vol. 2, no. 10

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. II SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER, 1937 No. 10

C. S. CONVICTIONS REVERSED

Court Orders Eight Syndicalism Victims Discharged From Custody

SACRAMENTO, Sept. 28.—The Third District Court of Appeal today reversed the conviction of the eight Sacramento criminal syndicalism victims, because the verdicts ren-dered by the jury were inconsistent. The case was not sent back to the lower court for a new trial. Instead, the appellants were ordered discharged from custody because ‘‘No good will be subserved by a second trial. We are of the opinion the verdict of acquittal which was rendered by the jury on the second indictment will furnish conclusive proof of-a former acquittal of the charges contained in the first indictment.”

The Court’s decision, however, will not result in the immediate release of the three appellants still in jail and the restoration of rights to those on parole or to those who “have served their parole. The Attorney General has 30 days, or until October 28, in which to ask for a re-hearing by the District Court or to appeal to the Supreme Court. The State may be content to accept the decision, however, since most of the jail sen- tences have already been served. Only three of the eight appellants remain in prison.

Crane, who is scheduled to be released in February and Wilson and Chambers who will be paroled in May.

Organized Agricultural Workers

The eight appellants (Pat Chambers, Martin Wilson, Nora Conklin, Caroline Decker, Albert Hougardy, Jack Crane, Lorine Norman and Norman Mini) were convicted on April 1, 1935, after a four-month trial starting November 26, 1934. Seventeen persons (all admitted Communists) had been charged with violation of the State criminal syndicalism act. The indictments resulted from their organization of agricultural workers into the Cannery and Agricultural Workers’ Union and helping to raise the wages of the workers at an estimated cost of some two million dollars to the employers.

The court’s decision is a lengthy one. All but a few of the 30 pages are given over to a gratuitous consideration of asserted errors ‘which the court dismisses. Finally, on page 28 the court begins to relate the reasons for its decision: “‘The effect of conflicting irreconcilable verdicts which were rendered ‘in this case, however, compels us to reverse the judgment.”’ The court’s opinion on this point, in part, is as follows:

Reasons for Reversal

“The jury ... deliberately found by the last -mentioned verdict that none of the ap- pellants advocated, taught, aided or abetted criminal syndicalism by: means of written or printed words, by spoken language or personal conduct. The verdict of not guilty of the charges alleged in the second indictment must be construed to mean-that the appellants did not edit, publish, issue, circulate or display any one of the enumerated documents or pamphlets therein and relied upon to prove the allegations of the first indictment. It seems clear and inescapable that since the appellants were deliberately mit the alleged crime .

acquitted by the jury of resorting to written or spoken language or personal conduct, to advocate, teach, aid or abet criminal syndicalism, it would be impossible for them to have organized, managed or joined associations for the purpose of teaching criminal syndicalism, or to aid, abet or advocate those principles by circulating or distributing documents or pamphlets, or that they conspired by such means to com. . for these acts (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

DROP CHARGES AGAINST TEACHER WHO TAUGHT TOWNSEND PLAN

Charges of ‘unprofessional conduct’’ filed against Charles L. Gastineau, Calaveras Union High School teacher, San Andreas, for teaching the Townsend Plan in his social science classroom were dropped recently by the Trustees of the District. Gastineau was served with a copy of the charges but examination of the minutes of the Board failed to disclose that it had bothered to go through the formality of voting the charges against him. The Board has agreed that it will not discriminate against Gastineau in any manner during the present school year, at the end of which he will apply for a pension for which he will then be eligible.

TESSIE PALMAYMESA wont salute flag “Because my mother told me not to.”

