vol. 2, no. 2

LEGISLATIVE NUMBER

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol II SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY, 1937 No. 2

MODESTO CASE INQUIRY VOTED

The California Assembly by a vote of 46 to 26 on January 21 adopted a resolution creating an “Assembly committee to consist of five members to be appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, to make a special investigation to determine whether perjury and subornation of perjury were committed in connection with the conviction of the ‘Modesto Defendants’.” The vote on the resolution as as follows:

Ayes—Andreas, Burns, Hugh M. Burns, Michael J., Cassidy, Clark, Cronin, Cunningham, Daley, Dannenbrink, Dawson, Donihue, Flint, Gilbert, Glick, Hawkins, Heisinger, Hornblower, Hunt, King, Leonard, .Levey, Lore, Maloney, Martin, McMurray, Meehan, Miller, Eleanor, .Miller, George P., Morgan, Patterson, Peek, Pelletier, Reaves, Richie, Rosenthal, Sawallisch, Tenney, Turner, Voigt, Waters, Watson, Weber, Welsh, Williamson, Yorty and Mr. Speaker—46.

Noes—Baynham, Beene, Breed, Call, Corwin, Cottrell, Crowley, Desmond, Dilworth, Donnelly, Field, Fulcher, Gannon, Garibaldi, Garland, Johnson, Kepple, Latham, Lyon, Mayo, Millington, Muldoon, Redwine, Stream, Thorp and Walker-—26. _Absent—Boyle, Kuchel, Laughlin, O’Donnell, Peyser, Robertson, Scudder and Sheehan.

The San Francisco delegation supported the resolution solidly, except for Peyser and Sheehan who were absent. Breed and Johnson of Alameda County voted against the resolution, as did Call of South San Francisco and Beene and Cottrell of Santa Clara County.

Grand Jury Investigation

In the meantime, spurred into action by the legislative developments, Stanislaus County authorities have scheduled a Grand Jury investigation of the Modesto frameup for Thursday, January 28. Deputy Attorney General Ralph O. Marron has been named special prosecutor by Attorney General U.S. Webb, at the request of the foreman of the Grand Jury, to substitute for the accused district attorney, Leslie A. Cleary, in presenting the evidence. It will be remembered that Mr. Marron carried the burden of prosecuting the Santa Rosa vigilantes last fall and performed quite indifferently.

The resolution, drafted by the writer of this article, was introduced by Messrs. Tenney, Yorty, Richie and Clark, all of southern California. It calls for an appro- priation of $1500. Since the daily press failed to carry an adequate history of this fight that finally resolved itself into a struggle between organized labor and Stan- dard Oil, we shall recount the story in some detail.

The resolution was introduced on January 11 and referred to the Committee on Rules, which set a public hearing for the evening of January 18. This writer took the precaution to advise the chairman that proponents of the resolution would come from great distances, and he was thereupon given reasonable assurances that the hearing would proceed at that time.

On the announced date, however, the hearing was postponed because one of the Modesto defendants was again on trial, and it was asserted that the hearing might be construed as interference with the administration of justice. It apparently made little difference that the reason for postponement had nothing to do with the charges of perjury and subornation of perjury recited in the resolution which had occurred prior to August 9, 1935. Inquiry revealed that Speaker Jones, who has aligned himself with the utilities at this session of the Legislature, induced Paul Peek, chairman of the committee, to call off the heaving after a couference with Mi. Stevens, Standard Oil lobbyist.

Maritime Workers Attend Hearing

Two bus loads of maritime strikers appeared for the abortive hearing. An impromptu meeting was held in one of the committee rooms which was addressed by Assemblymen Yorty, Richie and Patterson. (Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

H-E-L-P May we urge you to send in your pledge for 1937, if you have not already done so. Thus far less than half of our budget of $4,000 has been raised. Remember, a pledge of $1.00 a month will keep the A.C.L.U. on the firing line. .

