vol. 2, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol II. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MAY, 1937 No. 5

POMEROY GAG RULE REBUKED

Welfare Commission Supports Social Aides; Plunkert and Campbell Reinstated

Over the objections of Harold E. Pomeroy, S.R.A. Administrator, the State Relief Commission in an open meeting on April 24 adopted a resolution placing “the commission on record as.approving the rights of any employee (of the S.R.A.) to exercise his civil liberties.’”” Mr. Pomeroy had sought the shelter of an executive session in which to defend his edict that any S.R.A. employee who engaged in legislative activities. on his own time, and. in his private capacity, “‘would be required to separate himself from his employment.”” While the Commission’s powers are merely advisory, the resolution may have a salutary effect in curbing the dictatorial pronouncements of Mr. Pomeroy.

Pomeroy’s gag order was directed against legitimate lobbying activities carried on by S.R.A. employees in behalf of the legislative program. sponsored by the California Social Welfare Federation. The Federation opposed A.B. 1177, which it felt lowered professional standards of social workers, while it favored enactment of A.B. 1879 as maintaining professional standards. Mr. Pomeroy objected particularly to certain amendments to A.B. 1879 sponsored by the Federation and adopted by the Assembly Committee on Social Service and Welfare.

Communication With Legislators: Verboten

Pomeroy thereupon handed down a verbal order prohibiting employees from “sending. post cards, letters, telegrams, phoning, or otherwise communicating with legislators in. order to influence their opinions,” concerning .any. and. all legislation. He forbade them to have breakfast, lunch or dinner with any legislator, because. “‘it is absolutely impossible for us to separate ourselves as individuals from our official positions, whether we like it or not.”

The gag order was reiterated to a meeting of the Sacramento chapter of the Social Service Employees’: Guild. Assemblyman Ellis E. Patterson, who was among those invited to attend, at once took issue with Pomeroy. “You are the most unfair administrator I have ever seen,’’ said he, ‘“‘and if one of these employees is discharged because he ‘talks to me or any other legislator, I shall bend my efforts to see that. you are removed and shall make it.an issue in the Assembly.”

Plunkert and Campbell Dismissed .

William J. Plunkert, Field Social Service Supervisor, and Mrs. Helen Campbell, Di- rector of Personnel and Training, received letters of dismissal from Esther Hutson, Di- rector, Social Service Division, S.R.A., for ignoring Pomeroy’s edict. At once Ellis Patterson introduced an Assembly resolution condemning Pomeroy’s undemocratic order andasking the Governor to remove him from office. The resolution was referred to the Social Service and Welfare Committee which held a hearing on the resolution on April 15. Pomeroy appeared at the hearing and contended he had had nothing to do with firing either worker, but that their superior, Mrs. Hutson, had dismissed them for “inefficiency.”

Conflict in Stories

His statement was in conflict ‘with the letters of dismissal received by the pair, as well as the testimony of Mrs. Campbell. The letter of dismissal sent to Plunkert. stated that, “Your accomplishment of the duties required within your position as Field Social Service Supervisor has been unquestioned ...’’ Mrs. Campbell testified that ’ Mrs. Hutson had told her they were fired for lobbying; that Plunkert could be rein- (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

NATIONAL AMERICANISM FOUNDATION SUCCEEDS AMERICAN LEAGUE AGAINST COMMUNISM

The American: League Against. Communism. has been succeeded: by the high-sounding National Americanism Foundation. The officers of the organization are John A. Hall, President; Ernest Lloyd Harris, VicePresident; Eldon B. Spofford, Treasurer, Ellis I. Fuller, Jr., Secretary, and Dr. Hugh R. Parkinson, Chairman of. Committee on Organization of Local Councils.

“We must quickly have quantities of applications for Sustaining Memberships at a minimum of $100.00,” says the Foundation, “—_more if you can and will—and plenty of Active Members at not less than $2.00. with the hope you’ll make it at least $10.00.” Need we add that red-baiting is expensive.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM BILL LOSES IN ASSEMBLY EDUCATION COMMITTEE

The Assembly Education Committee recently rejected Paul Richie’s bill A.B. 2567 which would eliminate criminal syndicalism as one of the grounds for dismissal of school teachers.

Among those who advocated its passage were Ernest Besig, Director of the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U.; Professor Guido Marx of Stanford University, President of the California American Federation of Teachers, and Anga Bjornson of the Classroom Teachers Federation.