The Story of Tessie

Tessie Palmaymesa won’t be six years old until November 14. She’s pretty, with black hair and dark eyes, and quite bright, too. And, what’s more, Tessie is a good little girl—she obeys her mother. For that reason she was made the innocent victim of the following flag salute incident:

Registered in the first grade of San Leandro’s Roosevelt School, her teacher noticed that she failed to join the other pupils in the flag salute ceremony. ‘‘Why won’t you salute the flag’’ Tessie was asked. “Because my mother told me not to,’’ she re- sponded. Tessie’s teacher was incensed and upbraided the mother, Mrs. Gertrude Pal- maymesa, for training her child poorly. The teacher reported the incident to Principal “Mable Ward, who reported-it to Superin— tendent A. J. Cartwright, who passed the buck to the County Board of Education. And Tessie, who doesn’t understand what the fuss is all about, was barred from school by the Board until she joins in the flag salute.

County Superintendent Cartwright pointed to a resolution passed by the County Board of Education in 1933: “Every child attending Alameda County public schools is required to salute the flag every morning.”’ Unless Tessie adhered to this rule she could not attend the San Leandro school.

Tessie’s mother won’t capitulate. She is a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the re- ligious organization which is opposed to bowing down before any inanimate object.

Mrs. Palmayesa doesn’t see why she shouldn’t be allowed the religious liberty guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. ‘“‘We love this country, and we re- spect the flag, but our religion doesn’t per mit us to bow down before any image,’’ she declared. And Tessie’s Mother is willing to quote her Bible authority in case you’re not informed.

Tessie lives in Oakland, only a block from the San Leandro line. Last year she at- tended kindergarten at the E. Morris Cox School in Oakland, but in order to reach the school she had to cross the Southern Pacific tracks, so Tessie’s mother thought it would be safer to send her to the County school because she would have no tracks to cross. Now Tessie has to cross the tracks ae but she doesn’t have to salute the lag.

That’s because Oakland has an understanding Superintendent: of Schools, Dr. E. W. Jacobson. He has permitted Tessie to re-register in the E. Morris Cox School where she won’t:have to salute the flag.

“If a child has a religious belief against saluting the flag we just arrange it so that the child is absent from the flag ceremonies when they are held,” he declared.

And, now when the flag ceremonies are held, little Tessie is sent for an “airing,” as her mother expresses it. She returns when the exercise is concluded, and no one is hurt—not even the flag.

Page 2

FEDERAL ACTION URGED IN GEORGIA PEONAGE CASE

orney General Homer 5S. Cummings heen ae by the American Civil Liberties Union to institute an immediate 1nvestigation by the Department of eee into the activities of. armed planters 0 Warren County, Georgia, in coercing Negro cotton pickers to work against their will. According to reports received by the A.C. L.U., Negro cotton pickers in Warren County were offered work at almost double their wage in an adjoining county, but were forcibly prevented from leaving the plantations. Warren County planters were said to have beaten two Negro pickers and intimidated others by gunfire and armed patrol of roads. A grave state of peonage was in existence a coe the Union's respondent reported. oe teleeram to Attorney General Cummings, the Union contended that a clear violation of the federal peonage law’ e€Xisted in Warren County, and declared that “only federal action can halt a recurrence of involuntary servitude of Negroes in Georgia.” In making its request of Attorney General Cummings, the Union relied upon the recent precedent established by the federal government in its successful prosecution of a violation of the federal peonage law by Paul D. Peacher of Earle, Arkansas. Peacher was convicted, fined $3,500 and placed on probation. The Department of J ee has assured the Union that the matter is being given consideration.

TEXAS GOVERNOR ASSAILS POLICE RAID ON ALLIANCE QUARTERS

Governor James V. Allred of Texas has condemned the ‘‘acts of vandalism” committed by San Antonio police recently in wrecking the headquarters of the Workers Alliance and threatened to send state police to San Antonio in the event of a similar outbreak, the American Civil Liberties Union has been informed.

In a telegram to Harry F. Ward, chairman of the Union, replying to a request for action against the police, Governor Allred declared: “In view of the photostatic copies of | newspaper pictures and articles which you sent me, I do not feel that any investigation on my part would show any justification for the act of vandalism of San Antonio police in wrecking the headquarters of the Workers Alliance. I cannot too seriously condemn this practice. If there should be any threat of a repetition of such outrages, I will take the same action I did at Dallas by sending state police there.”

