vol. 2, no. 3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol II. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MARCH, 1937 No. 3

FRAME-UP CHARGES PROBED

Ernest Besig local director of the A. C. L. U., was barred from public hearings held by the Assembly Committee investigating the alleged Modesto frame-up on the ground that he might be called as a witness.

This action was taken by Kent Redwine ef Hollywood, red-baiting member of the Committee and author of most of the gag bills introduced in the Legislature two years ago ‘had no direct knowledge of the case and, therefore, could give no pertinent testi- mony, but Mr. Redwine insisted that he emight want to call Mr. Besig because he had drafted the investigating resolution.

The move, no doubt, was in retaliation against liberal members of the committee who had voted to exclude witnesses and attorneys for witnesses during the committee hearings. Redwine bitterly opposed the adoption of the rule and after he was defeated finally made his motion to exclude Mr. Besig.

Thruout the proceedings Redwine, and to a less degree Seth Millington, have taken it upon themselves to act as defenders of Standard Oil, which has become deeply involved in the frame-un charges. Samuel Yorty, Chairman Jack B. Tenney and Paul Richie, the remaining committee members, have shouldered the burden of determining the truth of allegations of perjury and subornation of perjury in connection with the conviction of the “Modesto Defendants’ on charges of reckless possession of explosives. :

The inquiry is still under way as we go to press. It is doubtful, however, whether all the witnesses can be heard before the committee must adjourn to return to its legislative duties in Sacramento on March 1. It may be necessary, too, to ask the Assembly for more funds to conclude the investigation as the $1,500 appropriation is reported exhausted.

James Scrudder, chief prosecution witness, was heard by the committee in Los -Angeles. It was his “confession’’ recorded on dictograph records, that. brought general demands for an investigation of the case. He admitted that only two of the men con- victed of reckless possession of dynamite knew it was in the cars when they were arrested; that the case “was a frame-up,”’ and that he had testified as District At- torney Leslie Cleary of Stanilaus County and Glen Devore, special prosecutor paid by Standard Oil, had directed him.

The chief revelations at the legislative hearings to date are as follows:

1. Serudder’s admission that he made the statements attributed to him but that he lied in order to find out what they were up to.” Scrudder also claimed that he “was interested in securing evidence to submit to the proper authorities, that they were trying to intimidate me and force me to make statements which they might try to use to re-open the case.”

2. A charge by a member of the Grand Jury that indicted the Modesto defendants that the Sheriff of Stanislaus County prepared to capture the men three hours before they left San Francisco with the dynamite.

8. An admission by Captain Healey of the San Francisco Police Department that Scrudder was employed as a spy to locate the dynamite, and that no effort was made

Mr. Besig protested that he to intercept the men before they reached Patterson.

4, Introduction of Scrudder’s original statement made following the arrest which is alleged to support the charge that only two of the men convicted knew that there was dynamite in the cars.

' 5. An admission by Special Prosecutor Glen Devore that he received $7,500 from Standard Oil just to try the case, and that he received more for handling the appeals.

6. Evidence that the Standard Oil paid for three “big parties’ at the time of the trial attended by many of those involved in prosecuting the case.

THREE ASSEMBLY BILLS PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Criminal syndicalism would be eliminated as one of the grounds for dismissal of school teachers under the provisions of A.B. 2567 introduced by Paul Richie. The same bill was defeated two years ago after provoking considerable debate in the Assembly Education Committee.

Academic freedom would also be protected under the terms of two bills introduced by Ellis Patterson. A.B. 2645 provides that “The governing board of a school district shall not inquire into the political and economic affiliations or beliefs of ap- plicants for teaching positions.’? We would also suggest that boards be barred from inquiring into the religious beliefs of applicants for teaching positions. Mr. Patter- son’s second bill, A.B. 2650, provides that ‘‘Nio permanent employee shall be dismissed on any charge of political activity occurring putside of school teaching hours.”

REDWINE INTRODUCES BORDER PATROL BILL

Two years ago Assemblymen Redwine and Jones introduced a border patrol bill which provided that, ‘no paupers, vagabonds, indigent persons or persons likely to become public charges, shall be allowed to enter or shall enter this State.”’ The bill was defeated in the Senate after getting by the Assembly. This year Mr. Redwine is the author of a bill “relating to the health inspection of immigrants,” A.B. 2115. The bill authorizes the establishment of “a force to inspect all persons entering this State to determine their condition of health. If it is found that any such persons are likely to endanger the health of the citizens of this State they may be excluded from the State by this division.”