Harold S. Ryerson, representative of the Merchants and Manufacturers Association of Los Angeles and the California Crusaders; reluctantly admitted that, ‘The sole purpose of the C.S. provision is to warn teachers to watch their step.”’

The vote on the motion to report the bill favorably was as follows: “Ayes”: Dannen- brink, Gilbert, Patterson, Rosenthal and Clark (5); ‘‘Noes”: Donnelly, Garland, Johnson (Berkeley), Eleanor Miller, Morgan, Muldoon (6).

~CAROLINE DECKER PAROLED; NORA. CONKLIN FREE IN MAY; BOARD FIXES SENTENCES FOR MEN

Caroline Decker, Sacramento criminal syndicalism victim, was released on parole from Tehachapi Prison on April 17. Nora Conklin, the remaining woman victim now in prison, will be paroled the latter part of ‘this month.

The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles recently fixed the sentences of the three -men still in prison at five years. Pat Chambers and Martin Wilson may serve the last six months of their sentences on parole, while Jack Crane may spend the last nine months of his sentence on parole. The cases of the eight victims, which have been on appeal since April 1, 1935, will be argued before the District Court of Appeal in Sacramento some time in the next few months.

Colleges Face Compulsory R.O.T.C.

Companion measures designed to establish military training in the. State Colleges have received favorable reports by Assembly and Senate Committees. S.B. 508 rode through the Senate: Education Committee without a dissenting vote, but. A.B. 1238 just. managed. to squeeze through the Assembly Committee on State Colleges. Five of the seven members: of the State Colleges Committee were on hand for the argument. on A.B. 1238, and on the first vote only three members voted for a favorable recommendation, while two voted against the bill. Assemblyman C. C. Cottrell finally changed his vote from ‘‘No” to “Aye.” He explained he was opposed to compulsory military training, but since the measure needed one vote to reach the Assembly floor, and he was one of the authors, he would change his vote. The vote in Committee was as follows: “Ayes’: Hugh M. Burns, Daley, Sheehan (San Francisco), and Cottrell; ‘‘Noes’’: Michael J. Burns. Ernest Besig, Northern California director of the A.C.L.U., pointed out that the proposed law is ‘‘permissive’”’ only in a lim~ ited sense. While it permits the establishment of R.O.T.C. in State Colleges, military training is not made permissive or elective for students. Under the bill a State College may make military training either optional or compulsory, but the American Legion, which sponsored the measure, will undoubtedly insist that the drill be made compulsory. In fact, representatives of the Legion who attended the committee hearing refused to accept an amendment to provide that in no event shall military training be made compulsory. An amendment of this kind will be offered on the floor of the Assembly.

Let Freedom Ring

NEW LEADER

Dr. Charles A. Hogan, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the A.C.L.U. has gone Hast. Helen Salz has been named Acting Chairman during his absence.

OAKLAND FAILS | :

_. Repeal of Oakland’s anti-picketing ordinance was defeated 26,973 to 26,384, or by exactly 589 votes. A recount demanded by _. labor is now under way.

510 ACTIVE MEMBERS

.The active, paid-up membership of the ~ Northern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. on April 27 was exactly 510, the highest figure in the history of the local branch. Please ask your friends to join the Union.

oo ‘TOM MOONEY

For the third time this session, the Cali_ fornia Assembly adopted a. resolution call_ ing for a pardon for Tom Mooney. An As~ sembly resolution that goes directly to the Governor was passed by a vote of 32 to 25.

~ Two previous resolutions, one calling for a legislative pardon and the other urging an ~executive pardon, were overwhelmingly de-feated in the reactionary Senate after receiving favorable action in the Assembly.

THE A.C.L.U. ELECTS

. Francis J. Gorman, President of the United Textile Workers, and Dr. Mary E. Woolley of Massachusetts, former President of Mt. Holyoke College,. have been elected national vice-chairmen of the -A.C.L.U.

New members of the National Committee | are Father R. A. MacGowan of Washing-. ton, D. C., Michael Doyle of Philadelphia, Pa., Father Francis Hass of Milwaukee, Wis., Father Edward MaGuire of Kanka_kee, l., Hon. Geo. W. Norris of Nebraska and Congressman Maury Maverick of Texas. New members of the Board of Directors are Mrs. Elinore Herrick, Ordway Tead, and Richard S. Childs.