The Union has called for impeachment and removal proceedings against Mayor Quin, Chief of Police Kilday and Police Commissioner Wright for their participation in and public approval of the raid, which was conducted without search warrants or warrants of arrest. Furniture, typewriters, piano and lights were smashed by the police, and occupants of the Alliance headquarters beaten. :

At Dallas, following the beating of twelve union men by anti-union thugs in recent weeks, Governor Allred sent twenty-five Texas Rangers to the city to restore order, at the A.C.L.U.’s request.

PAGE SHERLOCK HOLMES

Someone is wasting a lot of nickels checking up on the Civil Liberties Union. During the past two weeks we have received repeated calls asking for Harry (Bridges) and Mr. Brophy, and wanting to know whether we are the ones who sent ‘‘the buttons” to the longshoremen. More than the usual amount of “wrong number’ calls have been received.

Now, all this checking up makes us feel rather important. But in the interest of economy and good fellowship, we’d like to make spying easy for our friends the enemy. We can’t offer very much, of course, but they’re welcome to sit in our office and use the same hard seats we’re accustomed to, and if there is any question they’d like answered, we’ll do our best to satisfy.

The Chicago Times recently printed an expose charging 20,000 German-American Nazis with plotting to seize control of the government in the event of a Communist revolution. San Francisco, Oakland, Petaluma and little Concord are the Northern California communities credited with having chapters of the Amerika-Deutscher Volksbund, successor to the Friends of New Germany, the organization behind the alleged conspiracy. The San Francisco chapter is reported to have 500 members.

We feel that the San Francisco Nazi situation has been exaggerated by the press. The figure of 500 members is based on information that the “Bund”? meets twice a month in an auditorium at California Hall, or German House, that is able to seat 500 persons. It is apparently true however, that the hall is bedecked with Nazi flags, and that Nazi propaganda is distributed to members. Furthermore, it was admitted that “Echo der Heimat,” a propaganda motion picture, was shown to the “Bund.” But while their members, admittedly wearing steel gray shirts, black belts and overseas caps, embarked in trucks at the German House on June 13, they were not bound for military maneuvers but simply headed for a picnic at Dublin Canyon, according to Henry Lage, local president of the “Bund.” Also, the “Bund” claims its meetings are open to the public, that its membership is limited to United States citizens of German extraction, and that they operate no camp. According to Arnold Wolff, Secretary of

S. F. NAZI MENAC E EXAGGERATED

the Oakland “Bund,” “the primary interests of our organization lie in fighting Jew- ish propaganda and in upholding the Constitution of the United States.” We have reliable information that the Nazi movement in San Francisco at the present time numbers merely a handful of | people who look with distrust and suspicion upon competing “Shirt” and fascist movements. There is no attempt at wide-spread dissemination of Nazi or anti-semitic literature. Of course, with the arrival of the new German consul, the notorious Baron Man| fred von Killinger, renewed efforts may be — made to Nazify German-Americans in this. area and to bring about some measure of — co-operation with other fascist groups.

German-American Nazis, however, have | the same right to hold meetings and to conduct their propaganda as do their oppon-ents. But the Union will fight against Nazi — interference with the rights of others. Attempts to drill with arms will be vigorously | opposed.

“If and when Nazi meetings result in breaches of the peace, their organizers can. be prosecuted under the criminal law. If their speakers libel individuals by reason of race or religion, recourse to the criminal libel statutes is open as a remedy. Short of that, and of overt acts of interference with others’ rights their freedom to carry on | their agitation should be unrestricted.”

We suggest, however, that our readers keep us informed of any Nazi activities that. come to their attention.

IMMIGRATON SERVICE REOPENS KOCI AND PAPPAS DEPORTATION CASES

Last month the A.C.L.U. requested the Immigration Service in Washington to close three deportation cases pending anyawhere from 16 to 26 months. Here is what happened:

Concerning the Koci deportation case, pending since May 14, 1936, in which the local Immigration Service recommended cancellation of-the warrant of deportation after extensive hearings, we were advised that “it has been directed that the case be reopened and that Immigrant Inspector P. J. Farrelly and Guard John D. Coffman testify fully concerning the statements made by the alien at the time of his apprehension concerning his membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party.”

