vol. 2, no. 1

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol II. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JANUARY, 1937. No. 1

C. L. U. SPONSORS LEGISLATION

When the California State Legislature convenes for its fifty-second session on January 4, the American Civil Liberties Union will introduce a legislative program promoting frese exercise of civil liberties. At the same time the Union is prepared to oppose redbaiting and fascist measures restricting civil rights.

The northern and southern California branches of the A.C.L.U. are once again in close co-operation on a legislative program, and attorneys from both branches are drawing up proposed bills. Ernest Besig, northern California director of the Union, will be in Sacramento to direct the A. C. L. U. program when the Legislature opens.

The program of the northern California Committee calls for:

Civil Liberties Program

1. Repeal of the criminal syndicalism law;

2. The appointment of an Assembly committee to investigate vigilantism and the denial of civil liberties in California;

3. Optional drill to Peplace compulsory R.O.T.C. at the University of California

4. Municipal responsibility for personal injury suffered by mob and vigilante victims. (The present law makes a municipality liable merely for damage to property.) and,

5. Extension of the use of schools as public meeting places.

Other liberal bills that are likely to receive A.C.L.U. support include:

(a) An act to punish vigilantism;

(b) A picketing act prohibiting any city or county trom passing or enforcing an anti-picketing law directed against peaceful picketing ;

(c) Limitation of the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes;

(d) Requiring a jury trial for a striker who is charged with violating a labor injunction;

(e) Permitting the opening of a convic tion on the ground of newly discovered evidence, intended to provide remedies in the Mooney and Modesto frame-up cases.

The Union will not only organize support for civil liberties measures but will fight a host of red-baiting and restrictive measures, sponsored by such organizations as the Associated Farmers, including:

Fascist Program

(1) Compulsory fingerprinting of all automobile drivers;

(2) Removal of proscribed political parties from the ballot;

(3) Establishment of a state police;

(4) Establishment of a border patrol to prevent certain people, particularly indigents, from entering the state; (5) Prohibiting organization and strikes by state and municipal employees;

(6) Prohibiting the employment of alleged alien illegal entrants, and requiring employers to keep employment records.

Senate Reactionary

No one can forecast the fate of the foregoing measures and many more that will be introduced, but at this writing it is difficult to see how any liberal measure will be enacted by the reactionary Senate and signed by the Governor. The Republicans have retained their perennial control of the Senate, where they have a reduced represe of 25 against 15 for the Democrats.

For the first time since the turn of the century, however, the Democrats will be in control of the Assembly where they have 47 votes against 33 for the Republicans. This means that the Democrats will elect the Speaker who appoints the Committees in which most of the important legislative business is transacted.

The probable Speaker is William Moseley Jones of Montebello, minority floor leader two years ago. Just what “deals” Jones has made to get the job is not known, but since Senator William Gibbs McAdoo has announced ais support of Jones, it is safe to conclude that the price was the appointment of certain conservative Democrats to important committees. If the price was very high, it will mean that many lib (Continued on Page 4, Col. 8)

MAKE A PLEDGE FOR 1937!

We must raise $2,916.00 NOW to carry on the activities of the A.C.L.U. during 1937. Our pre-Xmas appeal brought in $1,084.00 in cash and pledges. Our total budget is merely $4,000.00.

To date, about 20 per cent of our membership have responded with 27 per cent of the necessary funds for 1937. Our small budget can be met only if every member responds.

We guarantee now, as we did a year ago, that “If each supporter of the Union will NOW make a generous annual or monthly pledge for 1937, WE WILL PROMISE NOT TO BOTHER HIM FOR FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ANOTHER YEAR.”

If possible, we urge you to pledge ‘$1.00 a month or $12.00 a year. We hope, too, that our friends who are able to exceed that amount or who can increase their subscriptions over last year, will do so, for there are supporters who cannot afford to give $1.00 a month, and there may be some who will feel obligated to reduce their gifts.

We are enclosing pledge cards and return envelopes for our members who have not yet responded to the 1937 appeal. A lump sum payment of your pledge will save us the cost of future billing.