PICKETING

Assemblyman Cecil King has amended his bill to prohibit the enactment or enforcement. of anti-picketing ordinances. In “its present form, the bill provides that “any ~ person may freely solicit other persons to ‘become members in any lawful organization, whether by means of speech, placards, or other advertisements, and such right may be exercised in or upon any public highway, street, or place...” and “any person may - freely express his views of the facts” of a labor dispute. Violation of the act is made a misdemeanor.

-JEWETT APPEAL UNDER SUBMISSION

The appeal of Victor R. Jewett, teacher ~ ‘in the Eureka Junior High School, who was dismissed in the fall of 1935 for “unprofessional conduct” was argued in the District Court of Appeal in Sacramento last month. -The charge at the trial was supported: by evidence that Jewett extolled the Russian five-year plan, distributed pamphlets on the innocence of Tom Mooney, opposed war and said he would go to jail before ‘he would go to war, etc., etc. Jewett is represented by Attorney Clarence E.Rust. of Committee. |

-:“Modesto Defendants” Framed -:

Seven maritime union men convicted in Modesto in 19385 on charges of “reckless possession of dynamite” were framed and should be pardoned immediately is the con- clusion of the majority report of a special Assembly investigating committee. The re- port was-signed by Chairman Jack B. Tenney, Sam Yorty and Paul Richie.

The pardon recommendation was based chiefly on the committee’s findings of “‘the perjury of the prosecution’s chief witness, James F. Scrudder,”? whom it characterized as “a cunning psycopathic liar with a complex for ‘detecting’ and ‘snooping’; a meg- alomaniac who would sacrifice his brother or best friend to gratify his own ego; and an intriguing parasite who would betray his greatest. benefactor in hope of greater re- wards.”

Scrudder testified at the Modesto trial that the defendants all knew there was dynamite in the two cars in which they drove from San Francisco to Stanislaus County the night of April 20, 1935.

But the committee unearthed evidence * that both Scrudder and Hal Marchant, another prosecution witness, told the Stanislaus County district attorney immediately after the arrests that the seven for whom pardons are now asked knew nothing of the dynamite. ;

oo Frame-Up Broke Strike

Scrudder and Marchant were both employed by the Standard Oil Company as stool-pigeons in the maritime unions during the 19385 tanker strike, and were paid by that company for their ‘‘services during the trial. Scrudder, the boasted that the Modesto frameup “broke the strike for the Standard Oil Company.”

The Committee disposes of District Attorney Cleary in the following manner. “Leslie A. Cleary is a man who believes that Communists are lurking behind every pillar and post and that ‘Red’ armies are apt to materialize out of thin air at any minute to destroy the government. He believes that every activity on the part of or-. ganized labor to better their working and living conditions of working men is ‘subversive’ and ‘un-American.’ He is burdened with the idea that every strike and every labor dispute is ordered and directed by Moscow. He thinks the present tendencies in government radical and very serious. The committee wishes to state that this finding is not reported in derogation of ‘District Attorney Cleary, but, on the contrary, is stated in his defense. The commit-. tee believes that these convictions on the part of Mr. Cleary are sincere and honest and that they explain his unusual and ex. traordinary zeal in the prosecution of these defendants.” ;

Findings of Fact

The Committee made the following six findings of fact:

1. That without the testimony of Scrudder, now entirely discredited by his own confession, Reuel Stanfield, Victor H. Johnson, Robert J. Fitzgerald, John Sousa, John Burrows, Henry Silva and Patsy Ciambrelli would not have been convicted on any count contained in the indictment, and the presumption of their innocence is fortified by the evidence before the committee.

2. That James F. Scrudder perjured himself before the Stanislaus grand jury on the tenth day of May, 1935, at the trial of the defendants, before the Stanislaus grand jury January 28, 1937, and before this legislative committee. . .

3. That Glenn M. DeVore, special prosecutor hired by the Standard Oil Company, was not guilty of subornation of perjury:

‘4. That there is no evidence to sustain charges of subornation of perjury on the ‘part of Leslie A. Cleary, district attorney of Stanislaus County.

5. That the case should have been entitled THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA versus THE . DEFENDANTS. : ‘Oakland, member of the A.C.L.U. Advisory a

6. That there is strong evidence of what -may be termed “a tacit conspiracy to committee found, frame” the defendants on the part of certain individuals, and particularly on the part of James F. Scrudder and Hal Marchant. This statement is not intended to convey the idea of an express agreement to “frame” the defendants, but rather a tacit agreement prompted by the zeal of hirelings to “produce” results for their employers.