In the case of John Pappas, pending since May 22, 1936, we received the following notice from the local Immigration Service:

“Please be advised that our Central Office has directed that the case of your above named client be reopened for the taking of further testimony.” Pappas’ deportation has been sought because of past membership in the Communist Party from which he was expelled because it was discovered that he was a spy for the Industrial Association. In this case, too, the local Immigration Service recommended cancellation of the warrant of deportation.

We have received no word about the Warnick case pending since July 27, 1935.

OUSTED UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA LIBRARIAN SEEKS REINSTATEMENT

A petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the reinstatement of Prof. Philip O. Keeney, University of Montana Librarian discharged last April for union activity, has been filed in the Montana First District Court.

Professor Keeney was dismissed without notice, hearing or action by the State Board of Education as a result of his activities in circulating an application among faculty members for a charter from the American Federation of Teachers.

The Montana Federation of Labor has engaged attorneys Wellington D. Rankin and Arthur P. Acher to represent Professor Keeney. The Committe on Academic Freedom of the Civil Liberties Union is cooperating in the case. An investigation of the dismissal has been made by the Ameriean Association of University Professors but a report has not as yet been issued.

Civil Liberties Improving : As Industrial Peace Emerges In Middle-West

Civil rights are more effective than in years in mid-west industrial areas where trade union organizing campaigns are strong, according to Roger N. Baldwin, di rector of the Civil Liberties Union, who has just returned to New York after a ten-day tour through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

Pointing to unmistakable signs of more Mr. Baldwin, stable industrial relations, reporting his observations, drew an optimistic picture of conditions in sections recently torn by industrial strife.

“Nowhere did I find any direct signs of: organized vigilantism,” declared the Un“The few law-and-order organizations which sprang up in the automobile and little steel strikes are now dormant, while the deputizing of business men and others selected by employers as special police and sheriffs is finished. It occurred only in a few towns anyhow. Nothing of an enduring character has come’ out of the so-called Johnstown plan. It was a publicity stunt. I was told in Johnstown that the Johnstown Plan died the day it. left Johnstown.

“The attitude of police and law-enforce— ment officers is generally far more favor- able to unions than before the organizing. In many places where mass picketing in hundreds . would not have been tolerated a year ago, campaign, except in Chicago.

“Undoubtedly, the work of the National Labor Relations Board has a restraining ef— fect on local police. They realize that com: plaints are going to be thrashed out by federal machinery and hesitate to interfere in industrial disputes.”

At no time in American labor history has : so much organizing of labor been in prog— ress, he found, despite all the anti-C.1.O. . propaganda. Effects of the propaganda upon the workers are slight. Employers ] generally appear to be accepting trade unionism, ported, and the calls for organizers seemingly can’t be met even by the 1100 men oe in the field. :

i0 recognizing that the law, in spirit, requires collective bargaining. Hundreds of labor contracts are being signed in all types of industries, Mr. Baldwin re| DE Foe, ee On t

THE LOCAL BRANCH OF THE UNION CELEBRATES ITS THIRD BIRTHDAY

The Northern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. is now three years old. Reorganization steps were undertaken by Chester S. Williams on September 14, 1934, with the full financial support of the national office.

Why was the A.C.L.U. reorganized in 1984? The answer is found in the circular letters sent out by Mr. Williams at that time:

“The American Civil Liberties Union was organized in 1919, when a national mob hysteria was precipitating widespread persecution. : “Tn California, in 1934, we are faced with recurrence of the suppression and violence of those post-war days, and we witness the development of a spirit that has bred Fascism in five European nations. “The recent outburst of vigilantism in this region is the dramatic display of this spirit. In 18 counties, ordinances prevail which makes assemblage of three or more persons illegal without police permit. Organized groups, claiming patriotic motives, are urging the passage of more than a dozen laws to aid in the suppression of minority opinion—all of which contradicts the very foundations of constitutional democracy with its grant of free speech, free press and free assemblage.