IF YOU WANT THIS IMPORTANT WORK TO CONTINUE, IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVE OUR MONTHLY NEWS BULLETIN, WON’T YOU PLEASE SEND YOUR CHECK NOW.

DO YOUR PART!

TAR, FEATHER TRIAL POSTPONED; MORE INJUSTICE FOR VIGILANTE VICTIM

Press dispatches from Sacramento on December 15 carried a meager story that Jack Green’s $25,000 damage suit against Fred Cairns, alleged leader of the Santa Rosa tar and feather outrage, had been set for trial on March 9, 1937, by Federal Judge Michael J. Roche. No explanation was given. The public was left to speculate on the reasons for postponing the trial of the sensational case for three months. It was not informed that the mob victim was in court with his attorneys and witnesses ready and eager to proceed, and that the case was postponed over the strenuous objections and resistance of the A. C. L. U. attorneys. The story behind the postponement deserves telling, not only because of the great public interest in the tar and feather trials, but because the public should be informed how difficult it is to secure justice where civil liberties are at stake.

This is the second time the trial has been postponed—both times at the instance of the alleged vigilante. The case was originally set for trial on September 15. Because the defendant had to prepare for a criminal trial arising from the outrage, the court granted a postponement until December 15. But on that occasion the defendant made the required motion with five days notice thereof to the plaintiff. The second time the rules of law were completely ignored. Jack Green had NO NOTICE REQUIRED BY LAW that a motion would be made to postpone the trial.

Maneuvered Adroitly

The postponement was maneuvered rather adroitly. First, one week before the trial date, Morgan J. Doyle, San Francisco attorney for the alleged vigilante, phoned Mr. Besig to discover whether the A.C.L.U. intended to go on with the trial. We assured Mr. Doyle that we would be ready when the case was called, and that it would take us only two days at the most to present our evidence. Mr. Doyle claimed that the defense would need two to three weeks. (The criminal trial in Santa Rosa, with many more defendants and broader issues, consumed less than six days.)

Then, without giving notice to Jack Green’s attorneys, Mr. Doyle appeared in Judge Roche’s court in San Francisco four days before the trial date and asked for a continuance, apparently (judging from statements made by Judge Roche) on the ground that the case would take too long to try at the December session of court and because the other tar and feather suit would be consolidated with it anyway. Judge Roche advised Mr. Doyle that he could make no order unless Green was represented. He then suggested that Mr. Doyle ’phone Austin Lewis and try to get him to come into court to argue the matter. Mr. Doyle subsequently reported back that Mr. Lewis was ‘‘out’”’ and could not be ‘reached. (This is news to Mr. Lewis since (Continued on Fuee 4, Col. 1)

Page 2

Let Freedom Ring

TIME MARCHES ON

The A.C.L.U.-NEWS is growing up. With this issue we start our second year of publi cation. Says Roger Baldwin, national director of the A.C.L.U., “We congratulate you in getting out, in the midst of so*much active work, so vivid and effective a piece of news reporting on the civil liberties front.”

SALUTE

The Gabrielli fiag salute case has entered the appeal stage. On December 11 tne sacramento Board of Kducation tiled a lwuuce OL appeal Irom Judge Shieid’s orager excusimy Cnariotte Gaprielll Irom satuung wae iiag. A bill of exceptions was inea: concurrently. ‘Lhe appeliants now have 4U days in which to file a transcript or the record, and 3U days thereaiter to tiie tnelr opening briei. Aiter that the case must stil! be argued betore the District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Over one year ago when the newspapers earried announcements that Charlotte Gaprieili had been dismissed trom school because ot her retusal to salute the tlag, one ot Mr. Gabrielii’s customers immediately cancelled a printing order. On December 15, 1936, the same man—a veteran, saw Mr. Gabrielli and gave him ‘“‘two good orders and also gave Charlotte a big hug... and some flowers.”