Revengeful Witness Repudiates Testimony In Koci Case

Carmen Joan Dodson, the Government’s star witness in the Koci deportation case, recently repudiated parts of her original testimony against Fred Koci. When cross- examined by Austin Lewis, counsel for Koci, Miss Dodson frequently denied that she had been asked the questions or given the answers credited to her in the transcript of the record prepared by the Immigration service.

Furthermore, she indicated that the motive of her complaint was revenge. At the time she denounced Koci to the Immigration authorities, and even now, she believed that he and others were plotting to have her child made a ward of the courts. Frank Koci, in her opinion, was the chief conspirator.

Miss Dodson testified that her name was originally Carmen Browder but that she has also been known as Dagmore Dahlgren, Mrs. Norma Selby, Mrs. Victor Rattmen, Mrs. Alex Klipper and Mrs. James McDonald. She failed to give the name of another ex-husband because she claimed that annulment proceedings are pending.

Witnesses called on behalf of Koci to impeach Miss Dodson were James D. Osborn and Mrs. Lucy C. Hibbard. Hearings on the case have been continued indefinitely.

SIX A.C.L.U. MEASURES INTRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY

The following six-point A.C.L.U. California legislative program was introduced in the Assembly during the past few weeks:

I. Investigation of Modesto Frame-Up

An Assembly resolution to investigate charges of perjury and subornation of perjury in the case of the ‘““Modesto Defendants.” Introduced by Messrs. Tenney, Yorty, Richie and Clark and adopted by a vote of 46 to 26.

II. C.S. Repeal

A. B. No. 311, introduced by Messrs. Richie, Tenney, Hawkins, Lore, Clark, Pelletier, Yorty, King, Voigt, Gilbert, Rosenthal, Hunt, Reaves, Meehan, Cassidy. George P. Miller, Flint, laughlin, Welsh, ss a Patterson, Donihue, Peek and Maloney. Referred to the Committee on Crime Prob~“Tems. An outright repeal of the California criminal syndicalism law sponsored by 23 assemblymen.

III. Liberalizing Civic Center Act

A. B. No. 430, introduced by Paul Richie and referred to the Committee on Education. The proposed law strikes out redbaiting provisions enacted at the last session of the Legislature and provides specifically that,

“Such use (of the Civic Center) must be granted without regard to the race, color, creed, political opinions or economic views of said individual, society, group or organization, and without limitation or restriction, direct or indirect, upon the discussion of any subject or subjects or the expression of any opinion at such civic center.”

IV. Damages for Vigilante Outrages

A. B. No. 270, introduced by Augustus Hawkins and referred to the Committee on Municipal Corporations. Creates municipal responsibility for the death or injury of any person caused by mobs or riots.

V. Limits Application of Vagrancy Law

A. B. No. 659, introduced by Jack B. Tenney and referred to the Committee on Crime Problems. The bill provides specifically that,

“No person on strike shall be considered a vagrant, nor shall any person be held a. vagrant who refuses work or employment in a trade or occupation of a business or industry when a strike is in progress at such business or industry.”

-VI. Eliminates Compulsory Drill

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 13, introduced by Messrs. Tenney and Lore, and referred to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. The bill provides that, ‘No student in the University of California shall ever be compelled to take a course in military training or tactics.’? The Northern California Committee of the A.C.L.U. favors a limitation of this bill to read, “No student in the University of California who has conscientious objections shall ever be compelled to take a course in military training or tactics.’ (Continued on Page 8, Col. 1)

Page 2

U. 5. Supreme Catiee Nheriond In De Jong Case

The United States Supreme Court on January 4, 1937, handed down the following unanimous decision reversing the conviction on criminal syndicalism charges of Dirk De Jong, Oregon Communist:

The charge is.that appellant assisted in the conduct of a meeting which was called under the auspices of the Communist party, an organization advocating criminal syndicalism. The defense was that the meeting was public and orderly and was held for a lawful purpose; that while it was held under the auspices of the Com‘munist party, neither criminal syndicalism nor any unlawful conduct was taught or advocated at the meeting either by appellant or by others.