“To combat this growing menace, the Northern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. is being reorganized....”

Chester Williams carried on until about January 1, 1985 when he was succeeded by Dr. George Hedley. The present director, Ernest Besig, assumed charge June 23, 1985.

But the origin of the Union in Northern California dates back to the summer of 1926. Following a visit from Roger N. Baldwin, national director of the Union, a branch was started in San Francisco and Prof. Guido H. Marx of Stanford University became Chairman of the Committee. Prof. —Elmo A. Robinson was engaged as full-time director, and Austin Lewis became counsel.

Among the outstanding members of the Committee at that time were John D. Barry, William Burkhardt, Ernest Clewe, Bartley Crum, Marion Delaney, Robert G. Hooker, Jr., Franklin Hiechborn, Mary Hutchinson, David Starr Jordan, William Kent, Robin Lampson, Alicia Mosgrove, Rabbi Louis Newman, Fremont Older, Judge Jackson H. Ralston, Chester Rowell, Harry See, Max Stern, George West and Col. E. S. Wood.

However, the Union got into financial difficulties and in the fall of 1927 it was found impossible to carry on with a fulltime director. Thereupon Austin Lewis, with the meager support of a few devoted friends, looked after the defense of civil liberties in this area until the reorganization was accomplished three years ago.

MOONEY CASE BEFORE SENATE

New prominence will be given the Mooney case next December 15 when a Senate judiciary subcommittee opens hearings on a resolution asking the Senate to memorialize Governor Merriam to pardon Tom Mooney. A long list of witnesses will be called.

On October 16 six months will have elapsed since the California Supreme Court heard the arguments in Mooney habeas corpus proceedings. The decision is not over due, however, because the case has never been “submitted” for a decision.

WOODROW WILSON: If there is one thing we love more than another in the United States, it is that every man should have the. privilege, unmolested and uncriticized, to utter the real convictions of his mind. I believe that the weakness of the American character is that there are so few growlers and kickers among us. We have forgotten the very principle of our origin, if we have forgotten how to object, how to resist, how to agitate, how to pull down and build up, even to the extent of revolutionary practices, if it be necessary ‘to readjust matters.

San Francisco Anti-Picketing

Page 3

Ordinance Violates Civil Rights

Carrying 15,8838 signatures, an initiative petition proposing the enactment of an or- dinance prohibiting ALL picketing for San Francisco qualified for a place on the No- vember 2nd ballot as PROPOSITION No. 8 when 11,636 signatures were found to be valid. Under the law the signatures of 9,251 qualified voters were necessary at this time in order to submit an initiative to the electorate.

The proposed anti-picketing ordinance abridges civil liberties in two respects. First, by prohibiting ALL picketing, including peaceful picketing, it violates the constitu- tional guarantee of peaceful assemblage. And, second, it infringes the freedom of the press by prohibiting the display of any ‘newspaper magazine, journal or other publication,” in the vicinity of a place where a labor dispute is in progress.

Only last year the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Grosjean v. American Press Co. (297 U. 8S. 283), condemned an attempt of the Louisiana legislature to re- strict the circulation of newspapers as a violation of the freedom of the press. “... By the first amendment,” said the court, ‘‘it was meant to preclude the national govern- ment, and by the 14th Amendment to preclude the states, from adopting any form of previous restraint upon printed publications, OR THEIR CIRCULATION. ...”

“Get”? the Leaders—Break Strikes

The ordinance would not only punish those who actually picket, but every member of a labor union who dared vote in favor of picketing, or ANY person who in any way aided in the establishment of a picket line, would be subject to arrest and prosecution. That is true by virtue of Section 3 of the proposed ordinance which reads that “It shall be unlawfui for two or more persons to conspire to do any of the acts declared to be unlawful in Section 1 or Section 2 of this ordinance.” It is quite conceivable that any person who merely extended financial aid to a Union that engaged in picketing would be subject to arrest. The obvious intention of this section is to “‘get” the leaders of a Union and thereby to break strikes.