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Clarence Rust, A.C.L.U. attorney in Oakland, is preparing a reply brief in the Jewett academic freedom appeal, which may be argued sometime within the next two months. It will be recalled that Victor Jewett, a teacher in the HKureka High School, was dismissed by the Board of Education because of alleged ‘‘unprofessional conduct.” ‘he appeal is being taken from an order of the Superior court upholding the dismissal and supporting the charge, among others, that Jewett “received from Russian sources sums of money for his services in spreading revolutionary propaganda in the public schools of the City of Eureka.’’ :

KOCI CASE WITNESS RETURNS

The Koci deportation case again comes on for a hearing before a United States Immigration Inspector on December 30. Carmen Joan Dodson, the Government’s star witness who filed the complaint against Koci and then fled rather than face crossexamination, is reported back in San Francisco ready to testify.

“I DON’T READ HEARST”

Once again a court. has decided that “I Don’t Read Hearst” stickers, when pasted on the outside of envelopes, may not be sent through the mails. The decision was made by a United States District Court in Washington, D. C., in a case instituted by the A. C. L. U. An appeal will be taken shortly to the Circuit Court of the district.

HEARST RETREATS We

have reliable information that Hearst has instructed his editors to quit red-baiting in strike situations while continuing the general fussing and fuming about reds and Communists. The new policy, we suppose, will last until Hearst succeeds in re-building his lost circulation among organized workers. Hearst reporters are now begging for labor news, but Labor seems to doubt Hearst’s sincerity and isn’t responding.

TWO NEW VIGILANTE GROUPS INCORPORATED IN CALIFORNIA

During December two vigilante groups filed incorporation papers with Secretary of State, Frank C. Jordan. On December 7 America’s Civic Better Business Bureau tiled incorporation papers tor ‘““The Vigilantes.”’ ‘I'he group describes itself as a patriotic organization which is sworn to up hold in a “‘lawtul and orderly manner” the provisions of the federal constitution.

On December 9 the “Civilian Army of Bluecoats, Ltd.,”? was incorporated. lt emphasizes plans to combat radicalism, and in its expressed purposes also lists activities in behalt of pensions, stricter immigration laws and the deportation of aliens disloyal to the established government.

MOONEY COUNSEL IN NEW YORK TO GIRD FOR NEW BATTLE

With the reopening of legal hostilities to free Tom Mooney taking place on Janu ary 4th before the California Supreme Court, George T. Davis, of San Francisco, who is associated with Krank P. Walsh and John Finnerty as detense counsel, arrived in New York last week for extensive final conferences.

Under the sponsorship of the American Civil Liberties Union, Davis presented the latest developments in the case in a broadcast over WEVD, in which he predicted that the Mooney case would reach its climax during the coming year.

WHO’S WHO IN THE A. C. L. U. Rabbi Jacob J. Weinstein, member of the Executive Committee of the Northern California branch of the A. C. L. U., noted teacher, writer and orator, is Director of the School for Jewish Studies at 3261 Clay Street, San Francisco. Dr. Weinstein was formerly Rabbi of Congregation Sherith Israel, San Francisco, and is one-time director of the B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation at the University of Texas, and advisor to Jewish students at Columbia University, New York City. Dr. Weinstein is an asso ciate editor of the Jewish Frontier, and a contributor to the New York Times, Menorah Journal, Opinion, and other national magazines. Born in Poland, he came to this country as a child and was educated in the public schools of Portland, Oregon. He is a graduate of Reed College, New School for Social Research, and the Hebrew Union College.

A.C.L.U. COMMITTEEMAN

RABBI JACOB J. WEINSTEIN

REPEAL THE REACTIONARY AND VICIOUS ANTI-PICKETING LAW!

By LEWIS LINDSAY

Over 20 years ago, in 1916, amid the turbulent tides of a rising war boom, strikes, lockouts and preparedness agitation, the reactionary forces of big business adroitiy induced the*citizens of San Francisco to nullify one of the most vital and important of their rights and privileges,— the right to engage in PEACEFUL picketing. ‘lhe public inconveniences occasioned by past strikes, but especially by the cooks and waiters lockout—which took place August lst, 1916, and was maintained until December of that year, and the Preparedness Day bombing of July 22nd which led to the arrest and final conviction on frame-up charges of Mooney and Billings, were all cleverly seized upon and cCapitalized by the enemies of Labor as excuses for an anti-picketing law. Due to the fact “ that several of the more militant unions were so deeply engrossed at the time in striving for their own immediate and separate aims, Labor failed to present a united and unified front against the attack of the enemy.

