vol. 1, no. 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. I SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST, 1936 No. 4

Immigration Service Recommends Jack Warnick’s Deportation On March 16 Inspector W. E. Walsh of the U. 8S. Immigration Service after extensive hearings recommended to the Depart-. ment of Labor in Washington that Jack Warnick, agricultural. organizer, be de- ported to Canada. Attorney Austin Lewis, counsel for the Northern California Branch of the A. C. L. U., represented Warnick at the hearings. Warnick is a graduate of the University of Washington and did post-graduate work at the University of California. He came to the United States with his parents when less than two years old and has resided here ever since. The very evidence on which he was acquitted by the jury in the Sacramento Criminal Syndicalism case in April, 1935, is the evidence on which the Immigration authorities hold him now. At the time of his arrest, October 38, 1935, the Immigration Service charged him with membership in an organization which believes in, teaches and advocates the — overthrow of the government of the United States by force and violence, namely, the Communist Party. This charge was later changed to past membership. At subsequent hearings the additional charge of illegal entry was entered against him based on alleged visits to Canada in 1926 and in 1931. The first of these visits, a sightseeing trip of a few: hours to Niagara Falls, remains to substantiate the recom‘mendation for deportation. Warnick denied the alleged trip to Canada in 1931 as a delegate to a student conference and the charge against him on this count was dropped. The testimony and exhibits entered by defense counsel Lewis show that Warnick joined the Communist Party in 1934. On February 2, 1935, he sought to withdraw his membership. ‘Since voluntary withdrawal is against the rules of the Party, this request was refused. But on May 6, 1935, after a thorough investigation, Jack Warnick was formally expelled by the District Committee from membership in the Communist Party as a result of his antiParty activities.”’ Warnick denied any present affiliation with a political party. And in reply to the question, “Do you believe in the overthrow of the government of the United States by force and violence?”’ he answered, ‘No, I do not.’’ The ‘recommendation’ asserts’ that “Membership in the Communist Party at any time after entry makes the subject amenable to deportation. The claim that the alien is not now a member of the Communist Party does not alter the facts as far as the immigration law is concerned.’ ‘The Civil Liberties Union is concerned in this case because it has always held that the deportation of aliens merely for expression of beliefs or for membership in a radical organization is as un-American a practice as the prosecution of citizens for expressions of opinion and totally at variance with our tradition of political asylum. Further, in this case, Attorney Lewis will contend that the Federal courts have never determined that the Communist Party as it exists today advocates the overthrow of the government by force and violence. Earlier decisions applied to the Communist Labor Party, which no longer exists. It is also contended that the old rule is all the less applicable because the Communist Party itself has undergone changes in principles during the past few years. The position is more involved by the fact that the Communist Party in California is a recognized legal political party. If a warrant of deportation is now ordered by Washington, a writ of habeas corpus will be sought by Attorney Lewis in the U.S. District Court.

DEVELOPMENTS IN TAR AND FEATHER CASES SAN FRANCISCO, March 26 Judge Roche today granted Austin Lewis’ motion to strike from Fred Cairns’ answer in the Jack Green tar and feather suit allegations that Green’s character was bad because he was a criminal syndicalist. A libel action against Cairns and his attorneys is now contemplated. The A. C. L. U. scored two victories in the Santa Rosa tar and feather cases during the past month: (1) Federal Judge Roche denied Cairns’ motion to transfer Jack Green’s case against him to the Federal Court in Sacramento; (2) Federal Judge Louderback denied Cairns’ motion to dismiss Nitzberg’s suit against him and granted Cairns ten days in which to file an answer. Attorneys for Fred Cairns have filed an answer in the Green case which is a general denial of the allegations in the complaint. Included in the answer, however, is the charge that Green’s character is bad because he advocates criminal syndicalism. Attorney Austin Lewis made a motion to strike the libelous allegations and the matter was argued before Federal Judge Roche on March 238. As yet, no decision has been rendered. Jack Green Served Jack Green was recently served with a copy of the summons and complaint in the vigilantes’ damage suit filed against him and Sol Nitzberg in Sonoma County. Since he was served in San Francisco County, he will have thirty days in which to answer the complaint. In the meantime Austin Lewis appeared in Santa Rosa in behalf of Sol Nitzberg to argue his motion to strike the major portion of the vigilantes’ complaint. Each side was given ten days to file briefs, but the vigilantes’ attorneys have thus far failed to do so. The matter therefore is under submission to Superior Judge Comstock. Webb Still Investigating. On March 13 the San Francisco News revealed that after seven months Atty. Gen. U. S. Webb was still “investigating” the tar and feather incident. Faithfully, the NEWS questions Webb once a month for developments in the vigilante “investigation.” Our forecast is that when the NEWS calls upon Webb for another report on April 13 they’ll find that he’s still, still ‘‘investigating.”? Watch for the latest reports on the GREAT INVESTIGATION in the April 13 edition of the NEWS.