Compels Men To Be Stool Pigeons

Of course, it might be difficult to “get” the leadership of the Union. A Union man would naturally be unwilling to act as a stool pigeon against another member of his Union who was “responsible” for picketing. Foreseeing such difficulty the proponents of the anti-picketing measure included a provision that no one is excused from tes- tifying. If a witness stands on his constitutional right against self-incrimination, he will be granted immunity from prosecution but he MUST testify against a fellow work- er. And, if he nevertheless refuses to testify the court may punish him for contempt. And, whoever violates any of the provisions of this vicious proposal “shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) nor less than fifty dollars ($50) or by imprisonment in the City and County Jail for a period of not more than fifty (50) days nor less than five (5) days or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

Labor Organizes to Protect Its Rights

The San Francisco Central Labor Council and the Building Trades Council have established a joint committee to oppose the proposed ordinance, to be known as Or- ganized Labor Committee Against the Return of the Anti-Picketing Ordinance. John F. Shelley is Chairman of the Committee. Headquarters are located in the Grant Bidg., 1095 Market St.

A “Committee ‘For’ Anti-Picketing Ordinance” has established headquarters in Room 182%, 111 Sutter Street, with former police judge Sylvester J. McAtee as Chairman. Under date of September 15 (only five days after the initiative petition was filed), letters were addressed to San Francisco organizations, including the Civil Liberties Union, requesting ‘“‘an opportunity to send a speaker to address your members.”’ The Union received a telephone “followup” on September 23rd.

Another Red-baiting Campaign Realizing Labor’s great strength in San Francisco, proponents of the ordinance are appealing for its support. “The ordinance is not directed against legitimate union ac-— tivities and organization,” they insist. (Since when is picketing not a legitimate union activity?) Their strategy is plain. San Franciscans will be sold on the idea that an anti-picketing ordinance is necessary to protect and preserve the “legitimate Labor movement” and its ‘‘responsible leaders’ from “irresponsible subversive forces’ who want violence. Citing a record of “‘vio- lence, disorder, coercion and intimidation” since the anti-picketing law was repealed last March, their literature charges that, “Irresponsible, subversive forces that flout all restraint, that look forward to the final destruction of the safeguards of law and the security granted to all citizens by the form of government in our American de- mocracy, have not been willing to permit Labor to settle controversies peacefully.” In this great Crusade against subversive forces, they are seeking to enlist “a committee not of the employer group, but of the average citizens who are not parties to labor disputes but whose homes and hearts are in San Francisco, whose livelihood is here, who ask only that we shall have peace in the orderly pursuits of life.”” They fail to mention who is financing this noble Crusade, but perhaps it doesn’t need telling be- cause there is only one group that stands to benefit from it. If we knew who sub- scribed to their $25,000 war chest the secret would be out.

The advocates of the measure argue that . it is necessary in order to stop violence. They admit that there are other laws by which disorderly and violent conduct can be dealt with but in order to stop violence BEFORE IT STARTS they insist that all picketing should be made unlawful. By a parity of reasoning, one could argue that since thousands of automobile drivers violate the traffic laws we should stop such violations of the law BEFORE THEY START by prohibiting the driving of automobiles. Incidentally, that was one of the arguments that led to the enactment of the repealed prohibition amendment.

“Proposal Should Be Rejected,” says News The San Francisco News views the latest prohibition battle in this fashion:

“Since the 1916 anti-picketing ordinance was repealed by the voters last winter the freedom to picket has been abused in some instances by over-zealous unionists. There have been cases of hooliganism offensive even to labor’s avowed partisans, and an ordinance imposing moderate restrictions on picketing might have received wide support.

“But not the proposal that will confront voters on Nov. 2. We predict that it will be rejected by a decisive majority, as it should be. Thereafter, the future of picketing will depend upon labor’s realization that it is a privilege not to be abused and upon labor’s demonstration that its agents are capable of acting in a disciplined, orderly and responsible manner.”

San Franciscans, VOTE “NO” ON PROP. OSITION No. 8.

