vol. 2, no. 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’

Vol II. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL, 1937 No. 4

VIGILANTES THREATEN SUITS

On March 15 a federal court jury in Sacramento returned a verdict for the defendant in Jack Green’s $25,000 damage suit against Fred Cairns, Secretary of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce and alleged leader of the Santa Rosa tar and feather mob after deliberating 45 minutes. A motion for a new trial will be heard by Judge Michael J. Roche on April 25.

The defense closed its case WITHOUT calling the defendant to testify. When Cairns was acquitted of criminal charges last October 26, he also failed to take the stand to deny charges made against him.

Threaten Suits Against A.C.L.U.

The jury’s verdict was no sooner handed down than Morgan J. Doyle of San Francisco, one of Cairn’s attorneys, announced that he and the law firm of Geary, Geary and C. J. Tauzer of Santa Rosa are preparing a series of new suits to be filed in Santa Rosa on behalf of Cairns and other asserted vigilantes against whom criminal charges were dismissed last fall. The suits would allege “false arrest and malicious prosecution.”’ Doyle named as the probable defendants, Green, “eight or nine other Communists,” the American Civil Liberties Union, and its Northern California director, Ernest Besig. No suits have been filed at this writing.

File Charges Against Highway Patrolman

On March 16 Mr. Besig filed charges with E. Raymond Cato, Chief of the California Highway Patrol, against Captain E. L. (Jack) Schryver, highway patrolman from Sonoma County. The complaint set forth that “four witnesses for the defendant Cairns testified that Captain Jack Schryver of the State Highway Patrol was an active participant’ in the tar and feather outrage.

“W. H. Williams of Santa Rosa and Charles Turner Dyhre of Sebastapol,” says the complaint, “last week testified that Schryver was present in Native Sons Hall in Santa Rosa when Jack Green, vigilante victim, was dragged before the mob. Arthur H. Meese of Healdsburg testified that Schryver was among those who questioned Green. Frank Berger of Santa Rosa testified that Schryver held Green’s arm as he was taken into an ante-room in Native Sons Hall for a ‘working over.’

Disciplinary Action Demanded

“If the testimony given under oath is true, Captain Schryver was guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer. Accordingly, we urge you without delay to institute dis- ciplinary proceedings against Captain Schryver.”

Under date of March 23, George T. Jeffers, Secretary to Chief Cato, advised the A.C.L.U. that “Chief Cato is away from the Capitol for a few days. Upon his return, IT will call your communication to his immediate attention.”

Schryver’s name was brought into the case as early as August 29 last year, when Jack Green testified at a preliminary hearing for the asserted vigilantes that Captain Schryver took his Masonic card and tore it in half. At that time; friends of Schryver insisted that the identification was a mistake, claiming the Captain was on a ranch miles away on the night of the mob violence.

The defense did not deny that Cairns was present during the tar and feather outrage. Their theory was that he and many others were just spectators and, therefore, could not be held. It was the theory of the plaintiff, however, that Cairns was the leader of the mob, and that under the law members of a mob are all principals, and equally li- able.

Two Chiefs of Police In Mob

Arthur H. Meese, defense witness, not only involved Captain Schryver, but also testified that the Chicf of Police of Clover dale, and the Chief of Police of Healds- burg, were all present in Native Sons Hall in Santa Rosa when Jack Green was brought before the mob. A certain respecta(Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

OREGON’S CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM LAW WIPED OUT

Repeal of Oregon’s notorious criminal syndicalism law was voted last month by the State Assembly and signed by Governor Charles H. Martin, following previous action by the Senate.

Under the provisions of the law, Dirk de Jonge was convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment two years ago.

‘Reversal of the conviction by the United States Supreme Court in January led to the move for repeal.

Campaigns for repeal of similar laws are expected to be speeded up in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Washington, Idaho, Indiana and Ohio.

‘THE STRANGE CASE OF JOHN PAPPAS’ BECOMES STILL STRANGER

The “Strange Case of John Pappas” became a little stranger recently when Pappas’ landlady, who filed the original complaint against him, refused to appear for cross-examination. What is more, the Government was not at all interested in issuing’ a subpoena to compel her appearance and willingly agreed to strike out her testimony. Pappas, you will recall, is scheduled for deportation to Greece because of his membership in the Communist Party from which he was expelled as a spy.