THIS IS YOUR BILL If you have made a pledge, please accept this notice that another monthly installment is due. You can save us labor and postage if you respond without waiting for personal reminders. Send all contributions to the A. C.L. U., 434 Mills Building, San Francisco, California. Urge your friends to join the Union!

A.C. L. U. FILES NEW BORDER PATROL SUIT Following an adverse ruling on an application for an injunction to halt the activities of the Los Angeles border patrol, the ACLU has filed an amended petition to meet objections raised by federal Judge Albert Lee Stephens, when he dismissed the former application for an injunction. Police Chief James E. Davis is required to appear on March 380, to show cause why the injunction shold not be granted. The petition was filed by Attorney John C. Packard on behalf of John Langan, Hollywood mining man. In dismissing the first application for an injunction, Judge Stephens, in an opinion handed down on March 17, held that the federal court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Court did not go into the merits of the complaint. The Complaint The complaint set forth that ‘on or about 5 A. M. of February 10th, 1936, the complainant was entering the State of California (by automobile) on the public highway from Arizona and was accosted by policemen of the City of Los Angeles, California, acting under the direction of the City of Los Angeles, California, acting under the direction of the Chief of Police of such city, and was stopped, taken into custody, moiested, questioned, and threatened ejection from the state unless he did then and there prove to the policemen’s satisfaction that he was not a resident of an- other state and was not an undesirable citizen. Langan was, at the time, in pursuit of his lawful busines which frequently calls him across the state lines of California; had committed no crime nor was he accused thereof, and the officers possesed no warrant for his arrest. Langan claims that he was thereby deprived of his constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States...” No Authority Outside City In its opinion the court pointed out that ‘Neither counsel for the defendant Chief of Police or for complainant claim that the Chief of Police or police officers of the City of Los Angeles, as such, have anything but incidental and here unimportant authority outside of the city limits, and counsel for the Chief, undoubtedly right in such contention, cite the City Charter in their argument to the effect that such policemen could not perform the duties assigned to them in such plan under legal claim of authority as Los Angeles policemen. It will be apparent ... that their acts outside of city territory, ‘being unsupported by any legislative or judicial fiat, are not ‘under the color of such authority. : Remedy in State Courts “The only circumstance,” said the court, “that can retain the complainant’s suit in Federal Court is a showing on the face of the complaint that the defendant is in fact acting under authority, or color of authority, of the State of California.’ The court then concludes that the acts of Chief Davis and his officers were not the action of the . State but “no more than the acts of private individuals.”’ The court submits that “‘it is for state courts to remedy acts of (persons) done without the authority of or contrary to state law. The Decision Summing up its decision the court said: “The acts of the Chief of Police, as alleged in this bill and the alleged threats and preparation for further acts under the outlined police plan, being ultre vires in Continued on Page 3 Column 1

Page 2 SACRAMENTO C. S. VICTIMS BALKED IN SECURING TRANSCRIPTS In response to inquiries from the A. C. L. U. concerning what legal action has thus far been taken in the Sacramento Criminal Syndicalism cases, Raymond W. Henderson, attorney for Norman Mini, wrote as follows: ; ‘Tn November I secured an alternative write of mandate from the District Court of Appeal at Sacramento requiring the county clerk and court reporters and the Superior Court of Sacramento County to furnish Mini a copy of the transcript or show cause why they should not do so. The writ was returnable December 2nd and on that date at the close of argument the eourt dismissed the proceedings. In due course I petitioned unsuccessfully for a rehearing in the District Court of Appeal and a hearing in the Supreme Court. “The first of January I petitioned the Superior Court of Marin County for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that denial of transcript deprived Mini of his constitutional right of appeal and that the inconsistent character of the verdict could be considered on habeas corpus since the State had deprived him of his right of appeal. The Superior Court refused to issue the writ and on February 14th I made a similar application to the District Court of Appeal at San Francisco with the same result, or rather lack of result. “In the meantime, Gallagher had attempted through habeas corpus and perhaps otherwise to secure the release of the other defendants on bail. I do not know the exact steps which he took but they were as unsuccessful as my proceedings had been. , “My understanding now is that Decker, Conklin, Chambers, Hogarty and Wilson will appoint Gallagher as their attorney as well as Norman and Crane’s attorney. Gallagher and I will agree to accept one copy of the transcript.”

STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ACCUSED OF VIGILANTISM Alfred. Aram, San Jose attorney, on March 3 last, demanded an investigation of the activities of the State Chamber of Commerce by Attorney General U. S. Webb. The demand was based on a speech by George Mariner, State Chamber employee, before the Hi-Twelve Club of San Jose, in which Mr. Mariner boasted that ‘During the past year the State Chamber of Commerce had interested itself in labor disturbances, both in industry and agriculture, and in its activities had spent about $50,000. He elaborated on the nature of its activities, and with pride and satisfaction informed us that in several instances where the evidence was not sufficient to convict the persons involved in these disturbances they were “‘framed.” In other instances some were dealt with by physical violence.”’ Mr. Aram requested that an investigation be conducted “in a manner not different than if the last, least citizen of California had been accused.” Attorney General U. 8S. Webb referred the complaint to the State Chamber of Commerce. On Mar. 12 the State Chamber denied that it ever engaged in strikebreaking activities. “Our organization has never sent anyone to a penitentiary, nor furnished any kind of evidence ‘framed’ or otherwise, for that purpose. Our organization has not interfered with the constitutional rights of anyone by exercise of force or violence, and no responsible official or staff executive has ever advocated or condoned such methods. Neither have any funds of the State Chamber of Commerce been provided either directly or indirectly to any individuals or organizations practicing or advocating any of the above mentioned activities.”’ In the face of the Chamber’s denial, Webb announced that ‘‘at the present moment there seems no reason for investigation.”’ The San Francisco News, only Bay region daily that carried the story, commented: “The Attorney General should hold a formal hearing of the charges by Attorney Alfred Aram of San Jose that a Chamber representative boasted of vigilante methods.”’ Nothing further has been heard of a State investigation. The San Francisco Labor Council on March 6 authorized its executive committee to investigate Mr. Aram’s charges.

FREE SPEECH By ALEXANDER WOOLLCOTT Free Speech! It’s one of the aspects and one of the implements of freedom. Freedom! How’s yours? Surely you don’t think of it as something earned for us in the blood and pain of Valley Forge and by George Washington bequeathed to you and me, his heirs and assigns, forever. If you could inherit freedom, it wouldn’t be worth having. Each generation must fight for it afresh, and so it will be until the last syllable of recorded time. Let freedom ring? Let it ring. What are you doing about yours? Now, I mean. Today, tomorrow. What can one man or one woman do about it? ... You want to do something new? This very day? Well, let me suggest one first step. Why not join in supporting that small band of vigilantes who, all day and all night, are fighting this fight for you? Join the American Civil Liberties Union. Send a dollar, two dollars, five dollars. Whatever you want, whatever you can. They are the . latter day Paul Reveres who can be counted on to ride through every Middlesex village and farm, giving the cry of alarm whenever the enemy is on the move. Theirs the signal light. One if by land, and two if by sea... I am speaking from the, heart when I tell you that I know of no other way in which one dollar can be so well invested in the interests of the American people as a dollar put in an envelope and sent to the American Civil Liberties Union (434 Mills Building, San Franciseo). In all the five years I have been on the air, I’ve spent no minute quite so well as I’m spending this one. (From a radio speech of December The above drawing is by Jack Green, victim of the Santa Rosa tar and feather party.

DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM LEGION BY NURSE WHO LOST JOB To put an end to alleged whispering campaigns by patrioteers that have threatened the jobs of liberals in various parts of California, a damage suit has been filed on behalf of a San Francisco nurse against the County Council of the American Legion, H. Raye Gleeson, former Chairman of its Anti-Subversive Activities Committee, and Ralph Patrick of Bakersfield. Damages of $20,835 are sought in the Superior Court in San Francisco. ; The complaint, drawn by Attorney Clarence EK. Rust of the Northern California Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, charges that the nurse, Mary Frances Sullivan was employed by the Kern County Department of Health in 2) ESO Bakersfield and that on March 7, 1985, “defendants H. Raye Gleeson and Ralph Patrick, acting as agents for the San Francisco County Council of the American Legion... wilfully, maliciously, deceitfully and with intent to prevent said plaintiff from having employment, persuaded and induced said employer to discharge plaintiff from her employment.’’ : On January 20, Miss Sullivan secured a court order directing Gleeson, Patrick and Joseph Smith, Kern County Health officer, _to testify before a notary public and to produce letters in which it was charged ‘that she was mentioned as connected: with Communists. The taking of this testimony has been delayed by legal wrangling, and to prevent all action from being outlawed by the statute of limitations, the present suit was filed.

EVEN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS “RED” TO LEGION! Branding the refusal of three Lodi grammar school students to salute the American flag as signs of ‘““Communistic activities,” past department commander of the Ameriean Legion, Archie M. Clossen, in a talk before the Lodi Post, March 5, made the first public announcement of the students’ expulsion from school. The students are Doris, age 9, Jimmie, 8, and Betty, 6, all children of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Terry of Lodi, members of a religious group known as Jehovah’s Wit- nesses, who regard saluting a “‘man-made’”’ symbol as idolatry. : In a hearing before the School Board of Trustees, the action of Principal Leroy nee in suspending the children was upeld. Trustee Dr. C. V. Thompson stated, in the face of the fact that the news first appeared in the Lodi News-Sentinel under a full page headline of ‘Lodi Schools Expel Communists,’’ that the incident involved infraction of rules and had no connection with Communism or religious liberty. This case as well as that of 9-year-old Charlotte Gabrielli, expelled from a Sacramento school for the same offence, are under consideration by the A. C. L. U. A test case based on the Sacramento expulsion igs under preparation by Attorney Wayne Collins of the A. C. L. U. to determine whether or not the requirement to ~ salute the American flag constitutes a denial of religious freedom to persons who are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Similar suits are being handled by A. C. L. U. attorneys in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont.

LOS ANGELES, March 20.—A committee of one hundred residents of the city of Redondo Beach presented a petition to their County Board of Supervisors demanding that they close the school operated by Jehodvah’s Witnesses “‘since the people do not believe in respecting the, American flag and will not allow their children to salute the flag.’ The Supervisors of Los Angeles County have ordered the district attorney to investigate and an investigation has also been undertaken by the County Superintendent of Schools, A. R. Clifton,

COURT BANS ANTI-HEARST STAMPS TEST FOR NEW STAMP SOUGHT The U. 8. District Court in New York City has just ruled in favor of censorship of the mails by the U. S. Post Office. The Court dismissed a suit filed in behalf of Dr. Edward R. Hardy Jr. of the General Theological Seminary by Arthur Garfield Hayes, general counsel for the Union. . The Post Office department had previously ruled that certain stickers reading, “I Don’t Read Hearst. The League Against Yellow Journalism” were non-mailable under Section 599 of the mail statutes banning language of ‘‘an indecent, lewd, lasclvlous, obscene, libelous, scurrilous, defamatory or threatening character.’

DON’T READ HEARST THE LEAGUE AGAINST YELLOW JOURNALISM

Meanwhile, another stamp has been pre- pared which reads “I don’t read Hearst.’’ No mention is made of “The League Against Yellow Journalism.’’ Postmaster William H. McCarthy of San Francisco has already taken the position that the new stamp is unmailable. A ruling, nevertheless, is being sought from the Solicitor of the Post Office Department both by the national and local offices of the A. C. L. U. In case of an adverse decision, a new test case will be filed in the Federal Court. The rulings handed down thus far apply only to the use of the anti-Hearst stickers on the outside of mail. There is no objection to the use of the stamps on the matter mailed. 7

I don’t read HEARST

PICKET WINS $1000 DAMAGES IN VIGILANTE RIDDEN MONTEREY COUNTY Robert Caldwell, strike picket, was awarded $1,000 damages and costs by a recent Superior Court judgment entered against Walter J. Schween Sr. and others in Monterey County. Caldwell was shot in the foot by Howard L. Dobble, ex-convict guard, as he turned to leave the Schween ranch where he and three striking Filipinos, all unarmed, had attempted to induce Filipino workers to quit harvesting sugar beets. Caldwell was represented by Paul F. Griffin, San Francisco attorney. The incident occurred in the course of the strike called by the Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union and the Filipino Labor Union of Salinas in the fall of 19384. More than five hundred striking Filipinos were driven from Monterey County by vigilantes who on September 21, 19384, burned the Rufo C. Canete labor camp. Canete was awarded a compromise judgment of $9,000 against Monterey County last October. Aroused by the expense to the County, A. B. Jacobsen, Chairman of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, demanded a grand jury investigation to uncover the identity of the mob, but as in all other cases of vigilante terrorism in California, nothing was ever done about it.