Appellant moved for a direction of acquittal, contending that the statute as ap- plied to him, for merely assisting’ at a meeting called by the Communist party at which nothing unlawful was done or advocated, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. of the Constitution of the United States.

This contention was overruled. -Appellant was found guilty as charged and was. sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, which considered the constitutional question and sustained the statute as thus applied. The: case comes here on appeal.

A stipulation of facts ‘set forth various _ extracts from the literature of the Com- munist party to show its advocacy of criminal syndicalism. The stipulation does not disclose any activity by the defendant as a basis for his prosecution other than his participation in the meeting in question. .Nordoes the stipulation show that the Communist literature distributed at the meeting contained any advocacy of criminal syndicalism or of any unlawful conicduct.... .

It was admitted by the Attorney Central of the State in his argument at the bar of this court that the literature distributed in the meeting was not of that sort and that the extracts contained in the stipulation were taken from Communist literature found elsewhere. Its introduction in evidence was for the purpose of showing that the Communist party as such did advocate the doctrine of criminal syndicalism, a fact which is not disputed on this appeal. ...

On the theory that the indictment was a charge that criminal syndicalism and sabotage were advocated at the meeting in question, defendant moved for acquittal insisting that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction. The trial court denied his motion and error in this respect was assigned on appeal.

State Court Overruled Contention

The Supreme Court of the State put aside that contention by ruling that the indict- ment did not charge that criminal syndicalism or sabotage was advocated at the meeting described in the evidence, either by defendant or by any one else. The words of the indictment that “said assemblage of persons, organization, society and group did then and there unlawfully and feloniously teach and advocate the doctrine of criminal syndicalism and sabotage,” referred not to the meeting in question, or to anything then and there said or done by defendant or others, but to the advocacy of criminal syndicalism and sabotage by the Communist party in Multnomah County.

Takes Indictment As Construed

In this view, lack of sufficient evidence as to illegal advocacy or action at the meet- ing became immaterial. Having limited the charge to defendant’s participation in a meeting called by the Communist party, the State Court sustained the conviction upon that basis regardless of What was said or done at the meeting.

We must take the indictment as thus construed. Conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process. It thus appears that, while defendant was a member of the Compiunict party, he was not indicted for participating in its organization, or for joining it, or for soliciting members or for distributing its literature. He was not charged with teaching or advocating criminal syndicalism or sabotage or any unlawful acts, either at the meeting or elsewhere.

He was accordingly deprived of the benefits of evidence as to the orderly and lawful conduct of the meeting and that it was not called or used for the advocacy of criminal syndicalism or sabotage or any unlawful action. His sole offense as charged, and for which he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years, was that he had assisted in the conduct of a public meeting, albeit otherwise lawful, which was held under the auspices of the Communist party.

The broad reach of the statute as thus applied is plain. While defendant was a member of the Communist party, that membership was not necessary to conviction on such a charge. A like fate might have attended any speaker, although not a member who “assisted in the conduct’ of the meeting. However innocuous the object_of the meeting, however lawful the subjects and tenor of the addresses, however reasonable and timely the discussion, all those assisting in the conduct of the meeting would be subject to imprisonment as felons if the meeting were held by the Communist party.

Finds Free Speech Curtailed

This manifest result was brought out sharply at this bar by the concessions which the Attorney General made, and could not avoid, in the light of the decision of the State court. Thus if the Communist party had called a public meeting in Portland to discuss the tariff, or the foreign policy of the government, or taxation, or relief, or candidacies for the offices of President, members of Congress, Governor or State legislators, every speaker who assisted in the conduct of the meeting would be equally guilty with the defendant in this case, upon the charge as here defined and sustained.