Kiection day of November 7th, 1916, presented a pair of initiative measures to be voted upon—both ot which were proposed and promulgated by the “Law and Order Committee” ot the San Francisco Chamber ot Commerce. Proposal No. 8 was the antipicketing amendment and No. 9 an antitree speech measure which prohibited ‘public speaking upon the streets and sidewalks and public parks of the City and> County of San Francisco and providing a penalty for any violation thereof.” This proposition was deteated, the vote being “Ves” 65,446 and “No” 68,755. The antipicketing law, however,’ was carried by a meager majority of 5,729, the total vote standing ‘Yes’ 74,028 and “‘No” 68,299. ‘the total vote cast on this proposition was 142,327. Since then the vote in San Francisco County has almost doubled. Exactly 269,387 votes were cast at the last Presidential election.

The anti-picketing measure was modelled after a similar law already in force in Los Angeles. The voters were urged not to permit Los Angeles to become more “‘progressive” than San Francisco. The Chamber of Commerce literature declared that ‘‘There | can be no such thing as peaceful picketing any more than there can be chaste vulgarity or peaceful mobbing or lawful lynching.” “Picketing,’”’ they argued, ‘‘should be made a penal offense on the same principle that the carrying of concealed weapons is prohibited by law. ... It is absurd that under the guise of free speech the institutions of orderly government and the foundations of society can be publicly attacked by any of the criminally inclined.”

Twenty years after the passage of this mis-legislation a move for repeal was initiated by the Northern California Chapter of the Newspaper Guild. It was the outgrowth of a resolution of protest adopted and sent to the Board of Supervisors denouncing the harsh demands of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce that the anti-picketing law be strictly and technic ally enforced. The repeal movement has subsequently been re-enforced by the active support of organized labor, the A. C. L. U. and various liberal groups. After a stirring hearing on November 30, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to place a referendum measure for repeal upon the ballot of the Special Charter Election to be held sometime in February, on or following the 16th day of the month.

It is the duty of all those citizens who . value civil liberties and who believe in La- bor’s right to organize, bargain collectively, strike and picket, to muster every possible person who can be counted upon to register a vote of repeal to liquidate this relic of reaction and war hysteria.

“AMERICAN MERCURY” GOES BERSERK

The diminutive “American Mercury,’’ having broken some traditions following the abdication of editors Mencken and Angoit, apparently smashes another with the publication in the December issue of an article on the Civil Liberties Union by Harold Lord Varney, Hearst writer and paid propagandist of Italian Fascism. Lawrence Dennis, self-styled Fascist and associate of Varney, appears in the same issue. Varney was tormeriy a well-known member ot the 1. W. W.

Commenting upon the article, Harry F. Ward, chairman of the Union, declares: “It is to be expected that an agent of Fascism would see the A. C. L. U. as a Communist conspiracy. To Fascists, all democracy is Communism. Mr. Varney presents no iactual material about the A. C. L. U. to quality our uncompromising non-partisan deiense of anybody’s and everybody’s rights. The attempt to make the personal political and economical views of some of the leaders appear to be the Union’s official stand is nonsense. The Union is a ‘united tront’ of men and women of all economic philosophies united only on the singie purpose oi maintaining democratic rights. ;

Varney was secretary of the Italian Historical Society, the Fascist propaganda bureau in New York; was given an honorary title by Mussolini; and is on the staff of the “Awakener,” a Fascist paper. :

B. W. Huebsch, Treasurer of the National A.C. L. U., says in a letter to the editor of the Mercury:

In your December issue Mr. H. L. Varney makes a red herring of Communism and drags it across the trail of the American Civil Liberties Union. His attacks on that organization have the character of broad generalization; he deprecates its essential aims and is specific wherever it fits his ' anti-Communistic purposes to be so. It is his right and yours to attack a party or a set of principles, and it is not my intention to criticize any exercise of such rights. “The American Mercury is your private ‘property. But the public is entitled to draw its inference from facts erroneously stated and facts deliberately withheld.