Committee Recommendations

Finally, the Committee made the follow.ing seven recommendations to the Assembly:

‘1. That a full and complete pardon for Reuel Stanfield, Victor H. Johnson; Robert J. Fitzgerald, John Sousa, John Burrows, Henry Silva and Patsy Ciambrelli be granted, because their legal presumption of innocence obtains in view of Scrudder’s con- fession and discredited testimony.

2. The enactment of a law prohibiting private corporations from defraying expenses of public prosecutions, or furnishing special counsel to assist in criminal prosecutions.

3. The enactment of a law prohibiting district attorneys, city attorneys and all public prosecutors from accepting financial aid, either directly or indirectly, from private corporations in the prosecution of a public offense.

4. Legislation making it mandatory upon the trial judge in a criminal case arising out of, or involving, labor disputes to instruct the jury that the testimony of any witness appearing to be a “stool pigeon” or undercover operator must be received with sus- picion and caution.

5. The enactment of such legislation as may be necessary to authorize the employ| ment of special assistants to district attorneys in the prosecution of cases where such assistance is reasonably necessary for the prosecution of any particular case.

6. The enactment of legislation prohibiting district attorneys, city attorneys and all other public prosecutors from conferring and consulting with private corporation of- ficials, other than witnesses to be called in trial, in all public offenses involving labor disputes or arising out of labor disputes.

7. The enactment of legislation providing that all private guards employed by private corporations shall be deputized in the county where they are employed and that their authority shall extend only to the physical limits of the property they are hired to guard.

A minority report was filed with the Assembly on April 20. It was signed by Seth Millington and Kent H. Redwine, reactionary and red-baiting assemblymen. A large committee of trades union representatives will wait upon Governor Merriam within a short time to urge him to grant: pardons to the seven frame-up victims in accordance with the Committee’s findings.

“VAG” AND MOONEY BILLS PRESSED

: BY TENNEY >

As we go to press, Assemblyman Jack B. Tenney, one of the outstanding liberals at this session of the Legislature, is ready to -ask the Assembly to bring to the floor two civil liberties bills which are stranded in committee. oo

The first of these bills is a vagrancy measure, A.B. 659, which Tenney amended to meet Committee objections. N evertheless, the Crime Problems Committee refused favorable consideration. In its present form the bill eliminates “$1000 vags”’ by setting maximum bail at $250, and also provides that “no person on strike shall be considered a vagrant...” : ;

The second bill, A.B. 1028, would provide a remedy where convictions are secured on perjured testimony: The bill is aimed at the Mooney case.

The fate of these bills is problematical. ' In any event, evasive Assemblymen who prefer to kill bills in Committee rather than to record a public vote in the Assembly, will be compelled to show their true colors.

LEGISLATURE REJECTS BILL TO REPEAL CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM LAW

Legislative repeal of the California criminal syndicalism law is dead for another two years after proponents of repeal suffered two defeats in the Assembly. First, the Assembly Crime Problems Committee tabled Paul Richie’s repeal measure, A.B. 311, by a 5 to 2 vote, and-then the Assembly sustained the Committee’s action by defeating a motion to withdraw the bill from committee in a 45 to 29 vote. ’ Proponents of repeal marshalled speakers from throughout California for the Committee hearing. They represented trades unions, fraternal organizations, the California Conference for the Repeal of the Criminal Syndicalism Law and the American Civil Liberties Union. Attorneys James M. Carter and John Packard spoke for the Southern California branch of the A.C.L.U., _while Ernest Besig appeared for the Northern California branch. Anita Whitney and Lorine Norman, two of California’s criminal syndicalism victims, and Leo Gallagher, attorney for most of the Sacramento criminal syndicalism defendants of 1935, were among those urging repeal of the law. Samuel Hume, President of the California Crusaders, leading the fight against repeal,’ presented Thomas J. Riordan, State Commander of the American Legion, and representatives of the Associated Farmers and the Elks in support of retention of the criminal syndicalism law.