The list of illustrations might be indefinitely extended to every variety of meet- ings under the auspices of the Communist party although held for the discussion of political issues or to adopt protests and pass resolutions of an entirely innocent and proper character.

While the States are entitled to protect themselves from the abuse of the privileges of our institutions through an attempted substitution of force and violence in the place of peaceful political action in order to effect revolutionary changes in government, none of our decisions: go to the length of sustaining such a curtailment of the right of free speech and assembly as the Oregon statute demands i in its present application. ...

Freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The right of peaceful assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.

As this court said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552: “The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgment by Congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions, principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause.

Peaceable Assembly Upheld

These rights may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite to violence and crime. The people, through their Legislatures, may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed.

The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.

It follows from these considerations that, consistently with the Federal Constitu- tion, peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist inthe conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The. question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held, but as to its purpose; notas to the relations of the. speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.

If the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, if they have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other. violation of valid laws.

But it is a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the basis for a criminal charge.

We are not called upon to review the findings of the State court as to the objectives of the Communist party. Notwithstanding those objectives, the defendant still enjoyed his personal right of free speech and to take part in a peaceable assembly having a lawful purpose, although called by that party. The defendant was none the less entitled to discuss the public issues of the day and thus in a lawful manner, without incitement to violence or crime, to seek redress of alleged grievances. That was of the essence of his guaranteed personal liberty.

Conviction Is Reversed

We hold that the Oregon statute as applied to the particular charge as defined by the State court is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

SACRAMENTO C. S. CASES

Leo Gallagher, attorney for seven of the Sacramento criminal syndicalism victims, secured an extension of time to January 7 in which to file his opening brief in the Dis- trict Court of Appeal, not February 7, as reported in the January issue of the NEWS. The State now has until February 7 to file its brief unless a further extension is grant- ed. Caroline Decker and Nora Conklin, two of the appellants, who are serving five year sentences in Tehachapi, will he released on parole for two and one-half years on April 27 and May 27 respectively, according to present reports.

Page 3

NO RED-BAITING AND FEW FASCIST BILLS INTRODUCED IN LEGISLATURE

When the Fifty-Second session of the California Legislature adjourned for the constitutional recess on January 22nd, not one red-baiting bill had been introduced, so far as we can ascertain at this time from the titles of the bills listed in the legisla- tive histories. While Messrs. Martin, Redwine and Lyon, who introduced the majority of the bumper crop of two years ago, were again on hand, they restricted their authorship of bills to other fields than redbaiting.

This does not mean, of course, that the first half of the bifurcated session did not produce proposed legislation with a fascist tendency. But the fascist legislation is about as scarce as hen’s teeth. Excluding bills for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes we find the following:

I. R.O.T.C. In State Colleges

' A. B. 1238, introduced by Messrs. Gannon, Millington, George P. Miller, Redwine, Cottrell, Scudder, Dilworth, Dawson, Desmond, Williamson, O’Donnell, Stream, Latham, Call, Corwin, Walker and Cronin, and referred to the Committee on State Colleges. The bill provides that “courses in military science and tactics may be given in State colleges in conformance with the * laws of the United States made and provided with reference to R.O.T. Cc. units in educational institutions.’’

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by. Quinn of Humboldt County and 13.others. (S. B. 508). While we have been unable to secure the text of the bill because it has not yet been returned from the State Printer, the title as recorded in the Senate History declares that it is an act to amend certain sections of the School Code “‘relat- ing to the establishment of R.O.T.C. units in State colleges and the teaching of eourses in military science and tactics in connection therewith.”

. . IL. Fingerprinting

A. B. 2059, introduced by Hubert Scudder of Sebastapol, who is accused of being one of the Santa Rosa vigilantes, in an action now pending in the Superior Court in Sonoma County. While the bill has not _yet been printed, the title defines it as “An act to amend section 265 of the Vehicle Code, relating to the finger-printing of applicants for operators’ and chauffeurs’ licenses.”’” We assume that that means compulsory. finger-printing for all applicants. ~The measure has been referred to the Committee on Motor Vehicles.