Pappas’ spying activities were carried on for the Industrial Association of San Fran- cisco and the Works Progress Administration. The Industrial Association readily ad- mitted that Pappas was employed by them through Colonel Samuel I. Johnson for ap- proximately three months commencing in June, 1934, for the purpose of providing ‘information of Communist activities in San Francisco. For these services Pappas re- ceived $15 a week, which was paid to him in cash.

Mooney Measure Needs Help

Another Mooney pardon resolution has been introduced in the State Legislature. Thirty-three assemblymen, led by Paul Richie of San Diego, have sponsored a concurrent resolution requesting Governor Merriam, “to grant to... Thomas J. Mooney a full and complete pardon.”

A previous effort to grant Mooney a Legislative pardon was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 34 to 5 after the Assembly had approved the resolution by a vote of 45 to 28.

The new resolution is assured of passage in the Assembly where it should garner as many as fifty of the Assembly’s eighty votes. According to present plans the resolution will be debated in the Assembly on either March 30 or 31.

What You Should Do

Once approved in the Assembly the measure faces stiff opposition in the Senate. It is there that Mooney’s friends must concentrate their work. And, THAT WORK MUST BE CARRIED ON WITHOUT DELAY because the resolution may be called up for debate in the Senate sometime during the week of April 5. We urge all of our members and supporters to take the following action AT ONCE:

1. Send telegrams, letters or resolutions to the Secretary of the Senate, Joseph A. Beek, urging favorable action on Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 18. All com- munications addressed to this officer are read to the Senate and published in the daily journal; .

2. Send a communication to Governor Merriam asking him to use his influence to see that the Senate passes the resolution. If Governor Merriam indicated that he wanted the resolution passed, it would have clear sailing in the Legislature.

A.C.L.U. Urges Favorable Action

The national office of the American Civil Liberties Union on March 28 addressed the following communication to the Secretary of the Senate:

“The imprisonment of Tom Mooney is a matter of international concern because of the wide-spread belief that he was convicted on perjured testimony. Whatever the findings of the courts, there is sufficient doubt as to his guilt to justify any move for — his pardon. We are confident that we represent the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of American citizens who have any knowledge of his case in urging the adoption of the resolution recommending to the Governor his pardon. We express our hope that the Senate will act promptly and favorably after the resolution comes over from the House. : (Continued on Page 2, Col. 1)

MOONEY PARDON RESOLUTION (Continued from Page 1, Col. 3)

“The only alternative to executive action ig the continuation of the protracted pro- ceedings in the courts. This will eventually get to the United States Supreme Court which, on the basis of its previous decision, will likely free Mooney. It would be far better for the recognition of a miscarriage of justice in California that the state should act itself than that the United States Supreme Court should thus intervene. We make this observation not only on the general principle of the desirability of state control of its own machinery of justice, but as representing the sentiments of hundreds of our California members.”

And If the Resolution Fails...

Tom Mooney has announced that if the Legislature’s action is unfavorable, “‘we will immediately proceed to have the Legislature place upon the ballot at the next general election a referendum giving every voter in California an opportunity to vote on my freedom. If this is defeated, and we are still in prison in 1938, we will circulate an initiative petition to acquire sufficient signatures—5 per cent of the total vote at the last general election—to place this measure upon the ballot. However, we have great hopes that the United States Supreme Court will this fall finally and completely dispose of the Mooney case by releasing me from further imprisonment, thereby giving California and its odious justice a well deserved rebut and castigation.”’

UNION BRINGS $50,000 LIBEL SUIT AGAINST “AMERICAN MERCURY”

Charging that its ‘‘unsullied reputation for disinterested public service, uninflu- enced by ulterior motives” had been injured by an article recently published in the “American Mercury,” the American Civil Liberties Union has instituted a libel suit against the magazine and the author for $50,000 damages.

_ The action is based on the leading article in the December issue of the magazine, en- titled “The Civil Liberties Union,’’ and subtitled ‘‘Liberalism a la Moscow,” by Harold Lord Varney, associate editor of the magazine.

The summons and complaint in the action, drawn up by Arthur Garfield Hays and Morris L. Ernst, general counsel for the Union, was served upon Lawrence Spivack, treasurer of the American Mercury, Inc. While the author, Mr. Varney, has not yet been served with the papers, this will not hold up the lawsuit, according to Mr. Hays.