Mr. Varney, according to your account of him (p. 510) is a New York author and editor, and an authority in the Radical movement in America. In ‘‘Who’s Who” for 1936-37 he claims to be associate editor of The American Mercury “since 1936” (sic), an honor that you fail to accord him. That same reference book names him an editor of “The Awakener’? (1933-36) a Fascist sheet, and as former managing director of the Italian Historical Society, these posts being testimony of his professional Fascism. He is not an “authority in the Radical movement,” he is merely an opponent of it. Mr. Varney’s services to Fascism seem to have been worth official recognition, for as long ago as 1932 he became cavaliere of the Crown of Italy. His article on the A. C. L. U. may be taken as a sign of continued loyalty, for the Union is committed to an unrelenting exposure of a Fascist propaganda in America of which the present article is a cunning specimen. From the Fascist point of view nothing could be more effective than to intimate that the leading association supporting Constitutional rights is camouflaged Communism.:

The article is not without amusing aspects, even though unintentional, and I acknowledge gratitude for a few smiles. Think of the A. C. L. U. as a terrifying ErlKing who intimidated the infant R. C. A. into signing an agreement with its striking employes; who gold-bricked the trusting A. Woollcott; who “baits the New York police” and who draws that novice in politics, Mayor LaGuardia, into his net!

The misguided liberal supporters of the A. C. L. U. (representing various creeds, races, colors and degrees of wealth), whose mind Mr. Varney interprets so indulgently,

Page 3

Modesto Frame-up Exposed

Admitting that his perjured testimony given under the coaching ot District Attorney Leslie A. Cleary of Stanislaus County, has railroaded eight maritime workers to prison, James Scrudder, labor spy, has coniessed that he acted as go-between for the Standard Oil Company, and the San Francisco Police Department.

‘’he eight convicted by a Modesto Jury in July, 1935, on a charge of reckless and malicious possession of dynamite on a public highway, were members of maritime unions taking part in the tanker strike called by the Seamen’s Union in March, 1935. On the night of April 20, 1985, they and three other men, including Scrudder and James Marchant, since known as a Standard Oil detective, went to Patterson, Calit., in two automobiles to investigate a report that strikebreakers were being housed in a hotel there. Just north of Patterson, they were stopped by Standard Oil detectives and guards at the point of guns. Upon the arrival of Sheriff Grat Hogin of Stanislaus County, they were questioned as to the purpose of their presence in the county, and their cars were searched. The Standard Oil guards claimed to have found dynamite, fuses, detonating caps and two blackjacks in the cars. Placed under arrest, the men were lodged in the county jail at Modesto. Marchant, the Standard Oil spy, and Scrudder, who has just admitted his part in the frame-up, were released without charges being placed against them. On their evidence the Stanislaus County Grand Jury indicted ten of the men on five counts. The case was brought to trial on July 9, 1935, with Leslie Cleary, District Attorney famous for his attacks upon the faculty of the U. of C., and Glen Devore, Special prosecutor employed by the Standard Oil Company, directing the prosecution. Charging that two of the defendants had stolen the dynamite, fuses and caps from a Marin County quarry, brought it to San Francisco, met the others implicated in the “plot,” and travelled to Patterson for the purpose of dynamiting the Del Puerto Hotel, strikebreakers’ headquarters, the prosecution was able to produce only two witnesses connecting the Union men with the dynamite: Marchant and Scrudder, both now known to be labor spys. The defendants testified that the trip was undertaken to get information on strikebreaking activities, denied that they had carried dynamite, and charged that the whole story was a fabrication advanced by the Standard Oil as part of its strikebreaking program.

The jury, despite the prejudiced atmosphere created 1n Stanisiaus County against the defendants, acquitted them on -ail counts but one, that of illegal possession of dynamite on a public highway, and on this count they made a recommendation otf leniency. The court, however, sentenced eight ot the defendants to trom six months to five years in San Quentin and Folsom prisons.