III. Freedom of the Press

One of our friends from Los Angeles, Assemblyman Cecil R. King, has introduced two bills (A. B. 2019 and 2020) that may interfere with the freedom of the press. Neither one of the bills has come back from the printer. The first relates ‘‘to publishing news of crime.’’ We saw a restrictive measure of this type floating around the Assembly floor which prohibited the publication of the race, religion, etc., of a person convicted of a crime. The intention peemed to be good but the remedy, to our mind, is objectionable.

Mr. King’s second bill relates “to false news in a newspaper or other periodical.” The bill will stand examination when it is printed.

RED-BAITERS SUED FOR LIBEL

Henry P. Melnikow, head of the Pacific Coast Labor Bureau, which represents a number of the waterfront unions in present negotiations with the employers, has instituted a libel suit-against The American League Against Communism because its literature referred to him as the “official Communist overseer for the ‘brain-bust-. ers.’ ”

A. C. L. U. MEASURES (Continued from Page 1, Cal. 3)

Seventh Measure

A seventh measure will be introduced at the second session of the Legislature. It provides for an Assembly investigation into the denial of civil liberties in California and the undue interference with labor’s right to organize and bargain collectively.

An Analysis Of Proposed Civil Liberties Legislation In Calif.

The California Legislature has adjourned until March 1. Much liberal legislation has been introduced, but we adhere to our original forecast—it will die in the reactionary Senate. What is more, it is apt to die in one of the many reactionary Assembly Committees appointed by the erstwhile Epic, William Moseley Jones, who was elected Speaker by the first Democratic Assembly since the turn of the century.

On every hand in Sacramento one hears that Mr. Jones has double-crossed certain assemblymen in his committee assignments. Promises, it is charged, have been unhesi- tatingly violated. The liberals feel once again that they have been ‘sold out.” Many were prepared to support an abortive move to depose Mr. Jones as Speaker. At any rate, most of the genuine liberals are convinced now that Jones has sold out to.the special interests and that he is nothing less than another Judas of the progressive movement.

The evidence to support such charges is strong. A survey of the committee assignments shows that the Labor and Capital Committee is the only one having a genuine liberal majority. The criminal syndicalism repeal bill which bears the names of 23 sponsors was sent to the reactionary Crime Problems Committee where there is only one known liberal vote out of seven members. It therefore looks as though the bill would die in committee unless a majority vote is secured on the floor of the Assembly to withdraw it from Committee. That will be the fate of many of the following measures:

Legislative Pardon for Money

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 18, was introduced by 27 assemblymen headed by Paul Richie. It would grant a full and complete legislative pardon to Thomas J. Mooney. The resolution was referred to the Assembly Rules Committee where it should receive favorable action, especially since four of the seven members of that Committee have joined as co-authors of the resolution.

The proponents of the resolution argue ’ that the Legislature, as well as the Gover- nor, has the power to grant a pardon. Since the action is taken in the form of a resolu- tion instead of a bill, if both branches of the Legislature approve it, it will become law without the Governor’s signature. Unrestricted Use of Civic Centers Senate Bill 319, introduced by Senator Harry C. Westover, Democrat of Orange County, amends the Civic Center Act to permit unrestricted use of schoolhouses for meetings. It strikes out red-baiting provisions adopted in 1935 and adds, “‘provided, however, that boards of school trustees and city boards of education in the granting or denying of the right to use school buildings for public meetings, conferred upon the groups hereinabove designated, shall not take into consideration the political opinions, economic views, or political, economic or social affiliation of said applicants or groups or in any manner, directly or indirectly, interfere with or censor an expression of any opinion at said meetings.