“This is the first such suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, a free speech organization,’ declared Harry F. Ward, chairman of the Union. ‘‘The Union holds that libel is outside the protection of free speech or press. The only question in- volved is one of damages.”

Statements made by Varney in his Mercury article, the Union holds, charge in effect that the A. C. L. U. “is an organization soliciting contributions under false pre- tenses and is an organization, the real purpose and practice of which is to foster revolution in the United States and to over throw the government of the United States by force.”

Varney, it was pointed out by the Union, is a former secretary of the Italian Histori- cal Society, the Fascist propaganda bureau in New York, and has been decorated for hig services by Mussolini himself. He has also been on the staff of the “‘“Awakener,” a self-styled Fascist publication. At one time, however, Varney was an active member of the I. W. W.

The question as to whether a membership corporation may sue for libel was settled ten years ago when the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice sued the MacFadden Publications for charges that John S. Sumner, secretary of the society, was splitting fifty-fifty on fines collected . through the society, and was awarded $10,000 by the court.

MANTLE CLUB EXPOSED AS A RACKET; INT. REGISTRATION BUREAU REAPS HARVEST

During the past year the A.C.L.U. has had occasional requests for information on the Mantle Club, an organization for white collar workers. Our inquirers were fearful that this might be another fascist organization, but recent press reports indicate that the club is just another racket.

Seven thousand persons in the bay area were induced to pay $20 initiation fee and $2 monthly to the club. No one seems to know what the money was used for, and the members, who are required to serve a two-year probation, period, never learned the ‘‘secrets” of the organization.

Police Search for Officials

The San Francisco police are now searching for the officials of the club which is said to be incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware with principal offices at 122 East 42nd St., New York City. J. Fenton Jones is president, A. J. Cook, vice-president and treasurer, and F. A. Muller, secretary. Hugh Bartlett Monjar, one-time promoter of the Decimo Club which was out-lawed ten years ago, is editor of the club’s monthly paper, The American Key—‘“For life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!’’ Bernie Kaiser is said to be local organizer and A. L. Schipper is reputed to be the secretary.

The club’s magazine has been published for the past 314 years by the Key Publishing Co., Inc. The February, 1937, issue which came to our attention, among other things advocates making every man a capitalist by giving him stock in the company in which he is employed, condemns social legislation and stresses the benefits of punctuality.

The International Registration Bureau Another organization that has reaped a fortune in Northern California is The International Registration Bureau, publishers of Mankind United. The book, if sold to two hundred million people, was offered as a panacea for wars and. a way to “fi-— nancial security and abundant leisure, to every man, woman and child on this planet.”” And, for those who want to help, the first suggestion is that they “Order as many copies of ‘Mankind United’ as you can put into circulation among your relatives, friends, acquaintances and neighbors.’’ The book costs $2.50. We know one person who was led to purchase $60 worth of books.

SAN FRANCISCO REPEALS ANTIPICKETING LAW; OAKLAND NEXT; BERKELEY LAW INVALIDATED

San Francisco’s 20-year-old anti-picketing ordinance was repealed by the electorate on March 9. The official vote on the proposition, which was numbered 19, was 78,098 for repeal, to 68,765 against repeal. 152,469 voters cast ballots on March 9, and 146,863 voted on the anti-picketing repeal measure—the largest vote cast on the 20 propositions submitted to the voters. Twenty years ago exactly 142,327 voters cast ballots-on the anti-picketing law proposition. At that time it was adopted by a vote of 74,028 to 68,299.

A proposal to repeal Oakland’s anti-picketing ordinance has been placed on the ballot as Proposition No. 5 at the election on April 20. Oakland’s anti-picketing ordinance is almost identical to the one just repealed in San Francisco.

Provisions of Berkeley’s anti-picketing ordinance prohibiting peaceful picketing have again been held invalid, this time by Superior Judge E. J. Tyrrell who released A. .N. Fits, Edward 8. Dean and S. Hall Ryan, who had been convicted of picketing the F. W. Woolworth store in Berkeley last September. Judge Leon E. Gray had previously rendered a similar decision. Following these decisions charges pending against 89 pickets involved in the same Woolworth episode were dismissed by Police Judge Oliver Youngs of Berkeley. In one case, however, Berkeley authorities Le appealed to the District Court of Appeals.