On Dec. 11, 1936, the San Francisco Labor Council passed a resolution demanding pardons tor the seven frame-up victims still imprisoned, R. Stanfieid, P. Ciambrelli, J. Souza, H. Silva, J. Burrows, V. Johnson, and R. Fitzgeraid. The action followed the presentation of proof by Atty. Aaron Sapiro in the form of 18 dictaphone records and o aifidavits that James Scrudders’ perjured testimony, paid for by the Standard Oil company, is responsible for the imprisonment of the Modesto defendants. The affidavits swear that Scrudder has boasted: that he had received $500 from Arnold, Chief Detective for the Standard Oil Company, through Capt. Healy and Harry > Majors of the San Francisco Police Department, to work under Arnold’s direction for the Standard Oil Company at a salary of $30 a week; that he subsequently helped frame the strikers; that he committed perjury because “Cleary and Jack Sayre, the ‘Standard Oil official told me to.”? Further, Scrudder has said “I broke the tanker strike. What did I get out of it? $500 and a measly job at $5 a day. It was a frame-up. I could get every one of those fellows out of prison. All 1 would need to do would be to tell the truth and tell how I made up this testimony and said what Cleary and Devore told me to say.”

Meanwhile the A. F. of L. has vigorously denounced the Modesto frame-up and demanded freedom for the victims. Eight of the trial jurors have written to the Calif. Board of Pricon Terms and Paroles urging them to set sentences. at ‘“‘time served.’ The Board, however, ignoring the specific recommendation of the jury and the petitions of thousands of citizens, on December 9th set sentences of from three and one-half to five years duration are content to follow Dr. Ward, their President, and Mr. Baldwin, their director, in the prosecution of the rights of Communist and any other radicals, and they will desist only when such groups are permitted freely to enjoy their rights under the Constitution. We pursue our purposes regardless of the views privately held by officers and members, but we have no quarrel with Mr. Baldwin’s belief that ‘“‘the economics of socialism or communism, call it what you like, are vastly superior to the economics of predatory capitalism. That’s as far as my “communism” goes.

MOUNTAIN VIEW EDITOR FACES PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR LIBELING PRESIDENT P. Milton Smith, editor of the Mountain View Register has been charged with libel because he wrote an editorial attacking President Roosevelt as ‘‘A man universally hated for a smiling hypocrite, a mountebank of the lowest order and the biggest false alarm since the creation of man.”’

The northern California branch of the A.C.L.U. at once addressed a telegram to President Roosevelt which read, in part, as follows: :

‘As one who believes in freedom of the press, we urge you unequivocally to repudiate your unsolicited protectors who are eager to have this man convicted of a felony for the statement of his opinions.”

No response was received from the President, but United States Attorney H. H. McPike sought unsuccessfully to have the libel charges against Smith withdrawn. When Smith was arraigned on December 14 he was held for a preliminary hearing on January 13, after pleading ‘‘Not Guilty.”’

The charges against Smith were filed by H. E. Beales, President of the so-called Mountain View Patriotic League, a group that sprang into existence after Smith printed. his editorial attack on President Roosevelt on November 27. Responsible leaders of the Democratic party in Santa Clara County helped to sponsor the criminal action against Smith. In addition to the libel charge, Beales, as President of the League, also circulated a letter urging citizens to boycott the Mountain View Register “in a campaign to promote and enforce respect of our country, our flag and our President.” “Such incipient outbreaks of Fascist thought,” says the San Francisco News of December 15, “should be rebuked as overwhelmingly as possible, and by none more quickly than by those who agree that Edr tor Smith’s remarks were grossly untrue and unfair.”’

Page 4

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: HXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVIBS. ............-:-0-00---Associate Editor

Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

TAR and FEATHER TRIAL POSTPONED; MORE INJUSTICE FOR VIGILANTE VICTIM

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 3)

his secretary was in the office and reported no telephone call from Mr. Doyle.) It is clear, however, that Judge Roche did not make any order of postponement on that occasion, and, in the plaintiff’s absence, had no power to do so.