Obviously, Mr. Redwine is still trying to exclude indigents, this time by an indirect method under the authority of the State’s police power. We anticipate that Californians, Inc., and others interested in the tourist trade, will raise a howl when they discover that all persons, INCLUDING TOURISTS, will have to undergo a physical examination when entering the Kingdom of California,—if this law is enacted.

LEGIONNAIRE SPONSORS COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTE BILL

Compulsory flag saluting is imposed on “all pupils” in California’s public schools under a bill introduced in the Legislature by Assemblyman Seth Millington of Gridley, former State Commander of the American Legion. The measure was referred to the Committee on Education, headed by John Gee Clark of Long Beach.

Mr. Millington’s bill, A. B. 2133, requires “‘all pupils to take an oath of alle- giance to the flag and Constitution of the United States as often as said board of school trustees and board of education shall direct, in no event to be less often than . once during each school month.”

Just imagine a child in the kindergarten stumbling over the polysyllabic words in the oath which “shall be as follows:”

“I pledge myself without reservation to. obey, support and respect the Constitution and laws of the United States. I pledge myself to refrain from negatively or positively advocating the use of methods not sanctioned by the Constitution and the laws of the United States to effect the modification or replacement of the form of Government of the United States.”

When Judge Peter J. Shields handed down his decision in the Gabrielli flag salute case last July, holding that compulsory flag-saluting is unconstitutional when it conflicts with a student’s religious beliefs, he pointed out incidentally that, “There is no law requiring this child to salute the flag.” That fact made the compulsion more heinous. There is nothing in the decision to indicate that the result would have been otherwise if such a law had existed. We can see no good purpose in the new proposal. It will merely serve to encourage the continued persecution of the religious group known as Jehovah’s Witnesses who honestly believe that no man-made symbol should receive an oath of allegiance.

SANTA ROSA TAR AND FEATHER CASE GOES TO TRIAL MARCH 9

Jack Green’s damage suit against Fred Cairns, Secretary of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce and alleged leader of the Santa Rosa vigilantes, goes to trial before a federal jury in Sacramento on March 9. A.C.L.U. attorneys, Wayne M. Collins and James J. Cronin, Jr., will appear for Mr. Green. The defendant is represented by Geary and Geary and C. J. Tauzer of Santa Rosa, and Morgan J. Doyle of San Francisco. It will be recalled that dilatory tactics of defense counsel caused postponement of the trial last December 15.

WASHINGTON STATE HOUSE VOTES REPEAL OF C. S. LAW

By a vote of 58 to 39 the Washington State House on February 19 voted repeal of its criminal syndicalism law enacted in 1919. The measure now goes to the state Senate.

Page 2.

PATHETIC REQUEST FOR A,C,L.U. HELP FROM VIENNA, AUSTRIA

Early in December this office of the A.C.L.U. received a large blue envelope postmarked Vienna, Austria. It was addressed ‘‘To the American Liberty Union, San Francisco, Calif., U.S.A.”’ and had been first delivered to the offices of the American Liberty League, to whose courtesy in forwarding it we are indebted for the following:

Wien, 15-36 Austria “To the American Civil Liberty Union, San Francisco, Calif.

“I, the undersigned, whisches to bring to your attantion, circumstances into which I am forced into,—