SCHOOL AUTHORITIES FILE BRIEF IN FLAG SALUTE APPEAL

Sacramento school authorities on March 8 filed their brief in the Gabrielli flag sa- lute case. The appeal is from a Judgment by Superior Court Judge Peter J. Shields who ruled that Charlotte Gabrielli should be reinstated to her public school class without being compelled to salute the flag. © Charlotte, a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, refused to salute the flag because of religious objections. A.C.L. U. attorney, Wayne M. Collins has been given until May 1 to file his answering brief.

Grounds of Appeal

The appellant urges the district court of appeal to reverse the lower court’s decision on two grounds. He contends:

1. The religious belief of a person cannot be recognized as a justification or ex- cuse for refusing to perform a duty imposed by lawful authority;

2. School authorities may, in their sound discretion, make reasonable rules and reg- ulations, which students must obey, even though such rules are not reduced to writing and made a matter of record.

The Road To Patriotism

While there is no state law requiring children to salute the flag, the appellant argues that the law requires children to be taught patriotism. Also, flags must be displayed in each schoolroom at all times during the school session. ““How can patriotism be better instilled into the mind of a child,” asks the appellant, ‘than by teaching it to salute and respect the flag?”

“... if the trial court in the matter at bar is to be upheld,” states the brief, ‘then it should also logically follow that a student could refuse to remove his hat in his classroom, or in a court room, if he has religious objections against removing it. We see no difference in principle between requiring a student to salute the flag and pledge al© legiance thereto and requiring a soldier to salute the flag or salute a superior officer.”

New Jersey Upholds Compulsory Flag-Saluting _ On February 5, 1937, the New J ersey Su- preme Court (a court of original jurisdic_tion) refused to reinstate John and Ella Hering to public school after they had been expelled for refusing to salute the flag. New Jersey has a compulsory flag salute law. In a brief opinion the court stated as follows:

“It is urged that the statute is invalid as infringing the constitutional and statutory guarantees of equal free school for all the people. We think not. Those who resort to educational institutions maintained with the state’s money are subject to the commands of the State. The performance of the commands of the statute in question could, in no sense, interfere with religious freedom. It is little enough to expect of those who seek the benefits of the education offered in the public schools of this State that they pledge their allegiance to the nation and the nation’s flag. The pledge of allegiance is, by no stretch of the imagination, a religious rite. It is a patriotic ceremony which the legislature has the power to require of those attending schools established at public expense. A child of school age is not required to attend the institutions maintained by the public, but is required to attend a suitable school. Those who do not desire to conform with the commands of the statute can seek their schooling elsewhere.’

OPTIONAL DRILL WINS IN NORTH DAKOTA |

A bill forbidding compulsory military training in tax-supported educational in- stitutions in North Dakota has been passed . by both houses of the state legislature and recently signed by Governor Langer.

Approval of the bill makes North Dakota the third state to substitute optional for compulsory military training in state educational institutions. Wisconsin and Minnesota have already taken the step.

The Nye-Kvale optional Military Training bill (S. 867 and H. R. 8795) has been introduced again in Congress.

STATE SENATE KILLS BILL FOR FREEDOM OF THE AIR

Senator Culbert L. Olson’s bill, S.B. 785, relieving radio stations from liability for statements made by “any speaker discussing political subjects’ was adopted by the California Senate on March 23 by a vote of 30 to 8, but was reconsidered on March 25 and re-referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it is likely to suffer a -painless death.

The bill reads as follows:

‘‘No person, firm or corporation owning er controlling a broadcasting station shall be liable for statements made by any speaker discussing political matters except when the person, firm or corporation owning or controlling the broadcasting station affir- matively declares that such statements are made for and in behalf of such person, firm er corporation.”’

This bill must be read in the light of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission which prescribe that a station may not censor material broadcast by legally qualified candidates for public office.

“The censorship provision is of little value. Though it protects the candidate himself from censorship by networks and stations, and protects stations from actions for slander or libel when a candidate is on the air, it does not extend to speakers other than candidates, and stations have been found guilty of defamation for the remarks of such other speakers.”

Senator Olson argued that, “If a political speaker hires a hall the owner of that hall is not held responsible for the remarks the speaker makes. It should be no more true for a radio station.”