AN OPEN FORUM

We welcome the comments of our readers on any civil liberties issue. We will be glad to print concise letters on civil liberties questions.

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly at 216 Pine St., San Francisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union. Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVIBG...........-..-sc0-e-e--- Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Ceat3s a Year.

Five Cents per Copy.

C. S. CONVICTIONS : REVERSED

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

could be performed only by the use of written or spoken language, or by the exercise of personal conduct.... “Since the appellants were effectually acquitted by necessary inference of all the ‘charges involved in both indictments we must hold that the verdict which was rend-ered against them on the two counts of the first indictment is in irreconcilable conflict therewith and that it is therefore void and ineffectual.”

The Sacramento Union comments on the court’s decision as follows,” ... through a legal technicality and because someone blundered, justice and the plain intent of the trial jury was thwarted.”

Clear and Present Danger Rule Butchered

The court wriggled its way out of two relevant U. S. Supreme Court cases. The Civil Liberties Union had contended that the recent de Jonge and Herndon decisions held that a criminal syndicalism act which is in derogation of the right of free speech and free assembly can have application only when the facts of the particular case indicate a clear and present danger that the words complained of might produce the substantive evils against which the State has the right to legislate. The District Court, however, stated the clear and present danger rule to suit itself: “It will be observed,”’ said the Court, “the Supreme . Court does not hold there must be a present danger of the existence of actual insurrection. It is there said (Herndon decision) there must be evidence of a present danger of activity to obstruct the law with the intention of inciting insurrection. ...In the present case there is evidence of a present danger of violating the law. ... There is substantial. evidence of overt acts on the part of the appellants to violate the Syndicalism Act. These acts and conduct fur-nish evidence of a present danger.”’

Stool Pigeon’s Testimony

Among several errors that were committed during the course of the trial which were held not to be prejudicial ‘“‘under the circumstances,” the court mentioned the following instance: “Carl Abbott, a police officer of Los Angeles and a former member of the Communist Party, testified over the objection of the appellant that he attended a Communist Party meeting in Los Angeles in March, 1930, and heard a Communist speaker say that ‘after the revolution’ the capitalists would be stood against a wall and shot, and other similar incendiary remarks. This evidence is remote. It should have been excluded.”

Selected portions of the court’s opinion, as well as an analysis thereof, will be car- ried in the November issue of the A.C.L.U. NEWS.

SsCOTTSBORO CASE AGAIN GOES TO SUPREME COURT

For the third time the Scottsboro case came before the U. S. Supreme Court when the case of Haywood Patterson, recently sentenced to seventy-five years, was appealed last week by Attorneys Samuel S. ' Leibowitz and Osmond K. Fraenkel for the Scottsboro Defense Committee. Twice before the high court has saved Patterson from the death penalty. The defense contends the record shows “the utter impossibility’ of Patterson obtaining a fair trial in Morgan County, and charges denial of due process based on the judge’s instructions to the jury. The court is expected to announce in October whether it will review the conviction.

75TH CONGRESS COLD TO LIBERAL MEASURESS

The ‘“do-nothing”’ 75th Congress closed up shop after its first session, leaving next to nothing either on the credit or debit side for civil liberties. While no new gag bills succeeded in getting by, no legislation broadening civil rights gained headway. The chief contribution of the session was the repeal last May of the so-called ‘‘Red Rider’. prohibiting the teaching or advocacy of Communism in District of Columbia schools.

Most threatening of gag legislation to come before Congress were the State Department bills virtually outlawing demonstrations before foreign embassies. After. passing the Senate with an amendment exempting labor picketing, the bill was reported favorably out of the House Military Affairs Committee, but was unable to gather sufficient strength to get by the Rules Committee. The Civil Liberties Union launched an intensive drive against the bills; the Washington committee sponsored a Citizens Committee which included Labor’s Non-Partisan League and nineteen other organizations.

Radio Bills Introduced

Several important measures sponsored by the Union were introduced during the session, but none succeeded in getting to the floor of either house. Senator Lewis Schwellenbach of Washington offered three radio bills designed to establish greater freedom on the air. Similar bills were introduced in the House.