A TRIBUTE TO DR. ROBERT P. UTTER Within the past few days, friends of the late.Dr. Robert P. Utter of the University of California have made a memorial contribution to the local A. C. L. U. This form of tribute to an outstanding friend of liberty and of the oppressed was chosen because “Dr. Utter was always opposed to flowers and funeral services for himself . believing that in a world where there was so much wrong and suffering the money and energy could be better expended in helping those in need. Knowing Dr. Utter’s sympathy with your work, my husband and I send the check to the Union instead of buying flowers.”’

FILE NEW BORDER PATROL SUIT (Continued from Page 1) nature and being unsupported by any facts making them the acts of the state, actually or colorably, this court is without any jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment to entertain the cause.” Webb Says No Jurisdiction Judge Stephens’ decision was closely followed by an opinion by Attorney General U. S. Webb rendered to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. The opinion stated emphatically that, “The police of the City of Los Angeles have no jurisdiction beyond the city’s territorial limits and the Los Angeles Police Department is not authorized to interfere with the duties devolving upon police of other governments—county, municipal or State.”’ “The State law provides that police of- ficers of Los Angeles are not eligible to be deputized in other counties,’’ Webb wrote. “‘No man is eligible to be deputized unless he be an elector of that county. He may not be appointed a deputy, either with or without the consent of the Board of Super- visors.’ Despite the opinion of Attorney General Webb, Chief Davis has continued to mainoe 136 of his officers on the State borers. S. C. Model of Adolf Hitler Said the Sacramento Bee, “Now that the chief law officer of the State has spoken in such an uncompromising manner with respect to the Southern California model of Adolf Hitler, can Governor Merriam continue to be silent? “His oath of office, his solemn promise to enforce the laws, his pledged fidelity to the Constitution demand that he order Chief Davis to take his minions back to the district where they belong and keep them there.

‘News’”’ Sees Fascism

The San Francisco News roundly condemned the border patrol. “The Los Angeles tactics is a defiance of law and hence a long step toward Fascism. It should be condemned and rebuked by every decent citizen. Think of the outcries that would — go up if any similar breach of rights occurred with powerful interests as the victim. Think how quickly some Federal judge would be found to enjoin it.” In Los Angeles the City Council endorsed the Border Patrol by granting it necessary funds by a vote of 10 to 4.

HERESEY HUNTING IN By CLARENCE E. RUST, Attorney for the Jewett Defense “Hear ye! Hear ye! “The Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Humboldt, is now in session. “Bureka Board of Education against Victor R. Jewett.” : Thus opened the first heresy trial under the new California Tenure Act. Before a courtroom filled to overflowing, Victor R. Jewett, teacher at the Kureka Junior High School, came to. answer at the bar of Justice for teaching “opposition to war,” “opposition to R. O. T. C.,” “that munition-makers make profits out of war,’ “that the Russian five-year plan should be thoughtfully ‘studied,’ “‘that saluting the flag was not really patriotic— the thing symbolized was in danger of being lost in the symbol.” Unprofessional Conduct These phrases came thick and fast under the general charge of ‘Unprofessional Conduct.” And they represent specifically, the testimony of the “seven souls with but a single thought’’—these seven being former students under Jewett. They were uniformly emphatic on these phrases, but their minds were uniformly blank on everything else. And then it developed that one McGowan, a defeated, red-baiting candidate for District Attorney, had prepared affidavits embodying these expressions some one and a half years before, had procured these students to sign them and they had “refreshed their memories” by studying them immediately before trial.