Senator Sharkey contended that “You take the lid off if this bill is passed, because copy won’t have to be submitted in advance,”

“It is law at present that network and station owners, managers, program direc: tors, and even announcers and technicians in charge of the electrical controls, must, at the peril of the station, determine at the moment of utterance whether a remark is actionable, a feat that no responsible judge or lawyer would presume to perform except in the plainest case. This has led necessarily to the indefensible practice of re- quiring the submission of manuscript for approval of networks and stations on an editorial basis.”

The passage of the above bill would have put an end to the danger of punitive action against stations and would obviate the necessity for editorial treatment of public discussion. It would not, of course, free the speaker himself from responsibility in the courts and elsewhere for his remarks or his conduct on the air.

END OF KOCI DEPORTATION CASE IN SIGHT

The deportation proceedings against Frank Koci are nearing a conclusion. Within the next week records will be introduced in evidence to discredit the testimony of the Government’s chief witness, Carmen Joan Dodson. Once these records are introduced the Government has indicated it will not seriously rely upon the charges made by Miss Dodson.

The only other evidence against Koci is an asserted admission that he was a member of the Communist Party. That testimony was given by the two Immigration Inspectors who arrested Koci. Koci has denied the alleged admission.

JIM BRANCH GIVES UP LONG DEPORTATION FIGHT

Campbell William Skeoch (Jim) Branch, against whom deportation proceedings have been pending since the general strike in 1934, will surrender himself shortly for deportation to the British West Indies. His attorney, George R. Andersen, decided not to appeal Branch’s deportation order to the U. S. Supreme Court after the lower federal courts failed to set aside the order. Branch was a teacher in the Workers’ School, conducted by the Communist Party.

Gallagher Disagrees

‘The opinion of Ernest Besig, Norther: apoeate California director of the A. C. L. U., concerning proposed legislation was ‘challenged by Leo Gallagher, attorney for the International Labor Defense, in the following vehement article published in the Open Forum of March 20:

The people of California certainly have a right to expect at least reasonable judg- ment from persons claiming to act as directors of the Civil Liberties Union in this State.

I wish to sharply criticize the article by Ernest Besig in the Open Forum of March 6.

Mr. Besig criticizes the proposed Assembly Bill 2019 limiting the right to proclaim the race, color and nationality of alleged criminals in newspaper headlines. No one can well deny that one of the main reasons for race prejudice in the United States is that the race, color, and nationality of minority groups are constantly emphasized in. the press in their screeching headlines cévcerning the commission of crime. It seems utterly absurd to me that anyone can suggest that a law forbidding the publishing in newspaper headlines of the race, color or nationality of an alleged criminal is an abridgment of a free press when these matters may be freely discussed in the body of the newspaper article.

Mr. Besig’s Criticism Without Merit Mr. Besig’s criticism of Assembly Bill No. 2020 seems to me to be equally without merit. He states that it would be a limitation of free press to provide by law that it shall be a misdemeanor to publish statements wilfully known to misrepresent the facts; or to publish as facts. statements known to be untrue through gross carelessness. Under this law no one could be punished for publishing a false statement unless it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the publisher knew the state‘ment was false, or published the statement with a reckless disregard of the truth. Such a law would prevent much of the scurrilous, unjust references to persons and political organizations which now go uncensored. It cannot be seriously argued that such a limitation on action is a violation of the principle of free press.

Lack of time has prevented my giving consideration to other portions of Mr. Besig’s article, but if his reeommendations concerning other bills and his judgment in general may be gauged from his criticisms of these two bills, his opinion is, in my esti- mation, valueless.

The Bills Speak for Themselves

Whether or not Mr. Gallagher’s criticism is justified may best be determined by reading the bills themselves. They are as follows:

A. B. 2019: 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 a crime is guilty of a misdemeanor.

A. B. 2020: Every person who publishes in a newspaper or other periodical or in a leaflet, pamphlet or book a statement wilfully misrepresenting the facts; or pub- lishes as facts statements known to him to be untrue or erroneous through gross care- lessness, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Then follows a description of a “person” as including author, owner, responsible editor and the business manager or producer).