“I have been deported from the U.S.A. in the year 1935 month of march I arrived in Bremen Germany, but, having lived in America 25 years and not served in the German Armee during the War, am I not regonized and cannot work or recieve any kind of help, as they call it over hier ‘‘unterstutzung.” I am simply not recognized as a German, mother cannot do anything for me, have been very sik, a german Lady has nursed me, help me, finaly came along with me, her Life savings has seen us through so far, we are at an end, all this expences for a ‘‘Pass-port’”? Germany refused me one. I have been in Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Bremerhafen, Prag and at last hier in Wienna Austria, however; we have tried almost everthing, from my Ladyfriend money has all been spent, to mary her is impossible as I have no Pass-port, unable to get for wards or backwards, I am not allowed to work. Kind people of the “Christian chursch” are standing by us, and I have been adwised to write to you good People our situation is and has been very desperate. Will not your kind office be so kind to help us? please do so if you anywheres humanly can, everywhere, am I told that automatickly I am American, Germany refused to regonize me so I am at my wit end, I thought of going to South America, even if I have, to work my passage over there or I could work it out any thing, so I could get back to a normal Life. I have been to a Office hier ‘Singerstrasse 16” called ‘Sosiety of Friends,” but believe me help from these ist not forthcoming the Lady in charge of it is englisch and. will not help, German Counsuls throughout Cauntrys I have been through refused to help me so again what am I to do? Please dear People try to find a solution for us folks, we have been living on scant rations for a long time, help us to a better future in your Hands and your Kind office we trust our future so help me God we are human and like to live just like other peopls likes to live so again please look into our afair and find a place some‘ where for us, two very: unhappy people, perhaps will learn to be happy once more through and with your kind help hoping and praying that this letter to the good old U.S.A. to Gods country will bring results. Hoping of a reply very soon, I am very Respectfully yours. Bruno Krantz.”’ Investigation in response to Mr. Krantz’ plea to “please look into our afair”’ revealed that he had spent a good part of his time in “the good old U.S.A.” behind the bars of Folsom Prison, where only two-time losers stay. Despite the fact that he is very unhappy. at present, we believe that he and we are better off than if he were in “‘God’s country.”

RED-BAITER FEARS “YELLOW PERIL”

' The illusory “Yellow Peril” is the subject of a bill by the reactionary Senator Ed- ward H. Law of Imperial County. His measure (S.B. 749) prevents any foreignborn Japanese, Chinese, etc., from even USING real property. “It shall be unlawful,” reads the bill, “for any alien, not eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States, to acquire possession, enjoy, use, cultivate, occupy or transfer real property or any interest therein, in this State and have in whole or in part the beneficial use thereof, or have possession, custody, care or control of real property, agricultural- lands or lands fit for agricultural purposes.” Under the terms of this bill, Chinese and Japanese are virtually exiled from the State.

Civil Liberties

When the Legislature re-convenes on March 1 it will be faced with the greatest collection of bills designed to protect the liberties of the people ever presented in the history of the State. We submit herewith a miscellaneous list of bills not here- tofore printed in the NEWS:

Public Order Bill .

Assemblyman King’s ‘‘Public Order Bill,” A.B. 2015, would prevent the wearing of uniforms by any political groups. Among other things, it makes it a felony for any person to be a member of, command, promote or organize any organization, “‘Or- ganized, trained, or equipped for the purpose of enabling it to be employed in usurping the functions of peace officers or the armed forces of the United States of America or of the State of California.”

Mr. King is also the author of A.B. 2022 which amends the kidnapping law to include detention of a person ‘‘in a labor dispute or because of political or racial ani- mosity.”’

Compulsory Drill Prohibited

Senator Westover has introduced a bill

(S.B. 563) prohibiting compulsory military ~ training in colleges and universities, and providing that ‘Any student who does not enroll in a course of military training shall in lieu theréof enroll in a suitable course of physical education for such length of time as the governing body of the university or college shall prescribe.”

A.B. 2685, introduced by Ben Rosenthal, punishes the denial of equal rights in places of public accommodation or amusement. This bill would extend the present law which limits the remedy against discriminatory practices of this kind to a suit for damages. A.B. 1315, by Paul Richie, provides that no person shall be denied the right of appeal in a civil action because of poverty.

Three bills introduced by Mr. Pelletier, and the Legislature A. B. 2273-2275, would punish unnecessary delay in taking a prisoner before a magistrate.

Compensation for the Innocent

A novel measure, S.B. 503, has been introduced by Senator Fletcher. It provides that “Any person who is charged with a felony and who is thereafter acquitted, or if convicted and pardoned . . . shall be entitled to compensation for his loss of earn- ing,” etc. _ A.B. 1312, by Mr. Richie, would prohibit interference with “the free distribution upon any public highway, street, park, or in any public place, of handbills and circulars dealing with political and economic questions.”