No Notice

The following day Mr. Doyle again ‘phoned the A.C.L.U. No mention was made by him of his application to Judge Roche for a postponement of the trial date. Once more he wanted to know whether we were going to trial on December 15. We ..sured him that we would be in Sacramento without tail and that we had subpoened and made arrangement for the attendance of our witnesses. Mr. Doyle said nothing to indicate that he or his associates, Geary, Geary and C. J. Tauzer of Santa Rosa, would not be present in Sacramento on the 15th—and that was only three days before the trial date.

When the case was called for trial, the defendant, his attorneys and witnesses were all absent. In their places, Geary, Geary and C. J. Tauzer sent one of their law cierks to move for a continuance this time on the ground that their chief counsel, Morgan J. Doyle, was engaged in court in Oakland on a probate matter. It was also argued that the defense would need three weeks while the court expected to be in Sacramento only one week. Finally, they had just received notice that Wayne M. Collins and James J. Cronin, Jr., had been substituted for Austin Lewis as attorneys for Jack Green.

Arguments Purest Sham

The arguments were the purest sham. Morgan J. Doyle knew for three months that the case: was coming to trial on December 15. He himself selected the trial date. He should have selected it to suit his calendar. After selecting the date, he had no right to prejudice the plaintiff by setting another matter for the same date and then offering the conflict of court appearances as an excuse for a postponement of the trial. The possible length of the trial is, of course, a matter of speculation, but certainly the court could best be guided by the length of the criminal trial which lasted less than six days. And, as far as the plaintiff’s change of attorneys is concerned, that had nothing to do with the defendant. If the plaintiff is satisfied, that is enough. Certainly there was no substance to any of the arguments for postponement.

Judge Roche, however, granted the lastminute motion. “What can I do?’’ asked he. He can in any event tax the defendant with the extra costs and expenses ineurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff spent about $100 in producing his witness, paying for their transportation and that of his attorneys, and for other expenses. Such expenditures should rightly be borne by the defendant for not playing the game aceording to the rules.. The court ruled that it “will take up the matter of costs at the next calling of this case.”

The trial is now scheduled for March 9. You may be sure that the dilatory tactics of the defendant will be resisted. Furthermore, the A.C.L.U. is prepared to stay in this contest to the finish, even though it proves to be a marathon.

506 Members and supporters contributed to the A. C. L. U. during 1936. In addi| tion, 15 more were separate subscribers | to the NEWS. Won’t you please help us to increase our membership and influence by urging your friends to join the Union?

A.C.L.U. Files Brief Asking Reversal Of Sacramento C. S. Convictions

On April 1, 1985, eight of the seventeen defendants charged with criminal syndicalism were convicted at Sacramento. Norman Mini and Al Hougardy have already been released on parole. Lorine Norman is out on bail. Now, twenty-one months after the convictions the appeal is finally be ing perfected. Raymond Henderson, attorney for Norman Mini, filed his opening brief on December 23rd, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief at the same time. At the last minute, however, Leo Gallagher, attorney for seven of the appeHNants, secured an extension of time until February 7 to file his opening brief, so in all likelihood most of the defendants will be released before the case is even argued.

The 94 page printed brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union was prepared by James Lipsig and Mendel Lurie, New York City attorneys. Wayne M. Collins and James J. Cronin, Jr., of San Francisco, and Clarence E. Rust of Oakland, northern California A.C.L.U. attorneys, filed the brief.

Brief Raises Civil Liberties Issues

The A.C.L.U. brief “is concerned solely with the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and of the press, insofar as involved in this appeal.’’

“Under the indictments and the evidence,’’ the brief contends, ‘guilt could have been predicated by the jury and the Court, and the convictions must stand or fall, solely upon the undisputed facts that the defendants were members of the Communist Party (an accredited legal political party in the State of California) and/or of its affiliate organization; that they sought actively to increase the membership and influence, and to further the principles and philosophy of the Communist Party and of said affiliates; and that they participated actively in the organization into unions of the unemployed and cannery and agricultural workers, and in the daily work of such unions.

“Undoubtedly, the prosecution was motivated by the theory that the Communist Party and its affiliate organizations were committed to a program necessarily involving resort to force and violence as a means for the effectuation of political and/or economic changes, and that the unioniza-tion and strike activities and tactics of the defendants took origin in and conformed with such a program. Unfortunately for that theory, there is in the record no credible proof whatsoever to substantiate the basic postulates of illegal purpose and illegal methods.