Roger Baldwin’s Opinion

On March 16, Roger N. Baldwin, national director of the Civil Liberties Union, wrote that “Bill No. 2019, prohibiting racial and other designations in newspaper headlines establishes a dangerous precedent. Any control of the press which could be easily made to serve other far less worthy purposes would have its evils. We think the press ought to be free from legislative restrictions. The same general comment applies to Bill No. 2020.”

Judge Jackson H. Ralston, in an offhand or “horseback” opinion as the lawyers call it, comments upon A. B. 2019 as follows:

“Apparently this is suggested to forestall Vehemently appeals to race prejudice. However, the lines under the headline may make or rather would still be allowed to make ap‘peals to the same prejudice. Thus it seems to me that the paragraph gets nowhere, but makes freedom of speech more difficult. The headline publication may be most innocent as giving description instead of appealing to prejudice, but this makes no difference.”

After commenting upon the careless language of A. B. 2020, Judge Ralston states as follows:

“Under this I suppose a letter to the editor published in a column so devoted would make the editor and publisher responsible through the absence of an examination. Furthermore the materiality of the falsity is not apparently allowed to enter into the picture. Certainly the general effect would be to make any publication of any fact or supposed fact a dangerous business. What would become of the newspapers which hbefore election pointed out Roosevelt as a Communist or dictator? They would have to measure their words or suffer. Certainly the freedom of the press is sufficiently protected—or rather the rights of the individual—by resort to actions of libel.’’

At a meeting of the Executive and Advisory Committees of the Northern California Branch of the Union held March 1, Assembly Bills 2019 and 2020 were disapproved as abridgments of the freedom of the press.

Wayne Collins Comments

On March 22, Wayne M. Collins, A. C. L. U. attorney, sent the following communication to the Open Forum:

It appears to me that Mr. Leo Gallagher’s criticism of Mr. Ernest Besig’s article © which appeared recently in The por Forum is unjustified.

Assembly Bill No. 2019 is designed to punish publishers of newspapers for pub| lishing in headlines or titles the race, color, or nationality of a person charged with or convicted of crime.

Its provisions are too inclusive in applying equally to persons convicted of crimes who are already in custody of the authorities and who cannot, therefore, be harmed by the publication of the truth, and those charged with the commission of a crime to whom the legal presumption of innocence attaches. Our law already provides redress for overt acts of a tortious and of a criminal nature. Public prejudice can be overcome by educational methods but cannot. be legislated out of existence.

This Bill would render a publisher criminally responsible, not for the commission of an unjust act, but for his intent or because.of the remote effect the truth of the publication might have upon the public mind. This Bill proposes to penalize a pub- lisher for publishing the truth and if allowed to pass unchallenged would pave the way for further encroachments upon the freedom of the press.

Assembly Bill No. 2020 is another attempted restriction upon the freedom of the press. If it were to be enacted into law publishers expressing the opinions of mi- norities, reformist or radical, would be the first to be selected to suffer persecution for a violation of its provisions.

This Bill is vicious in that it would render a publisher criminally liable for the misrepresentations of his editors even in the absence of criminal intent upon his part. It is defective in that no tests have been laid down by which to ascertain whether or not a misrepresentation is wilfull. To leave this to be adjudged by a court or jury panders to the prejudice of the court or jurors.

It is further defective in that the conviction of a publisher is rendered practically impossible for the reason that the prosecution would have the burden of proving be- yond the shadow of a doubt that the facts claimed to have been wilfully misrepresented were so known to be to the publisher or that the publisher was guilty of SrOss (Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

Wares

American Civil Liberties Union News

Published monthly at 434 Mills Building, San Franeisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union.

Phone: EXbrook 1816 BRNEST BESIG. Hditor PAULINE W. DAVIBS...........--.--s0c0---- Associate Editor

Subscription Rates—Fifty Cent3 a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

Correspondence Column

WHY CAN’T THE A.C.L.U. MIND ITS OWN BUSINESS?

_ Editor: .. .In your fight for ‘‘Civil Liberties” why is it that you are invariably aligned on the side of an alien to whom we owe no “Civil Liberties” or why do you take up cudgels of defense in behalf of a Communist who has pledged his allegiance to a foreign government which in turn has dedicated itself to the overthrow of our own, thus branding you and your associates as allies of those who are fighting against the very institutions under which you live and move and have your being and utilizing every technical protection afforded by a beneficient constitution to destroy that very thing behind which you hide.