Are You A Communist? Searcely had the trial gotten under way when the heresy hunt opened. Jewett was required to answer such questions as: “‘Are you a Communist?,” ‘‘Do you favor the interest of the masses instead of the favored few?,” “To what organizations do you belong?’? Here a list of organizations was submitted and Jewett was asked if he held membership in any of them; or if he had attended any of their meetings. This list included the American Federation of Teachers, the Student League for Industrial De. mocracy, the League Against War and Fascism, etc. Also, did Jewett know Sam Darcy;. and did he further know that “Darcy” was not his real name? From this stage the hunt led into the local library and the prosecution produced a list of books, which Jewett had from time to time borrowed and presumably read.

Union Activities The evidence continued —Jewett had dinner with a Russian woman; he wore an > I. L. A. button; he stood near a picket line; he spoke at a union meeting; he made inquiry concerning the location of a Soviet travel bureau; he wrote a letter to the “Western Worker’ commending it on its “improvement.”’ Tom Mooney enters the case—and the

Pick Out the Bum! One of the above men was halted and fingerprinted in the “bum _ blockade” operations being conducted by Southern California’s “Little Hitler,’”? Chief of Police James E. Davis, of Los Angeles. On the left is John Langan who seeks an injunction against Davis. He is represented by James M. Carter and John C. Packard, the latter holding what appears to be an unabridged dictionary.

MacNamaras—and Abraham Lincoln— and the parade of the radicals is on. Board member Jacobs (who objected to being called an Irishman) it appears, had had a word duel with Jewett over the relative virtues of Mooney and Lincoln—the duel seems to have ended when Jacobs’ hired man, Cloney, injected himself into the engagement by declaring that both Mooney and Jewett were s b’s: : and that Mooney was not even an Irishman. The genius of the prosecution was, at times, quite bewildering. Indeed, one might say of the whole case that it was a comic opera of the grand style—as witness the following:

Moscow Gold Moscow Gold is here the theme and a ‘mysterious lady from Russia provides the human interest. The Moscow gold, in reality, consists of interest in the sum of $2.81 on a Soviet bond and the mysterious lady was a Russian teacher traveling in the United States. But under the magic wand of Gilbert and Sullivan, behold: The Russian Secret Agent comes to Eureka to converse with her agent Jewett who is about to receive $2.81 for his services. And to prove her secret agency, she announces her arrival to the local newspapers— and Jewett and she dine together in a public restaurant—and she introduces him to the restaurant owner, a perfect stranger— ‘such fantastic shapes against the heavens, As make the angels weep!” Nobody, it appears, really believed that Jewett was guilty of anything terrible. One got the impression that we were going through a kind of ritual in obeisance to an unseen force. Nevertheless, the trial was alibeecthen interesting—interesting as well as symbolical! Interesting because of the apparent inapplicability of the laws of evidence to ‘Radical Cases;’’ and symbolical of what will presently take place throughout America when the “Loyalty Oath” laws become effective.

Tried For Progressive Thinking Jewett was charged with the blanket indictment of “Unprofessional Conduct;”’ he was tried for “progressive thinking. ” Let the teachers take note—they will be charged with violation of their “‘Loyalty Oath;” they will be tried for ‘“‘progressive thinking’’—and that trial will become an unconfined heresy-hunt and witch-burning spectacle and there will not be a nook or cranny into which the long nose of the prosecutor will not peer. _ NOTE—The court having sustained the dismissal the case is now in process of appeal and funds are badly needed to carry it on.

JUDGE REVERSES JURY’S LIBEL AWARD AGAINST HEARST AS HASTY The $75,000 libel verdict returned by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury in favor of Frank E. Bonner, Executive Secretary of the Federal Power Commission, against — William Randolph Hearst on January 17 has been set aside and a new trial granted by Judge Steven A. Palmer who presided in the case. In granting the motion for ee Judge Palmer acknowledged that his action was unusual, and stated that only once before in his judicial career has he granted such a motion after the jury has brought in its verdict. While affirming his belief in the jury system, Judge Palmer stated that he believes the jury in this instance was hasty in its decision, and pointed out that one of the three opposing votes on the first ballot was cast by a juror ‘‘who, for some reason, was deeply affected by the action of the jury. When his name was called in the polling, tears came to his eyes and he had ap- parent difficulty in preventing loss of his self-control.” Judge Palmer, in his state- ment accompanying the granting of the retrial motion, did not hazard a guess as to reason for the distress of the weeping juror, Juries in Washington and Chicago heve already awarded Bonner a total of more than $50,000 in his libel suits against the Hearst papers in those cities.