Hornblower Votes Against Repeal

Assemblyman William Hornblower, San Francisco, who has introduced repeal bills at previous sessions of the Legislature, and who bears labor’s endorsement, performed an amazing flip-flop by voting against repeal. Cronin, Levey and Peyser, all of San Francisco, joined Mr. Hornblower, as did Call of South San Francisco. Dawson and Williamson of San Francisco were conveniently absent when the vote was taken. Of course, Beene of Palo Alto, and Gardiner _ Johnson of Berkeley cast their usual reac- tionary votes. :

_ The Committee roll call on the motion to table the bill was as follows: “Ayes”: Cot- trell (San Jose), Johnson (Berkeley), Eleanor Miller, Peyser (San Francisco), and Walker; “Noes”: Richie (Chairman) and Dannenbrink (Oakland).

The Assembly Roll Call

__ The roll call on the motion to withdraw from committee was as follows:

Ayes: Burns, Michael J.; Clark, Dannenbrink, Donihue, Flint, Gilbert, Glick, Haw- kins, Hunt, King, Laughlin, Lore, Maloney, . McMurray, Meehan, Miller, George P.; Pat- terson, Peek, Pelletier, Reaves, Richie, Rosenthal, Sawallisch, Sheehan, Voigt, Ten- ney, Welsh, Yorty and Speaker Jones—29. Noes: Andreas, Baynham, Beene, Boyle, Breed, Burns, Hugh M.; Call, Cottrell, Crowley, Cunningham, Mrs. Daley, Desmond, Dilworth, Donnelly, Field, Fulcher, Gannon, Garibaldi, Garland, Heisinger, Hornblower, Johnson, Kepple, Kuchel, Latham, Leonard, Levey, Lyon, Martin, Mayo, Miller, Eleanor; Millington, Morgan, Muldoon, O’Donnell, Peyser, Redwine, Robertson, Scudder, Stream, Thorp, Turner, Walker and Watson—45.

Absent or not voting: Cassidy, Corwin, Dawson, Waters, Weber and Williamson —6.

NAPA ADOPTS ANTI-PICKETING OR_ DINANCE WHICH GUARANTEES PEACEFUL PICKETING

The County of Napa recently passed an anti-picketing ordinance that goes into effect June 24, 1937. Through the efforts of the local Labor Council and the Napa Ministerial Union the following section was. added to the ordinance safeguarding the right of peaceful picketing:

_ “Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit or abridge the right of lawful. and peaceful picketing, either primary or secondary, if not accompanied by compulsion, coercion, intimidation, or threats of abuse or violence, nor to prohibit labor from attempting to accomplish its aims and purposes in trade disputes by peaceable means, including collective bargaining.”

The A.C.L.U. Re-States Its Purposes

Page 3

So many friends and critics have recently raised questions as to the purposes ofthe American Civil Liberties Union in relation to current issues that we desire to make it clear beyond debate that the Union has no purpose to serve other than the maintenance of democratic rights.

It is frequently charged that we directly or indirectly favor the political or economic purposes of some of those whose civil rights we protect. The personal political opinions of some of our officers are also identified with the Union’s purposes.

Defense of Civil Rights Sole Purpose of A.C.L.U.

It cannot be too strongly stated that the Union is a “united front” of persons of very varied political and economic views who > could not possibly agree on any program except defense of civil rights. The Union has no political or economic direction whatever; no connection directly or indirectly with any political party or economic movement; and no bias except to protect orderly and peaceful progress through the exercise of traditional American civil rights.

The Union interprets the Bill of Rights as it was originally intended; namely, to cover all forms of agitation and propaganda not associated with acts of violence or direct incitements to violence. We draw the line where the courts drew it for a cen- tury—between word and deed. We do not, of course, include within the free speech protection personal libel or slander. Our purposes are solely to protect the agitation of public issues and the guarantees of personal liberty set forth in the Bill of Rights. Forthright Democracy Labelled “Radical” We hear complaints that the personnel of the Civil Liberties Union is too radical for its purposes, and that the defense of American principles would be better carried on ‘by persons none of whom are identified with any radical political philosophy. The obvious answer to that criticism is that an inclusive organization is bound to number among its active members those who have a.radical economic outlook. But the Civil Liberties Union would not only welcome the more active cooperation of others who have a different outlook, but would at any time So reorganize its personnel as to put such persons into positions of official responsi- bility. Any examination of the public pronouncements of persons in behalf of unfet- tered democracy will show that very few, aside from those labeled “radicals” because of their liberalism, will take a stand. Indeed, it is becoming almost the fashion in the United States as elsewhere to label forthright defenders of democracy as “Communists.” Reaction makes little distinction between Communists and a political democracy which may be used to promote the rights and power of the masses against privileged property interests.