The annals of history are replete with the chronicle of zealous marplots, but I doubt if any individual or organization of modern times approaches in audaciousness the A.C.L.U.

Criticism to be effective must also be constructive; therefore I shall endeavor to make mine so. (1) In your opinion is the forceful occupation of private property by “sit-down” strikers an infringement upon civil liberties? (2) Is mass picketing and violence which prevents as individual or corporation from entering his or its own premises and conducting normal operations of a business in keeping with your ideas of civil liberties? (3) Is “Beef Squad’ pressure to compel a man to join a union whether he wants to or not in conformity with your ideas of truly American institutions? (4) In your defense of the rights of free speech you condone advocacy of violence—providing no violence actually occurs. Aren’t you splitting hairs? And isn’t the question of your guilt or innocence as an accomplice therefore a matter of violence which prevents an individual or human equation. (5) If you are so intensely interested in preserving civil rights, why did you not take an active part in the disgusting situation which existed in San Francisco several weeks ago when men were ruthlessly attacked and beaten by “Beef Squads” parading the financial section of San Francisco, and particularly when the only offense of these men was in an effort to exercise their legal rights to sell newspapers. (6) Why can’t you and your associates learn to mind your own business ?

If it is your earnest desire to build a constructive and effective organization and make it “American” in action as well as in name you would find many ardent supporters who would flock to your banner if you would once and for all remove the hammer and sickle from your mast head and interest yourself in a true and unbiased effort for the preservation of real American liberties against the mealy mouthings of alien agitators. ...

FAIR PLAY. San Francisco, March 20.

CIVIL RIGHTS SERIES ON THE AIR

Dramatizing the historic struggles of Americans to win civil liberties, a series of broadcasts entitled, “Let Freedom Ring,”’ sponsored by the Office of Education of the U. S. Department of Interior has been scheduled to go on every Monday night at 7:30 P. T. over the Columbia network.

Forthcoming broadcasts include Free Petition, April 5; Right of Suffrage, April 12; Women’s and Children’s Rights, April 19; Patent Rights, April 26; Right of Habeas Corpus, May 8; Right of Freedom of Home, May 10; and Right of Racial Equality, May 17.

Vigilantes Threaten Sits

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

bility was given the affair when defense witnesses testified the following men were also among those present: Noonan, insurance agent from Santa Rosa; McKinley, from the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat; Ira Lambert, a farmer from Healdsburg (the only farmer mentioned) ; Mr. Lewis, a traffie officer; Sidney Elphick, a deputy sheriff, and a Lieutenant Smith.

The defense witnesses were all present in the vigilante mob. Besides the ones named above, the defense produced Robert C. McClain of Petaluma, who claimed he was a retired army officer. McClain explained his presence in the mob by saying that he had been up the Russian River searching for army rifles said to have been stolen by Communists, and he was merely continuing his search in Santa Rosa.

Another witness, Leonard H. Harris, an insurance broker in Santa Rosa, explained his presence with the vigilantes by saying that he was investigating subversive activities for the Intelligence Department of the United States Naval Reserve. Harris later revealed that he was Secretary-Treasurer of the Native Sons Hall Association where the mob first congregated; that the vigilantes had not rented the hall; that he made no objection to their presence; and that he turned out the lights and locked the door after all had left. Since that time he claims a stronger lock has been put on the hall.

Other vigilante witnesses were Karl K. Weimer of Santa Rosa, a real estate brok- er;Oliver Roy Tuttle, a druggist of Santa Rosa; Charles Turner Dyhre of Sebastapol, an accountant, who came to the tar and feather party with a Phil Allison, also a resident of Sebastapol, and W. H. Williams of Santa Rosa, a civil engineer.

Only one of the defense witnesses saw Green struck. All of them claimed that the mob was not noisy; that they wore no masks; that no arms were carried and that there had been no drinking. And, of course,

GALLAGHER DISAGREES

(Continued from Page 8, Col. 3)

negligence in failing to know that the statements were untrue or erroneous. In the latter case the publisher might be penalized criminally for his ignorance and this would establish a dangerous precedent.

What Is Truth?