Mr. Tenney has introduced two bills affecting the law of libel. A.B. 1390 would repeal California’s ancient law which requires the posting of a $500 bond to insure payment of costs and charges if plaintiff loses a libel or slander action. A.B. 1388 extends the law of libel to include defamation of an “organization, association or race,” ;

Curb Use of Highway Patrol

The California Highway Patrol would lose the police powers it gained two years ago, under a bill submitted by Mr. Gilbert (A.B. 2437). The bill also provides specifically that “the California Highway Patrol shall not have the power to, and shall not, interfere with peaceful picketing or otherwise participate in or interfere with labor disputes.”

A.B. 2383, by Mr. Cottrell limits the appointment of deputy sheriffs during strikes or lockouts to persons who were qualified electors in the county for not less than three months immediately preceding such appointment or such strike.

A.B. 2276, by Mr. Pelletier, limits the powers of a posse comitatus and raises the age of members from eighteen to twentyone.

THE STRANGE CASE OF JOHN PAPPAS

Almost a year ago John Pappas was arrested by Immigration authorities and held for deportation on charges that he was a member of an organization which advocates the violent overthrow of the government and that he teaches, advocates, etc., the forcible overthrow of the government. :

Pappas admitted the charges, but... and here is where unusual factors enter the case.

Pappas insisted that he applied for membership in the Communist Party just before the general strike in order to carry on espionage work for the Industrial Association at $15 or more per week. According to his story, the President of the Chamber of Commerce directed him to Colonel Sam Johnson (an ex-Russian officer), who was at that time in charge of the “secret service activities” of the Industrial Association. The Colonel hired Pappas and the latter turned in daily reports.

But the Communist Party discovered the nature of Pappas’ activities and exposed him in the Western Worker where his picture was printed with the title ‘“‘Rat’’ above it. Nevertheless, that did not end Pappas’ career aS a spy. :

One of the Smiths connected with th “Investigation Department” of the Works Progress Administration (Harry Smith is the name the gentleman uses) assertedly employed Pappas as a “special agent’ in the W.P.A. Everything went well until May, 1936.

At that time another sleuth interested himself in John Pappas. Patrick ‘“Red’’ Farrelly, Immigration Inspector, who prides himself: on his ability to discover alien “reds,” suddenly picked up Mr. Pappas on information given by his landlady. Though Mr. Pappas pointed out the nature of his “‘radical activities,’ he still faces de- portation. Johnson and Smith will be called as witnesses to corroborate Pappas’ story.

STATE’S BRIEF IN SACRAMENTO CS. CASE TO BE FILED MARCH 1

_ The Attorney General will file his brief in the Sacramento criminal syndicalism cases on March 1. The brief was originally due on February 7 but the court granted an extension of time on the basis of an affidavit that recited as follows:

“, . . that the transcript of the testimony taken at the trial of said case oc- cupies in excess of 6000 typewritten pages; that the points raised by the appellant in his opening brief are numerous and require extensive research to properly answer the contentions made thereunder and affiant believes that the completion of respondent’s answering brief will reasonably require further time; that affiant believes that said brief can be completed with the exercise of diligence by the first day of March, 1937, and not before.’’

The appellants will now have an opportunity to reply to the Attorney General’s brief before the case is argued.

LEGISLATION PROPOSES BAN ON STRIKEBREAKERS

Five bills punish the transportation or employment of strikebreakers. Two bills introduced by Mr. Meehan, A.B. 2031 and |

A.B. 2253, are practically identical. They make the transportation of strikebreakers a felony. A bill introduced by Messrs. Tenney and King (A.B. 2171) forbids the em- ployment: and transportation of _ strikebreakers which it declares to be a mis- demeanor. Another bill by Yorty (A.B. 2693) limits employment of strikebreakers to persons who have been residents of the county for more than one month immediately preceding the date of employment. Two bills in identical language, introduced by Messrs. Tenney. and Gannon (A.B. 2326) and A.B. 2585. respectively), require advertisements for strikebreakers published during interrupted negotiations between strikers and their. employers to state “plainly and explicitly that strike conditions may prevail.”

Page 3

PEACEFUL PICKETING ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY REFERENDUM ON SAN FRANCISCO’S ANTIPICKETING LAW

San Francisco’s Anti-Picketing Ordinance will be submitted to a referendum vote on March 9. We urge all advocates of civil liberties to “WOTE YES ON NO. 19,” and thereby to repeal the law which forbids labor the right of peaceful picketing.