Gallagher Disbarment Bill

Among the Assembly bills not yet printed are many that will undoubtedly strengthen civil liberties in California, if the titles are any gauge. First, there is A. B. 1584, introduced by Mr. Pelletier and referred to the Committee on Judiciary General. The title designates it as an act “providing against the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of a member of the State Bar for statements concerning a judge during an election campaign.” The bill is apparently aimed at the case of Leo Gallagher, attorney for the I.L.D., who in the course of an election campaign last October made remarks about an incumbent, red-baiting judge which are now being used as the basis of disbarment proceedings.

Public Order Bill

A. B. 2015, introduced by Cecil R. King, and referred to the Committee on Judiciary General, is entitled, “An act to prohibit private armies, to prohibit the unauthorized wearing of uniforms in connection with political objects, and to make provision for the preservation of public order on the occasion of public parades and meetings in public places.’”? The title of this act sounds very much like the public order bill that was recently enacted in England and aimed at Sir Oswald Moseley’s fascist forces.

Academic Freedom

A. B. 2645, introduced by Ellis Patterson, and referred to the Committee on Education of which he is a member, declares in its title that it is an act “relating to inquiry into political and economic affiliations or beliefs of applicants for teaching posi- tions.’”’ Since Mr. Patterson is a liberal, it is safe to say that such inquiries are prohibited.

Race and Religion

A. B. 2685, introduced by Ben Rosenthal and referred to the Committee on Crime Problems, is declared to be an act ‘‘making | the violation of the civil rights of citizens of race, color, or religious belief a misdemeanor”’

Strike Deputies

The reactionary Mr. Cottrell of San Jose has introduced a bill (A.B. 2383) drafted by Attorney Alfred Aram of San Jose, who was active on behalf of labor during the Salinas lettuce strike. The bill is very long and provides, among other things, very definite rules for the appointment of depa uty sheriffs in times of labor troubles. ‘Several bills have been introduced forbidding the transportation of strike-breakers, another has to do with the organization of a posse comitatus, and still another punishes delay in bringing an arrested person before a magistrate.

Another Mooney Bill

A. B. 1028, introduced by Jack B. Tenney of Inglewood and referred to the Committee onJudiciary Codes, would provide a new remedy in the Mooney and Modesto frame-ups. The bill provides for a writ of error coram nobis, which permits the introduction of new evidence after a man has been convicted of an offense.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEES

~ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Chairman

Dr. Charles A. Hogan

Director Ernest Besig

Prof. Harold Chapman Brown

A. Alan Clark

George T. Davis

Hugo Ernst

Prof. Glenn Hoover

Mary Hutchinson

Dr. Edgar A. Lowther

Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn

Judge Jackson H. Ralston

Helen Salz

Rabbi Jacob J. Weinstein

Marie De L. Welch

Samuel S. White

Charles Erskine Scott Wood

ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wayne Collins James J. Cronin, Jr. Rev. Earl N. Griggs Morris M. Grupp Dr. Robert F. Leavens Clarence E. Rust ; Rev. Ray N. Studt Rev. E. C. Vanderlaan

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: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVIES.... Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

PROMINENT SAN FRANCISCANS URGE REPEAL OF ANTI-PICKETING LAW

The special San Francisco election to consider repeal of the anti-picketing ordinance and other matters has now been set for March 9. The following prominent San Franciscans urge you to vote for repeal:

Bishop James C. Baker—“I am glad that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has placed on the ballot a Referendum Measure on the repeal of. the San Francisco Anti-picketing ordinance.

“In my opinion this Ordinance should have been repealed long since for it is a violation of vital privileges belonging to labor under our form of government.”

Judge Sylvain J. Lazarus

‘I regard “peaceful” picketing as being the just and proper, and sometimes the exclusive .method, whereby organized labor can protect its rights and prerogatives. I emphasize the word ‘“‘peaceful.’’ There is no need of a so-called anti-picketing ordinance to deal with acts of violence and intimidation. If such acts are committed or instigated in the course of an industrial dispute by the proponents of either side there are abund- ant laws to cover such a situation and such laws should be equally and impartially applied against all violators.”