Upholds Guarantees of Personal Liberties For All

The tests of the sincerity of an organization like the Civil Liberties Union are its willingness to defend those who do not espouse progressive causes. The Union has never failed to come to the aid, when requested, of those with conservative or reactionary purposes. It has defended the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to hold peaceful public meetings; it protested against a Senate Committee’s seizure of private telegrams ‘sent by utility companies and their agents and indeed by that arch-apologist for Fascism, William Randolph Hearst. It has on occasion protected the rights of rank and file trade union workers against tyrannical officials. It would protect, if occasion required, as it does not, the rights of nonunion workers. It does not protect or condone violence by organized labor nor intimidation of non-union workers.

The Civil Liberties Union is not organized to protect the rights of property. That pro- tection has nothing to do with the maintenance of democratic processes. Even though the enjoyment of property is a constitutional right, the Civil Liberties Union does not protect all constitutional rights. It would be too large an order for any organi- zation of citizens.

Opponents of Repression

It is said that the defenders of civil liberty condemn Fascism but do not equally condemn Communism. When the term “Fascism” is used in such a sense, it is to describe the repressive measures characteristic of Fascism, and shared by forces everywhere sympathetic with its objectives. If Communists engaged in such repressive tactics in the United States, we would condemn them equally. The record shows that American Communists do not. We use the words “Fascism” and “Communism” only in reference to American conditions.

The Civil Liberties Union will welcome any criticism or comment tending to show that the national office or any of its local branches throughout the country have failed to adhere strictly to a neutral and dispassionate interpretation of the defense of civil rights. We recognize, as do most of the defenders of civil liberty, that strict ad- herence to impartial defense of all whose rights are attacked—without the slightest suspicion of favoritism—is the only basis on yen any rights can genuinely be proected. :

OPTIONAL DRILL MEASURES BEATEN IN ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES |

Jack B. Tenney’s Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 18, which provides that “No student in the University of California shall ever be compelled to take a course in military training or tactics,’”’ was tabled by the Assembly Constitutional Amendments Committee on April 27 by a vote of 7 to x The roll call on the motion to table was as follows: “Ayes”: Cunningham, Crowley, Desmond, Latham, Peyser (San Francisco), and Watson—7; “Noes”: Hunt, Kepple (a _ Quaker), Rosenthal and Tenney—4, A similar bill by Assemblyman Rosenthal, A.B. 340, which reads that “No student in any of the universities or colleges of this State shall be obliged to enroll in a course of military training and no university or college in this State shall require a compulsory course in military training,” suffered _ defeat in the Assembly Education Committee. There the vote ‘was 4 to 6 on a motion to send the bill out with a “Do Pass” recommendation. The roll call was as follows: “Ayes” : Rosenthal—4; “Noes’’: Dannenbrink and Johnson (of Berkeley), Donnelly, Garland, Morgan—6.

LEGISLATURE CONSIDERS FREE SPEECH FOR CIVIC CENTERS

Forestalling committee defeat of his bill to amend the Civic Center Act (A.B. 430, providing against discrimination in the use of schoolhouses as public forums), Paul Richie secured Assembly approval on a motion to have it referred from the reactionary Education Committee to the Committee on Labor and Capital. The latter committee is the most liberal in the Assembly and is certain to report the bill favorably, if it can muster a quorum. The Committee failed to hold sessions April 20th and 27th. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday evening, May 4.

In the Senate, S.B. 319 by Westover, which would likewise have liberalized the Civic Center Act, failed to get one favorable vote in the Senate Education Committee. Senator Westover failed to support the bill, merely explaining that it had been in- troduced by him at the request of a minister in his district. Senator Herbert Slater of vigilante-ridden Sonoma County -expressed himself as ‘“‘astounded” that anyone would be willing to see the schools used as meeting places by ALL groups. The bill - would have prevented boards of education ~ _from considering the political or economic views of groups which asked for the use of school buildings.

Clark, Gilbert, Patterson and

American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly at 434 Mills Building, San Fran- cisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union. Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. : PAULINE W. DAVIES..............---------..-Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cent3 a Year. Five Cents per. Copy.