Of course, the opponents of repeal have sought to raise a false issue. “Play Safe!” proclaim their expensive advertisements, “Prevent Violent Picketing. Vote No on 19.” Then, they tear from their context the following words taken from the law: “It shall be unlawful * * * to Intimidate, Threaten, or Coerce * * * Any Person who is performing, seeking, or obtaining service or labor * * %.”’

You don’t need an anti-picketing ordinance to prevent violent picketing. Violence and threats of violence are punishable under numerous provisions of our Penal Code. Language prohibiting violent picketing was included in the ordinance merely to conceal the real purpose of the law— the prohibition of ALL picketing, whether violent or peaceful.

The opponents of repeal have been entirely silent about the following provisions of the law which make it unlawful for any person “to picket in front of or in the vicin- ity of, or to carry, show, or display any banner, transparency, badge or sign in front of or in the vicinity of, any works or factory, or any place of business or employ- ment, for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influ- ence, any person to refrain from entering any such works or factory, or place of busi- ness or employment, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing or attempting to in- duce or influence any person to refrain from purchasing or using any goods, wares, merchandise or other articles manufactured, made, or kept for sale therein, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing or attempting to induce or influence any person to refrain from doing or performing any service or labor in any works, factory, place of business or employment...’

“But there is peaceful picketing in San Francisco,” you say. Yes, there was peaceful picketing during the waterfront strike, because the police did not enforce the law. At other times, Labor has evaded the law by “selling” the Labor Clarion in front of establishments charged with being unfair to organized labor. Occasionally even the sellers of these papers are arrested. That happened several months ago when ware- housemen and culinary workers sought to picket the Woolworth stores. Labor should not be compelled to do by indirection that which it has a clear right to do directly.

“The right to picket is involved in the right of assemblage,” the A.C.L.U. contends. “Peaceful picketing, therefore, even in large numbers and for any public purpose, should not be prohibited by injunction, or by police edict. It is the business of the police in places where picketing is conducted merely to keep traffic free and to handle specific violations of law upon complaint.”’

We urge our supporters in San Francisco to “VOTE YES ON 19 ON MARCH 9.”

REACTIONARIES PROPOSE MORE TEETH FOR “VAG” LAW >

Identical bills have been introduced in the Assembly and Senate by Assemblyman Call and Senator Parkman (A.B. 1945 and S.B. 1014) extending the definition of vagrancy. The proposed amendment defines a vagrant as every person who “remains in, occupies or uses as a lodging place any premises without the permission of the person entitled to the possession thereof.’? We are opposed to enlarging the scope of the vicious vagrancy law. We don’t know what the purpose of the bill is, but we can readily see that any person unable to pay his rent and holding over could be prosecuted as a vagrant, and that the law might be a.convenient weapon against “sit-down strikers.”

General Barrow’s Army

By A NEWS CORRESPONDENT.

That the American brand of Fascism, namely, Vigilantism has gained a foothold in California is amply testified to by the activities of a group of self styled “patriots” who, foot-loose and fancy free, have on several occasions run amuck in the picturesque but intensely reactionary little university town of Berkeley. Known as the Berkeley Nationals, or “General Barrow’s Army,” this stalwart band of hundred percenters seem to have made their initial appearance in connection with the General Strike of 1934. Clothed in a little brief, but wholly illegal authority, this band of hooligans attracted fleeting attention by their destruction of private property, chiefly workers’ halls, by manufacturing a synthetic red scare, and actually boast of fighting a battle that never took place against a Red horde that never existed. The piping days of peace that descended upon Berkeley after. those hectic days of 1934, were distinctly inimical to the activities of the Nationals, who, according to latest reports seem to have temporarily folded up their tents, and to have incorporated themselves in the East Bay General Disaster organization.

Oakland and Richmond Launch Their “Nationals.”’

The fact remains, however, that Vigilantism existed and flourished in Berkeley until comparatively recently and, under similar conditions, could and undoubtedly would re-appear again. Nor was Berkeley an isolated example. In Oakland, the W.P.A. workers went so far as to register the Oakland Nationals in the City Hall, while the “progressive” little town of Richmond, not to be outdone by its sister cities of the East Bay, launched its own organization of Nationals. On at least one occasion, members met in the Woodrow Wilson school auditorium where they were addressed by Cap- tain G. S. Tandy and no doubt exhorted to emulate the example of their comrades in arms in Berkeley who were heaving bricks through the windows of peaceful citizens and, with the connivance of the Police Department, wantonly destroying thousands of dollars worth of private property. Captain John Mayers and F. William Durgin are two other worthies who busied themselves quite openly in the organization of the Richmond Nationals, thus contributing their little piece to making the wide open stretches of the East Bay “safe for Democracy.”’