Human knowledge has been accumulated largely through the method of trial and error and there is as yet scarcely any positive standard by which truth or accuracy may be gauged. An expressed opinion which today may be claimed to be a deliberate misrepresentation tomorrow may be accepted as the truth. It would be highly intolerant to punish a publisher for his championship of a cause that today is unpopular but which tomorrow may represent popular opinion.

Our law already provides punishment for criminal libel and grants civil redress for defamatory matter spoken or printed and amply protects us from invasion of the rights it covers.

These Bills, if passed, would add nothing of importance to our laws, but would, if not declared unconstitutional by our courts, simply prove to be added limitations upon the few civil liberties reposed in the people.

ANOTHER DELAY IN SACRAMENTO C. S. APPEAL

The District Court of Appeal on March 1 granted the Attorney General until March 31st to file his brief in the Sacramento criminal syndicalism cases. Caroline Decker, one of the appellants, will be re leased from Tehachapi on parole on April 27, while Nora Conklin will be released a month later. It is reported that both will seek to argue their own appeals when the case is finally heard.

The eight Sacramento criminal] syndicalism victims were convicted on April 1, 1935. Besides the two women mentioned above, Pat Chambers, Martin Wilson and Jack Crane are still incarcerated.

Mr. Cairns always acted in the most righteous and exemplary manner. Needless to say, the witnesses were all good friends of Mr. Cairns.

The jury after listening to defense witnesses might have been in some doubt whether a tar and feather party had actually taken place, but one bit of evidence could not be overcome—a picture of the mob victims taken in the warehouse, showing the tar and feathers on Green and Sol Nitzberg, and, incidentally, showing one of the vigilantes with his back to the camera and a handkerchief tied over the lower portion of his face. Defense «witnesses nevertheless testified that none of the vigilantes were masked.

In his speech to the jury, C. J. Tauzer, counsel for Cairns, justified the mob action on the ground that the farmers of Sonoma County were protecting themselves against conspirators who were fostering a strike among the apple pickers. “It gets to a point where people can’t stand it any longer,” insisted Mr. Tauzer. “The next crop was a hop crop.... They intended to throttle the picking of the hops.”

The inevitable red herring was produced time and again during the trial. In his summation Mr. Tauzer asserted that, “This case will go down in history as Communism versus Fred Cairns.” At another point, Mr. Tauzer complained that, “They are trying to make a goat of Fred Cairns, to make him suffer for the acts of 150, 200, 250 men.”’

Judge Michael J. Roche presided at the trial. A.C.L.U. attorneys, Wayne M. Collins and James J. Cronin, Jr., both of San Francisco, handled the case for Green, while Cairns was represented by C. J. Tauzer of Santa Rosa, Morgan J. Doyle of San Francisco, and Donald Wachhorst of Sacramento.

Another damage suit arising from the tar and feather party is still pending against Cairns. It was brought by Solomon Nitzberg, another victim of the outrage.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES WIN APPEAL TO DISTRIBUTE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE WITHOUT A LICENSE

Emma Betts, Rose Carter and J oseph Berk, members. of Jehovah’s Witnesses, were arrested in Piedmont on September 22, 1936, and charged with the commission of a misdemeanor in that they “did peddle from place to place and did barter, sell or exchange certain articles, namely books and literature without first procuring a written permit from the City Marshal, in poe of Ordinance New Series 39, Section 1.”

When arrested each was engaged in dis— tributing the religious literature of Jeho- vah’s Witnesses from house to house in Piedmont without charge, in preaching the gospel from door to door and in solicit. ing signatures to a petition of their religious society addressed to the United States Federal Communications Commission.

Each pleaded not guilty and the cases were tried without counsel before Judge Dudley H. Nebeker of the Piedmont Municipal Court on October 6, 1936, who found each of them guilty of violating the Piedmont ordinance and sentenced each to. be confined in the County Jail for ten (10) days or to pay a fine of $25.00 instead.

An appeal was filed in each of these cases with the Superior Court of Alameda County. The appeals were argued before Judge Edward J. Tyrrell who on March 4, 1937, reversed and set aside the convictions upon the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to show any violation of the ordinance. He did not pass upon the numerous questions of constitutional law raised in the cases such as that the ordinance violated the “religious freedom”

guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Consti- tution of California, but the effect of his decision is that “religious freedom’ is nevertheless upheld.

The appeal was handled by Attorney Wayne M. Collins.