No Brief For Communism

“We hold no brief for communism. But we do argue for the preservation of civil liberties. We think it clear beyond doubt that the convictions here appealed from constitute an extremely dangerous infringement of civil liberties since, in the final analysis, this appeal involves the right to present and proselytize peacefully for a political and economic philosophy, and the right to stimulate and to partici pate peacefully in the legitimate efforts of laborers to secure for themselves a better way of life. It becomes clear beyond dispute that such is the sole issue involved herein when it is noted that strikes and picketing are still lawful in California, and that there is in the record no credible, substantial evidence that the strikes and unionization activities wherein the defendants were involved were concerned with anything more than legitimate attempts to better conditions of labor.”

Two Points Raised —

The brief argues that the criminal syndicalism law as applied to the defendants violated (1) their constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press, and (2) “equal protection of the laws.”

Under the first point it is contended that since the criminal syndicalism law “‘is solely an abridgment of freedom of speech and of the press’ it cannot be applied to the defendants in this case unless at the time they were indicted there was an “emergency creating a danger to the peace or: safety of the State.’ In other words, ‘‘the defendants could be convicted only if a ‘clear and present danger’ to the public peace or safety of the state were proved.”’

The court did not permit them to introduce evidence to show that no clear and present danger existed at the time they were indicted.

C. S. Law Discriminatory

Secondly, the defendants sought to introduce evidence to show that there were numerous organizations such as the “Friends of New Germany,” the “Silver Shirts,” the “White Shirts,’”’ the ‘Khaki Shirts,” and the “United States Union of Fascists’’ who are “committed to the use of force or violence to prevent even peaceful industrial or political changes.’’ Since the criminal syndicalism law ‘“‘punishes only those who advocate or use force or violence to bring about industrial or political changes,”’ it is discriminatory and does not provide equal protection of the laws.

“We think it clear,’”’ concludes the brief, “that these defendants have been convicted solely for their organization of, and participation in, the struggle of California agricultural workers against degraded conditions of existence and shockingly inadequate wages... We note that the convict ed defendants were the leaders in such activities and that they were evidently the special objects of the prosecutions. We have shown, we. think, that their conduct constituted no crime. The convictions should therefore be reversed and the defendants acquitted.”

—MAKE A PLEDGE FOR ’37—

A.C.L.U. SPONSORS LEGISLATION

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

eral measures will once again die in committee.

Liberals Return To Assembly

The progressives are returning to the Legislature in greater force this year than when they left two years ago. Such outstanding liberals as Richie, Pelletier, Voigt, Flint, Patterson, Lore, Rosenthal, Reaves, Clark, Gilbert and Hawkins will all be on hand. In fact, of the 23 assemblymen who introduced the bill to repeal the criminal syndicalism law in 1934, 17 have been returned. Five of the absentees failed to run for the assembly, while the sixth was defeated in the primaries by another liberal.

But the returning liberals are more numerous than that. It will be recalled that the Assembly Judiciary Committee failed to report the measure to repeal the -criminal syndicalism law by a vote of 9 to 11. Then the motion to withdraw the bill from Committee was lost by a vote of 31 to 35. Of the 31 Assemblymen who voted favor

-ably, 24 have been returned. Four who were absent on the roll call were members of the Judiciary Committee and voted to report the bill favorably. They will also be on hand. Another absentee on the roll call who was re-elected is undoubtedly in favor of the repeal bill. Four of the newly elected assemblymen from southern California were Epic endorsed and may be counted on to vote for repeal of the law. Consequently, there seem to be at least 33 sure votes for repeal of the C. 8. law in the Assembly. The Assembly has a membership of 80.

Red-baiters On Hand On the other hand, the chief red-baiters of the fifty-first session of the legislature have all been returned, including Assemblymen Redwine, Martin, Lyon and Field —all Republicans, while John Phillips, Republican, has graduated to the Senate. The usual flood of red-baiting bills are expected from this group.

—MAKE A PLEDGE FOR ’37