Pomeroy Rebuked

(Continued from. Page 1, Col. 2)

stated if he would apologize to Mr. Pomeroy; but that Mrs. Campbell was definitely out because Mr. Pomeroy stated that he “didn’t like me, never had liked me and didn’t want me in the organization.”’

Another. witness, Francis Taylor, intake Supervisor of the S.R.A. in Sacramento, testified that Pomeroy had told him that he had “four members of the (Assembly) com- mittee cinched’’; and that Gardiner Johnson.of Berkeley was one of the four. Neither Pomeroy-nor Johnson denied the testimony given by Taylor.

Pomeroy told the Committee that he had modified his original gag order after a meeting with his field staff. “It is unfortunate that. a sweeping and all-inclusive and . general statement was made,’ declared Pomeroy. In its place he issued an. ambiguous. order permitting lobbying, so long as it does not “involve the administration or bring criticism upon it.”

Assemblyman William Hornblower challenged the new order as an infringement of the recognized rights of state employees. So long as a state employee’s conduct is free from acts involving moral turpitude, Hornblower contended that he might do what he wanted with his free time. At least, that is the rule for California civil service employees, which Hornblower urged Pomeroy to adopt for S.R.A. employees who are not protected by. civil service and may be fired at the whim of the administrator.

Webb’s Opinion

Pomeroy insisted that his new order would nevertheless be interpreted in the light of an opinion handed down by Attorney General U. 8. Webb on October 24, ‘1935, which reads, in part, as follows: “It is generally admitted to be not only the privilege but the duty of an American citizen to be politically active, and it has not been supposed that.employment in state or municipal service, either civil service or otherwise, would prevent or prohibit an employee from the exercise of political rights, including a reasonable and well ordered activity in behalf of those political principles which he favored, or in the support of those candidates whose success_he believed would best contribute to the general welfare. Whether an employee in a particular instance exceeds the limits indicated must be determined as above indicated by a con‘sideration of the facts: and circumstances bearing upon the particular activity.” Reinstatements Ordered by Hutson The following day (April 17) Mrs. Hutgon reinstated Plunkert and Mrs. Campbell. Her letter to Plunkert reads as follows:

“I have been informed that at a meeting of a committee of the Legislature held yes- -terday, April 16th, the statement was made ‘that I dismissed you on my. own responsi- bility and initiative because of incompetence in your position as Field Social Serv- ice Supervisor, “As you know from my letter of dis-missal, no mention was made of incompe“tency. Iam, therefore rescinding your dismissal. Iam submitting my own resignation “in order that the Administrator may take directly whatever action he may wish in respect to your continued employment.” -.-Plunkert and Mrs. Campbell returned to + work, while Pomeroy announced on April 24 that he would not accept Mrs. Hutson’s resignation. :

.The Assembly Social Service and Welfare ‘Committee was scheduled to renew consid- eration of the Pomeroy resolution on April -23rd, but Pomeroy requested a week’s eontinuance in order to permit him to straighten out the mess which he had cre-ated in his department. Legislative action _ may be dropped if Pomeroy indicates that his employees are free to carry on lobbying.

Editor — Union to it.

The Relation of the A.C.L.U. To “Sit-down” Strikes

The new tactic followed by both strikers and the unemployed in occupying places of employment and public offices as a form of protest and pressure raises questions on which the champions of civil rights are sharply divided. The various arguments are here set forth in order to indicate the complex character of the issue and to define the relation of the American Civil Liberties Many of our friends dismiss all these sitdown and stay-in strikes as a simple issue of trespass, involving only property rights with which the American Civil Liberties Union is not concerned. But a contrary view is expressed by many others that other issues than trespass are involved. They point out that when the unemployed occupy relief offices or legislative halls, they are exercising what seem to them to be rights of access to a public place with which their interests are vitally concerned. They point out further that when sit-down strikers have occupied plants only during their working hours, repeating the tactic on subsequent. days, that no issue of trespass has yet been raised and that no process of law has. yet been invoked.

The main issue arises, of course, when strikers continue to occupy plants. after working hours. Injunctions have been issued against them. Arrests have been made for trespass. Legislative proposals attempt to make such forms of trespass felonies or go further by making failure to give several days’ notice to strike a crime. Threats are frequently made of the use of private ‘violence or of the military power of. the state to eject such strikers. Issues of civil liberty are obviously involved in some of these methods of dealing with the problem.