Rudolph Spreckels

‘“The so-called antipicketing ordinance is, in my opinion, too far-reaching, in that it ‘restricts free speech and for that reason I am in favor of its ie at the election to be held on March

Dr. Edgar A. Lowther

“‘The anti-picketing law of 1916 is a survival of the war psychology of the anti-labor hysteria of that time. While I believe there is a constructive way to prevent strikes and lockouts, I also believe that when a strike has been dily voted by labor it should be allowed to engage in peaceful picketing as a part of its constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively. I therefore favor the repeal of the present ordinance at the special Charter Election in March.”

Bruce Porter—‘“This is a bad law: conceived in fear, and framed to engender class hatred and class war. Bad: in that it continues to stand on the statutes, not as a law to be inexorably applied, but.as a lurking threat, to be made active at the command of irresponsible agents, in time of crisis. Bad: in that it is but another concealed weapon against our constitutional freedom.”’

CRIMINAL LIBEL CHARGES DROPPED

Criminal libel charges against P. Milton Smith, editor of the weekly Mountain View Register, were dismissed on January 13, at a preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace, because of “insufficient evidence.”” The dismissed charges grew out of an editorial by Smith in which he characterized President Roosevelt as a “false

alarm,” a “‘mountebank” and a “hypocrite.”

PLEDGE

I promise to give the sum of §.......... per month or $.................. per year to- ward 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.

Name Street....... City Date —MAKE A PLEDGE FOR 1937—

Vote Modesto F rameup Inquiry

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

None of the Rules committee members

could be reached. The meeting, presided over by this writer, finally rejected a sug- gestion that they stay over night in the Assembly chamber and meet with the Com- mittee in the morning.

The next day Mr. Peek apologized for the inconvenience he had caused and announced during the Assembly session that the Rules Committee would hold a public hearing on the resolution the following night, January 20. The public press carried full announcements of the hearing. At the appointed time Messrs. Peek, King, Meehan, Dawson, Welsh and Jones were in attendance, but Jones left when the proceedings were only half over in order to preside over an evening session of the Assembly. Once again two bus loads of maritime workers attended the hearing. The Committee was addressed by Assemblymen Tenney, Yorty, Richie, Clark and Maloney, Herman Stuyvelaar, Secretary of the Modesto Defense Committee; John O’Connell, Secretary of the San Francisco Labor Council, and this writer—all proponents of the resolution.

Committee Seeks To Stall Investigation

Messrs. Welsh, Dawson and Jones struggled unsuccessfully to find an excuse to defeat the resolution. First, it was asserted that the ““Modesto Defendants” had not exhausted their legal remedy. “If the Stanislaus County grand jury fails to return any indictments, then come to us,” the proponents were told. The latter replied that the case needed speedy action because most of the men were in the state prison and satisfactory action by the grand jury, dominated by an accused district attorney, and in a county hostile to organized labor, was quite unlikely. Furthermore, grand jury could have conducted an investigation on its own initiative more than a month ago, because the charges of perjury were made public on December 12, 1936.

Mr. Welsh also contended that the proposed investigation was too narrow in its scope; that as a friend of organized labor he favored a general investigation into strike-breaking activities in California which would carry an appropriation of $15,000 or more. Mr. Tenney and Mr. Richie replied that they had such an investigation in mind but that the Modesto frame-up was an emergency and a general strike-breaking investigation could wait for hearings by an interim committee in June.

No witnesses appeared to oppose the resolution. Finally, Mr. King moved that the Committee send the resolution to the Assembly with a “do pass’? recommendation. Henry P. Meehan of Oakland, seconded the motion, and on the roll call Peek, Welsh and even Dawson voted affirmatively.