Page a American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly at 434 Mills Building, San Francisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union. Phone: EXpbrook 1816 MPNEST BESIG hoe ___Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

HISTORY OF THE SACRAMENTO CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM CASES NOTE: Chairman Frank C. Sykes of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles has just advised the A. C. L. U. that the parole hearings for the Sacramento criminal syndicalism victims ‘‘will be held some time during the first two weeks in April.”

HOW THEY DEVELOPED: The accused were active in the leadership of the Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union. All but one of the eight convicted admitted membership in the Communist Party. They were arrested at the height of the red scare following the San Francisco general strike of 1934. Originally they were charged only with vagrancy. During the vagrancy trials, which lasted more than a month, the prosecutors obtained indictments from the grand jury for violation of the criminal syndicalism law.

THOSE CONVICTED: Pat Chambers, Caroline Decker, Martin Wilson, Nora Conklin, Norman Mini, Albert Hougardy, Jack Crane and Lorine Norman (8). The original indictments named eighteen de_ fendants.

CHARGES AND VERDICT: Five counts of the indictment were consolidated into two groups before being submitted to the jury. The first group charged advocating, teaching and justifying criminal syndicalism and distributing syndicalist literature; the defendants were found not guilty of this charge. The second group charged organization of and membership in the Com- munist Party and other organizations and conspiracy to violate the criminal syndical- ism statute by means of activities enumerated in other counts. (The Communist Party remains a legal party in California with its place on the ballot). After being out for 66 hours and taking 118 ballots the jury found eight defendants guilty of ‘‘conspiracy to violate the criminal syndicalism act,” but said nothing about membership which was all part of the one consolidated count in the indictment. The defendants ere not found guilty of acts of violence.

THE SENTENCE: Convicted on April 1, 1935, after a trial lasting four months, the eight are now serving indeterminate sentences of from one to fourteen years, bail having been denied them pending their ap-peals. Lorine Norman was released on bail on October 25, 19385, however, as she was about to become a mother. The baby died shortly after birth. Lorine Norman is still at liberty pending her appeal.

THE APPEAL: Appeals have been taken by the various defendants. Seven are now represented by Leo Gallagher of Los Angeles, retained by the International Labor Defense, while Raymond W. Henderson of Bakersfield, retained by the Non-Partisan Labor Defense, represents Norman Mini. Only one transcript of the testimony was prepared for the eight appellants and their attorneys. Legal efforts to overcome this handicap proved unsuccessful. The attorneys have now agreed to work on the same transcript so preparations of the appeal briefs should go forward without further delay.

SETTING OF DEFINITE SENTENCES BY PAROLE BOARD: The law provides that the Parole Board “‘shall determine after the expiration of the minimum term of imprisonment provided by law... what: length of time, if any, such person shall be imprisoned . . .” The indeterminate sentence in each case is one to fourteen years. The Parole Board NOW has the power to fix the sentences at TIME SERVED. Conflicting reports from the Board concerning the time of the hearings to set the sen_.tences range all the way from April 1 to some time in June. ALL PERSONS should petition the Board NOW to fix the sen- tences at TIME SERVED. The members of the State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles are as follows: Hon. Frank C. Sykes, Chairman, Kohl Bldg., San Francisco; Hon. Joseph H. Stephens, Sacramento Merchants’ Nat’] Bank, Sacramento; Hon. David F. Bush, Oakdale, Calif. Hearst, Liberty League and A. C.L. U. Protest [legal Search and Seizures — The impossible has been achieved. The © American Civil Liberties Union, William Randolph Hearst and the American Liberty League all agree that the “Black Lobby Committee” is infringing Constitutional guarantees against illegal searches and seizures. ‘Says the San Francisco News, ‘‘Before this lobby committee scrap is over, the League may pick up a few points from the ACLU, which has been upholding the Bill of Rights long enough to know that assaults on liberty have to be met head-on wherever they crop up and regardless of whether the alleged victim is a prospective slush fund contributor or just a man in a picket line.”’ The following protest, signed by Roger N. Baldwin, Morris L. Ernst, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Arthur Garfield Hays, Corliss Lamont, Harry F. Ward and Raymond L. Wise was sent to Senator Hugo L. Black, Chairman of the Senate Lobby Investigating Committee:

Search and Seizure Violation “The American Civil Liberties Union has noted with great apprehension the action of your committee in procuring from the telegraph companies copies of telegrams sent by organizations and individuals whose lobbying activities you are charged to investigate. We are concerned because of the apparent violation by your committee of the search and seizure provision of the Constitution, guaranteeing that citizens shall be secure in their effects ‘‘and that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be. searched, and the persons or things to. be seized. “If press reports are correct, the procedure of your committee has violated this provision (1) by issuing blanket and unlimited subpoenas for copies of all telegrams, whatever their character, sent or received by the organizations or individuals under investigation; (2) by directing subpoenas to telegraph companies, without notice to the organizations or persons whose property the telegrams obviously are, so that they might have an opportunity to contest the action in the courts. Ends Justify the Means “The precedent established by such a procedure is ominous. It opens the way to abuse of governmental powers for pur- poses far less legitimate than your inquiry. To say that the government can get at the facts only by the surreptitious method of getting these telegrams wholesale from a common carrier without notice to the senders is to hold that the ends justify the means. “Tf as reported in the press, the Communications Commission used its power to compel compliance on the part of telegraph companies, or to enforce delivery of wires never even subpoenaed, the impropriety of the procedure is even more aggravated. “This organization has hendemmed for years any such invasion of the rights of citizens. We have condemned the policy of wire-tapping used by federal agents so commonly in prohibition and other cases, though that policy was validated by the Supreme Court on the narrow ground that Congress had not specifically prohibited it. ‘As a public policy it is dangerous to the liberties of our people, however useful it may have been in getting evidence in prohibition and gangster cases.

On Par With Wire Tapping “The procedure of your committee is on a par with tapping the telephone wires of private citizens. Such practices, however commendable the object involved, necessarily strike at the foundations of American liberty. “In entering our protest with you,. we urge that telegrams improperly seized be returned to the telegraph companies and that a procedure consistent with the rights of American citizens be followed exclusively in obtaining further evidence.”

Pending A. C. L. U. Legal Case

SANTA ROSA TAR and FEATHER CASES

1. JACK GREEN vs. FRED CAIRNS, damage suit for assault and bat tery, Federal Court, San Francisco; plaintiff’s motion to strike irrelevant matter from answer under submission; defendant’s motion to dismiss denied; defendant’s motion to transfer case to Federal Court in Sacramento denied. (Attorney, Austin Lewis)

2,.SOL NITZBERG vs. CAIRNS, damage suit for assault and battery, Federal Court, San Francisco; defendant’s motion to dismiss denied; answer now due. (Attorney, Austin Lewis)

3. FRED CAIRNS and HAROLD G. CAMPBELL vs. JACK GREEN and SOL NITZBERG, assault and battery suit by vigilantes against victims, Superior Court, Santa Rosa; ! defendants’ motion to strike. porF tions of the complaint under submission. (Attorney, Austin Lewis) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

CHARLOTTE GABRIELLI, flag salute case, Sacramento; in preparation. (Attorney, Wayne Collins)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION

MARY FRANCES SULLIVAN vs. H. RAYE GLEESON, RALPH PATRICK and SAN FRANCISCO LEGION, Superior Francisco: defendants’ motion to quash order to take depositions : Court, San under submission; damage action on file.

JACK WARNICK, deportation; deportation recommended by Immigration Service; brief to be filed. (Attorney, Austin Lewis) (Attorney, Clarence E. Rust)

USE OF SCHOOLS DENIED LEAGUE AGAINST WAR AND FASCISM The Palo Alto Board of Education has refused to permit the American League Against War and Fascism to hold meetings in public school buildings. Under the California Civic Center Act schools are expressly established as centers for organizations “formed for recreational, educational, political, economic, artistic and/or moral activities.” The last legislature, however, amended the law to exclude groups which advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence. The school board contended that the League was connected with Com- munist organizations, because Earl Browder, executive secretary of the Communist Party, is a member of its national board of directors.

PLEDGE I promise to give the sum of §.......... per month or §.................. per year toward the support of the American Civil, Liberties .Union, No. Calif. Branch 434 Mills Bldg., San Francisco, and I enclose $...................... as payment on the same. I reserve the right to terminate this pledge whenever I see fit. FLASH—Under the date of March 19, 1936, the following ruling was received from Karl A. Crowley, Solicitor of the Post Office Department: “In reply to your letter of the 12th instant, transmitting a yellow sticker containing the words, “I don’t read HEARST” you are advised that this sticker is unmailable under Section 212 of the United States Penal Code when it appears upon the outside of mail.