section shall not be deemed

or construed to prohibit or re-

strict the distribution of written

or printed matter devoted to the

expression of views, opinions, be-

liefs or contentions relating to re-

ligious, political or sociological

subjects, or to public or civic af-

fairs, or to labor disputes or other

controversies, or to community,

state, regional, national or inter-

national affairs, or which treat of

any social or economic order, or

which relate to the arts or sci-

ences; or which are aimed to re-

dress any grievances, or which

otherwise are not distributed for

the purpose of soliciting business,

trade or custom; nor shall the

terms of subsection (a) be deemed

to include the printed notice of an

event which is not arranged for

profit or to stimulate the busi-

ness, trade, or traffic of the per-

son who causes the dissemination

of the notice, even though a mo-

mentary contribution of an ad-

mission fee be requested or ac-

cepted in connection with such |

event."

Hearings to Be Held

Hearings on the proposed ordi-

nance were scheduled by the Po-

lice Committee on April 10, but

were then called off. -The new

date for the hearings has not yet

been announced. "3

tion, state mediation bodies, or

the like.

3. Charges under the procedure

described in 2 may be brought by

union officials against members

or by members against union offi-

cials.

Tax Exemption Loyalty

Oaths Throttle Free Speech

Continued from Page 3-

This presents a clear instance of

an unconstitutional prior restraint

or censorship on the exercise of

free speech and free religion."

2. "The requirement of such a

loyalty oath as a condition to a

tax exemption, otherwise granted,

is in effect a tax to accomplish a

prior restraint on freedom of ex-

pression." Therefore, the ACLU

says, "California grants tax ex-

emption to religious bodies that

subscribe to the required loyalty

oath and denies tax exemption to

religious bodies that fail or re-

fuse to do so... The test of tax-

' ation or exemption from taxation,

under the challenged California

laws, is no longer the religious

use of property test, but a politi-

cal loyalty test."

Interference With Beliefs

3. Requiring such an oath to re-

ceive tax exemption, the ACLU

asserts, "violates the principle of

separation of church and state and

prohibits the free exercise of re-

ligion.... The principle of sep-

aration of church and state in-

cludes the proposition that the

government should not interfere

with the beliefs of any religious

individual or groups, or with any

acts giving expression to those

beliefs unless and until it appears

that such acts have actually oc-

curred and have exceeded permis-

sible constitutional limits," the

ACLU states.

4. "California law violates the

religious freedom of each indi-

vidual member of petitioner

churches. Because of the nature

of these churches, such an oath

or declaration could not be ex-

ecuted by the churches on behalf

of the individual members there-

of.... These churches have no

dogma or creeds as a condition of

membership or which every mem-

ber of the church must accept."

` tenants.

Continued from Page 1-

there must be "meaningful asso-

ciation" with the Communist

Party in order' to permit deporta-

tion of an alien for membership

in the group. In that case, Ro-

woldt was a member of the party

for six months or a year in 1935

and believed that it sought "to.

get something to eat for the peo-

ple." The only work he did for

the party was "running the book-

store for a while."

"Meaningful Association"

Heikkila recently sought to

have the "meaningful association"

yardstick of the Rowoldt case ap-

plied to his own situation. Cer-

tainly, he has a legal right to ask

the courts to judge his case by

the current yardstick of member-

ship. It is possible, of course, that

the facts in his case will not satis-

fy the courts that he did NOT

have meaningful association with

the Party,

f

While the U. S. Supreme Court

has apparently sought to take

some of the sting out of the law

by its holding in the Rowoldt

case, the Congress itself should

repeal this law, which was adopt-

ed during the depth of the Mc-

Carthy period. Mere association

should not be the basis for puni-

tive action against any person-

alien or citizen. In any case, it

seems shocking to attempt to de-

port a person to a strange land

after he has spent all but 2%

months of his 52 years in this

country.

Landlord Must

Rent to Negro

A New Rochelle, New .York,

luxury apartment house must

rent an apartment to a Negro, as

a result of a ruling by a New York

State Supreme Court justice up-

holding the constitutionality of

the Metcalf-Baker Act of 1956.

The act outlaws discrimination in

multiple dwellings financed in

whole or in part by public agen-

cies from July 1, 1955,

Under the act, the State Com-

missioner Against Discrimination

had ordered the owners of the

apartment, Rochelle Arms, to ac-

cept as a tenant, Norris G. Sherv-

ington, a Negro. Counsel for the

landlord contended that since the

landlord had received no finan-

cial aid from the state, the Com-

mission had no. constitutional

right to regulate his choice of

He also held that the

state was making unlawful retro-

active application of the Metcalf-

Baker Act.

In his opinion, Justice: Samuel

W. Eager wrote: "The Legisla-

ture was authorized to proceed

as it did in imposing a ban against

discrimination in housing; that is,

by gradual steps, beginning with

provisions applicable to various

classes of publicly owned and

managed housing and, over a pe-

riod of time, extending the provi-

sions to specified classes of pri-

vate housing projects inaugurated

or carried out with governmental

assistance..."

In view of the changing times

and circumstances, Justice Eager

held that such action by legisla-

tive bodies to eliminate racial] dis-

crimination in affairs closely con-

nected with the lives of our citi-

zens is "not only a reasonable but,

a required: method of procedure

in the interest of Public Welfare."

_The landlord will be given 30

days to comply with the court or-

der, according to Charles Abrams,

Chairman of the State Commis-

sion Against Discrimination, or

will face a charge of contempt of

court. Counsel for the landlord

has announced that he will, if

necessary, appeal to the United

States Supreme Court.

ACLU NEWS

May,. 1 95 8

Page 4