By and large, however, the Berkeley group were far superior both in technique and execution and consequently a brief survey of their activities and of the people who sponsored and encouraged these activities will be of interest to Civil Libertarians in Northern California.

General Barrows in the Forefront.

On the basis of information received in answer to a questionnaire sent out by the American Civil Liberties Union considerable data has been accumulated regarding the Berkeley Nationals and their leaders. To those of our readers who have resided any length of time in northern California, it will come as no surprise to learn that the one and only General Barrows was in the forefront of the organization drive. A former president of the University of California, and now relegated to the more humble position of a mere Professor of Political Science, General Barrows was in his element as head of the State Militia during the 1934 General Strike. All the available evidence indicates that not content with his strike breaking activities in that capacity, he supplemented them by organizing the Berkeley Nationals, the primary object of whose existence was legalized violence, committed with the tacit support of the Berkeley Police Department. General Barrows is, of course, an openly avowed Fascist, who is reported to look upon his mildly progressive colleagues in the English Department of. the University of California as dangerous reds and whose whole life has been dedicated to concepts that are fundamentally opposed to American Democracy. It is charitable to suppose that advancing years have tended to obfuscate the worthy General’s mental processes and to pardon his connection with the Berkeley hooligans on grounds of senile decay.

Professor Leonard Loeb a “National.”

No such excuse, however, can be made for such other leading lights as Joe Harris, © the proprietor of the euphoniously named . “Call me Joe Haberdashery” on Shattuck Avenue, or of Leonard Loeb, Professor of Physics at the University of California. Both these gentlemen are reported to have taken a prominent part in organizing the Nationals and we can only regret in passing that men who are undoubtedly experts in their own particular line dissipate their energies by extra-curricular activity of a red-baiting nature to the detriment of a haberdashery store on the one hand and the science of physics on the other. |

A full roll-call of the Berkeley Nationals is, unfortunattly, not available. Even their exact numbers, reputedly in the neighborhood of 1,500, is in question. In fairness to all, however, and in spite of the fact that space is valuable, we can hardly refrain from printing the names of Colonel .E. J. Hardy, Brigadier General R. W. Mearns, C. Bruce Flick, Arthur Boericke, E. D. Sawyer, Jr., Wallace Miller and C. G. Thompson. In one capacity or another, all these gentry were closely connected with the Berkeley Nationals, played a prominent part in their activities, and are therefore entitled to the dubious publicity hereby achieved in the Civil Liberties News.

A Semi-Military Organization.

As regards the organization itself, a close resemblance to the Fascist or Nazi tech- nique is in evidence. Members are, or were recruited, on the basis of “patriotic duty”! they are then registered in a roll book, finger-printed by the police department, given a registration card with a number and are assigned alphabetically to a platoon. The organization as a whole functioned on a semi-military basis and were divided up into platoons under a Platoon Commander, companies under Captains and so on down the line. Uniforms do not appear to have been in evidence at any time, though wind-shield stickers were available to members who were also provided with white arms bands with the letters B. N. on them.

At all meetings, many of which are alleged to have been held in school buildings, members were told that strikers were misled by Communists who were using the strike as a means of revolution. The Nationals were to be ready to meet this threat of Revolution which was of course far beyond effective control by such duly constituted authorities as the Police Department, the State Militia, or the U. S. Army.

“Armed With Truncheons.”’

The activities of the Berkeley Nationls appear to have been to some extent of the Boy Scout variety. That is to say armed with truncheons, they did rather extensive patrol duty along the more populous thoroughfares of Berkeley, such as Shattuck Ave., Telegraph Ave., and San Pablo Ave. — thoroughfares which would of course have been the first objectives of ae Red hordes massed in the Berkeley ills.