Jones Standard Oil Stooge

Next morning when the Committee’s favorable report was made, Mr. Jones stalled the proceedings by placing the resolution on file. Then he notified Mr. Peek that District Attorney Cleary was on his way from Modesto to argue against the resolution. When the latter arrived, he was taken in tow by Mr. Jones and finally turned over to Mr. Donnelly, assemblyman from his own district, who thereafter led the fight against the resolution.

When the resolution was again called on the day’s calendar, Mr. Tenney briefly urged its adoption. Mr. Garibaldi of Merced then offered an amendment which was agreeable to the authors and consequently adopted without opposition. At this point the opposition bogged down. “Is there any further debate on this resolution,” queried Mr. Jones very insistently. Mr. Donnelly, who had missed his cue, finally arose to move that the Assembly resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to hear Mr. Cleary, because he had failed to receive notice of the hearing’before the Rules Committee through a _ misunderstanding.

Messrs. Tenney, Rosenthal, Clark and others opposed this move on the ground that the Rules Committee had made a public announcement of the hearing which was carried in the press, and that it would be unfair for the entire Assembly to hear just one side of the case. Nevertheless, the motion carried and Mr. Cleary stated his case.

Just the day before, Mr. Cleary argued, the grand jury had ‘asked the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to handle the investigation. “If the Grand Jury’s action is not satisfactory, I’ll join with a request for an Assembly investigation,” stated Mr. Cleary. Furthermore, he asserted that on December 23, 1936, James Secrudder, who had previously confessed “that the convictions were secured on ‘framed’ testimony given by him,” had signed an affidavit in Los Angeles recanting the confession and that he now ‘Claims intimidation and attempted bribery; he was on a hot spot and, therefore, acted as he did.”

Cleary Sees Red —

Cleary was questioned by various assemblymen. Ellis Patterson of King City wanted to know whether Mr. Cleary was “the same gentleman who made a statement condemning Max Radin of the Uni| versity of California law school as a ‘red’.” Mr. Cleary admitted that he was. ‘“‘That’s all I wanted to know,” quickly responded Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Richie of San Diego wanted to know whether Mr. Cleary felt that the resolution was any reflection on him. When Mr. Cleary responded that he felt it was, Richie asked him what part of the resolution he objected to. Mr. Cleary then admitted that he HAD NOT READ THE RESOLUTION. The resolution was then read and Mr. Cleary stated it would be no reflection on him if it were amended with a statement to that effect.

Herman Stuyvelaar, Secretary of the Modesto Defense Committee, and Edward Vandeleur, Secretary of the California State Federation of Labor, were then permitted to address the Assembly as proponents of the resolution. The reactionary assemblymén were silent throughout the entire proceedings, but twenty-six of them finally voted against adoption when the vote was taken, while forty-six, five more votes than were necessary, were recorded in favor of the investigation.

NEWS ABOUT ANTI-PICKETING ORDINANCES

In Alameda County on January 20, Superior Judge Leon E. Gray, struck down a section of the Berkeley anti-picketing ordinance prohibiting peaceful picketing. While no written opinion was handed down, Judge Gray is credited with the following statements:

“Fels was charged with picketing and loitering on a public street before the Woolworth store to induce and influence persons from entering the store to work, perform services or purchase goods.

“That is so-called ‘peaceful picketing’ and that section of the anti-picketing or- dinance I hold is invalid as unreasonable interference with the rights of strikers.”

In San Francisco County, however, Judge J.J. Trabucco of Mariposa, on January 14 upheld the constitutionality of the San Francisco anti-picketing law, which is essentially the same as the one ruled on in Alameda County. The judge may find himself reversed on March 9 when the people vote whether or not to retain the law.

In Oakland, Wm. A. Spooner, secretary of the Alameda Central Labor Council, filed an affidavit of intent to circulate referendum petitions repealing Oakland’s anti-picketing ordinance enacted May 8, 1917. In San Luis Obispo county, however, where Filipino vegetable workers are on strike, the Board of Supervisors on January 18 adopted a very severe anti-picketing ordinance patterned after the one in Monterey County.