Debatable Questions Involved

Occupation of company property by striking’ workers raises highly debatable questions in a field in which public policy is obviously yet to be determined. Sit-down strikers usually maintain that they are “‘not sitting on company property; they are sitting on their jobs,” and assert a “property interest” in their jobs. They liken the procedure to a form of picketing, maintaining that the law once held both picketing and ' trade unions to be illegal and arguing that the law may come around to the recognition under given circumstances of their right to remain peacefully at their places of work. How far the law may hold that labor relations are subject to public regulation and therefore whether such a tactic might be recognized in any circumstances “is still, of course, a matter of speculation.

Contrary arguments are commonly advanced against the tactic on grounds which in principle have some relation to the dem-ocratic process. It is pointed out that the sit-down tactic enables a minority of workers to deny rights to a majority and that in a public service industry a small minority may cripple service essential to a whole community. They point out further that the tactic: may be used by irresponsible ele- ments against trade unions themselves.

The Position of the A.C.L.U.

The chief concern of the Civil Liberties Union in relation to industrial conflict is to keep open the processes of discussion and negotiation as against coercion and vio- lence. That is the heart of the civil liberties doctrine. The Civil Liberties Union has always opposed use of force or violence in industrial conflict on the side of employers or strikers and the use of excessive force by public authorities in making arrests. It is not always easy to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable use of the power of the police, and each set of circumstances must therefore be judged separ-ately. Ordinarily ways can be found to enforce the law without paying the price of bloodshed for such tactics as the peaceful occupation of places of employment.

It is obviously in the public interest to have the conflict between labor and capital handled by the process of discussion and negotiation rather than complicated by the hasty and ill-advised use of the power of the police.

The Civil Liberties Union will act only to keep open the channels of organization and negotiation, to maintain intact the right to strike and in particular cases to protest and take action against unnecessary force or violence, by whomever employed.

ANGELO HERNDON FREED; DECISION AFFECTS. CALIFORNIA.C.S. LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision handed down on April 26 ruled that Georgia’s “Insurrection”? law passed in 1871 is an unwarranted abridgment of the right of free speech, and Angelo Herndon’s conviction. under the act was.therefore set aside. The Georgia. law provides that. “any attempt, by persuasion or otherwise.to induce others to join in any combined resistance to the lawful authority of the State shall constitute an attempt to incite insurrection.”

In its decision the court. stated that, “There is: evidence tending to prove that the appellant held meetings for the purpose of recruiting members to the Communist -party and solicited contributions for the support:-of that party and there is proof of the doctrines which that party espouses. “Appellant’s intent to incite insurrection, if-it is to be found, must rest upon his procuring members for the Communist party and his possession of that party’s literature when he was arrested.”’ Such activities, the court held, were within the liberties guaranteed by: the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The court’s decision is particularly interesting because California’s Sacramento criminal syndicalism convictions of 1935 are on their way to the Supreme Court for review. In those cases the appellants were ‘convicted of “‘conspiracy to violate the criminal syndicalism act.” And that conspiracy _was. grounded on admitted membership in the Communist Party.

Except in. one case (People v. Horiuchi, 114 Cal. App. 415) the only section of the California criminal syndicalism statute TAR AND FEATHER SUIT ON FILE Sol. Nitzberg’s tar and feather damage suit’ against Fred Cairns has not been ‘dropped or dismissed. Recent reports to the contrary in the daily press are without foundation in fact.

THE KOCI CASE

Refusal of Juvenile Court officers to produce their records without a court order has resulted in delaying the anticipated end of the Koci case. The records are needed to show the character of the Government’s star: witness, Carmen Joan Dodson.

which has been found effective and the only one under which. convictions have been sustained is the membership charge. Under that section, anyone who “Organizes or as- sists in organizing, or is or knowingly becomes a member of any organization, so| ciety, group or assemblage of persons organized or assembled to advocate, teach or aid and abet criminal syndicalism’’; is guilty of an unlawful act.

The decision in the Herndon case would seem to hold that membership in the Communist Party is not in itself a criminal act; that it is necessary in order to sustain a conviction of criminal syndicalism that a ‘defendant HIMSELF commit a subversive act. For, says the court in the Herndon case, “There is no evidence that appellant distributed any writings, or printed matter, found in the box he carried when arrested, or any other advocating forcible subversion of governmental authority. ; :

. “There is no evidence the appellant advocated by speech or written word, at meet- ings or elsewhere, any doctrine or action implying such forcible subversion.”