In addition, the Berkeley Nationals conducted a survey of homes to find out how many ‘fighting men” would be available in case of “emergency.” This “emergency” was a visionary march of the Reds, from somewhere “South through the waterfront industrial area.” Information was also collected and relayed to a central headquarters and there graphically portrayed on a large map. On this map, each home in which there was a “Red” was marked by a red pin. Some of the homes so marked were visitéd by the Berkeley (Continued on Page 4, Col. 3)

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 BRNEST BESIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVIBS......................... Associate Editor

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

ANTI-VIGILANTE ACT JUST ANOTHER CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM LAW

A story in the February 1 issue of the Western Worker charges the A.C.L.U. “sabotaged” two legislative measures proposed by the California People’s Legislative Conference, namely, “the bill against vigilantism, and the bill giving certain rights and privileges to labor and political prisoners.”

“On the latter two bills,” reads the story, “failure to have them introduced was laid directly at the door of the American Civil Liberties Union, in a letter to the Confer- ence from Assemblyman Ben Rosenthal, 52nd Assembly District, Los Angeles, as follows:

_ “*There appears to be considerable objection to the vigilante bill, particularly from the Civil Liberties Union, and the same with resnect to the bill civine rartein rights and privileges to so-called labor and political prisoners.’

“A.C.L.U. opposition was reported on the grounds that the bill would deny vigilantes their ‘free speech right’ to advocate or condone vigilantism.”’

We are not familiar with “the bill giving certain rights and privileges to labor and political prisoners,” but we do accept responsibility for opposing the so-called “Anti-Vigilante Act” in the form in which it was submitted, and we did exert whatever influence we had to see that the measure was not introduced.

On January 15 the Executive and Advisory Committees of the Northern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. voted unanimously to oppose the “Anti-Vigilante Act,” on the ground that “Section 3 thereof abridges the rights of free speech and free press.”

The attitude of the local branch of the Union was sustained in an Opinion rendered by the office of Arthur Garfield Hays, national counsel for the Union, in a letter dated January 18, as follows:

“We agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of Section 3 of the Proposed Statute. It seems clear that the things declared to be unlawful acts are, whatever their motive, the very things which the Supreme Court has said that the States are forbidden to prevent their citizens from doing. We refer, of course, to an invasion of those civil rights which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. As you say, this is simply a criminal syndicalism law turned inside out.

“Moreover, it seems questionable whether placing such legislation on the statute books would have a very salutary effect. After all, the offenses enumerated ‘in Section 2 are presumably unlawful already, as assault and battery or false imprisonment. It seems doubtful whether a mere increase of the criminal penalties will have much effect on public action.”

Section 3 of the proposed “Anti-Vigilante Act” punishes any person who “Is a member of a vigilante organization.” The criminal syndicalism law likewise punishes ‘mere membership in a proscribed organization.

Using the identical language of Section 2, Par. 4 of the “Criminal Syndicalism Act,” the “Anti-Vigilante Act” punishes anyone who “Organizes or assists in organizing a vigilante organization.”’

Also parallel to the C. S. act are provisions punishing any person who—

“By spoken or written words or personal conduct incites, provokes, encourages, or causes the commission of vigilantism or the formation of a vigilante organization; or

“By spoken or written words or personal conduct advocates, teaches or affirms the desirability of vigilantism or vigilante organization; or

“By spoken or written words or personal conduct excuses, justifies, or condones the commission of acts of vigilantism .. .”

LIBERAL SPONSORS TWO BILLS TO GAG THE PRESS

Liberal Assemblyman Cecil R. King of Los Angeles has introduced a very questionable piece of legislation, A.B. 2019. It states briefly that “Every person who publishes in the headlines or titles of any newspaper article the race, color, or nationality of a person charged with or convicted of crime is guilty of a misdemeanor.” The purpose of the bill may be good, but we insist that the end does not justify the means, and that the proposed law clearly abridges the freedom of the press.

The same objection holds against A.B. 2020, also introduced by Assemblyman Cecil R. King. The bill provides, in part, that “Every person who publishes in a newspaper or other periodical or in a leaflet, pamphlet or book a statement wilfully misrepresenting the facts; or publishes as facts statements known to him to be untrue or erroneous through gross carelessness, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” This is an excellent method to hobble the rights of free speech and free press. Fancy how well this law could be applied during a bitter political campaign, or against the participants in any controversial discussion. It would no longer be safe to talk even about the weather. It might then be in order to amend the first amendment to the Constitution as follows: “Use these rights at your peril.”

MOVE TO CURB POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT

Several bills have been introduced in the Legislature limiting the much abused power of the courts to punish contempt. A proposed constitutional amendment by George P. Miller (A.C.A. No. 17) requires the contemptuous acts to be committed “in the immediate presence of such court.” The amendment reads, ‘“‘No speech or publication reflecting upon or concerning any court, or officer thereof, shall be treated or punished as a contempt of such court unless made in the immediate presence of such court, while in session and in such a manner as to actually interfere with its proceedings.”

Paul Richie would limit imprisonment for contempt “‘whether for the non-payment of said fine imposed or at all’ to five days. (See A.B. 1314). Another measure by Jack B. Tenney reduces the maximum fine for contempt of court from $500 to $100. It permits imprisonment up to five days, and “if a person found guilty of contempt elects to serve a money fine by a jail sentence, the time served can in no event exceed five days.” (See A.B. 1386). A second bill by Mr. Tenney (A.B. 1389) permits the accused the election of a jury trial “before some other judge than the judge of the court as to whom said contempt is alleged to have been committed.”

APPEAL N. J. COURT RULING ON COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTE LAW

Continuing its two-year fight to preserve religious freedom for members of the Je- hovah’s Witnesses sect, the American Civil Liberties Union proceeded with plans this week to carry an appeal to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeal on the recent decision of the State Supreme Court upholding the expulsion of two children from school. A. J. Isserman, counsel for the New Jersey Civil Liberties Committee, is representing the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Supreme Court decision handed down February 5th supported the right of the Secaucus Board of Education to expel Ella and Vivian Hering for refusing on religious grounds to salute and pledge allegiance to the American flag, a ceremony required by state law. When school authorities barred the children from attending school in November, 1935 after their refusal to participate in the ceremony, feeling against the Hering family ran high. Members of the Secaucus branch of the American Legion warned A.C.L.U. representatives to “leave town on the first bus.” The parents were hailed into court on disorderly conduct charges for keeping their ee out of school, and were fined $5 each. :

The appeal in the case is expected to come up in the May term of the Court of Errors.

The Civil Liberties Committee of Massachusetts is sponsoring a bill in that state’s legislature exempting children and teachers with religious scruples against saluting the flag from the necessity of complying with the state flag salute law. Cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses are still pending in Lynn and Belchertown, Mass., as well as in a score or more cities throughout the country.

General Barrow’s Army

(Continued from Page 3, Col. 3) Nationals during the strike and had bricks thrown through their windows (Right here, of course, the Boy Scout simile breaks down).

Tie-In Between “Nationals” and Police.

The real high light of the activities of the gang of hoodlums who constituted the Berkeley Nationals was their raid on the Finnish Comrades Association hall, which resulted in the destruction of five thousand dollars worth of property. Of particular interest in this connection is the evidence of a very close tie-in between the Berkeley Nationals and the Berkeley Police. It has definitely been proved that the Police were given notice of the raid on the Finnish Hall 15 minutes before it occurred, sent out a radio call for a police car to investigate, and then a few minutes later cancelled the call. A police car parked among the vigilante cars, within view of the building, while the raid took place.

Additional evidence would also seem to indicate that there was a close relationship between the Berkeley Nationals on the one hand and the Chamber of Commerce, the Knights of Columbus, the Kiwanis Club, Rotary Club, etc., on the other.

Berkeley is essentially a respectable little town; life, particularly the night variety is dull, and while we smypathize with attempts of several hundred Berkeley citizenry to inject a more exciting note into a rather drab existence, we would suggest another form of emotional outlet, one that is less flagrantly in defiance of the elementary rights granted even to “Reds” under the Constitution. The difference between a civilized community, and one that is not civilized, is very simple. In a civilized community, one does not take the law into ones hands. It is unfortunate to say the least of it, that the University town of Berkeley ceased, if only temporarily, to become a civilized community.

KOCI CASE HEARING MARCH 2

A final hearing in the Koci deportation case is set for March 2nd. At that time Austin Lewis, counsel for Koci, will examine rebuttal witnesses. After the hearing Inspector ‘‘Red”’ Farrelly, who is conducting the case for the Government, will make his report to the Immigration authorities in Washington in whom final disposition of the case rests. ;

PLEDGE I promise to give the sum of $.......... per month or 6.................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. Name Street City. Date