The Union’s bill to place in the federal courts, instead of the Post Office Depart- ment, the power to exercise censorship over mails was introduced by Rep. Henry Ellen- bogen of Pennsylvania. Also sponsored by the A.C.L.U. was the right of asylum for political refugees bill introduced by Rep. Emanuel Celler of New York.

The Department of Labor’s proposal to suspend deportation of aliens with Ameri- can-born wives or children in “deserving cases’’ was introduced by Rep. Martin Dies. The bill aimed for the first time to soften the hardships of our stringent deportation laws. The A.C.L.U. endorsed the bill with reservations and urged amendments. The bill pased the House only.

Just before adjournment, Rep. John T. Bernard of Minnesota introduced, at the request of the Union, a resolution calling for a commission to study and recommend to Congress plans for the settlement of the political status of Puerto Rico. There was no time for action.

Opposed by the Union was the SheppardHill bill “to prevent profiteering in time of war,” attacked on the grounds that it provided for compulsory military service and would be enforceable during “a national emergency.’’ It was shelved in the Senate. The Wheeler-Frazier bill to repeal the Indian Reorganization Act was also assailed by the Union.

DRIVE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES CONTINUES

Assistant District Attorney Green of Sacramento is expected to file his final brief in the Gabrielli flag salute appeal sometime in October. Following that, the case will be set down for a hearing before the Third District Court of Appeal.

In Atlanta, Ga., following denial of a motion for a rehearing filed for Dorothy Leo- les, another Jehovah’s Witnesses schoolgirl, the case is being prepared for appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The A.C. L.U. will file a brief amicus curiae.

The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals is expected to hand down a decision in the fall term in the Hering Case. An appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court is also planned if the state court’s decision is unfavorable. These cases will be the first involving religious liberty to go to the U. §S. Supreme Court since the University of California military training case in 1934.

An appeal has already been taken to the U. S. Supreme Court in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society vs. City of La Grange case, following the Georgia Supreme Court’s denial of an injunction pro

Appeal Denials of Citizenship In Cleveland and Chicago

An appeal in behalf of Dominik Stevko and Paul Hanus, Jr. denied citizenship in Cleveland last May because of membership in the International Workers’ Order, fraternal benefit society labeled “communist,” is being prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae.

Attorney Yetta Land of Cleveland, representing Stevko and Hanus, has filed a brief for the applicants. The two aliens were refused naturalization papers when the government presented newspaper clippings — and similar evidence sent by the American Coalition Society pointing to the radical nature of the 1L.W.O. Attorney George Palda of the Cleveland branch of the A.C.L.U. joined the applicants’ attorney at the orig- inal hearings before the Common Pleas Court. Marvin Harrison, A.C.L.U. Cleveland attorney is also to represent the Union in the appeal. a ee In Chicago, the appeal of Rev. Abraham Warkentin, Mennonite clergyman of Newton, Kansas, who was denied citizenship in July, 1935, for refusing to bear arms, will be heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals this fall. The ministers’ counsel will contend that since he is a member of an historic church long established in the United States, with the teaching of pacifism | as one of its tenets, his conscientious scruples against bearing arms come under the guarantee of religious liberty in the first amendment to the Constitution.

The Civil Liberties Union is co-operating in the case with the Federal Council of Churches, the Mennonite Church and the American Friends’ Service Committee. Associated with Rev. Mr. Warkentin’s attorney, Charles P. Schwartz of Chicago, are Dean Charles Gilkey. of the University of Chicago and Professor Malcolm Sharp.

DETROIT CENSORSHIP OF TW FILMS LIFTED

Movie censors in Detroit met their second defeat in a year when Judge Robert M. Toms ruled against Police Commissioner Heinrich Pickert’s ban on “‘Heart of Spain.”’ Pickert had ordered deletion of uncomplimentary references to Mussolini, Hitler and fascist dictators in general. The -movie’s sponsors, the Medical Bureau to Aid Spanish Democracy, asked for an injunction against the police.

Upholding the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court denying the right of police to censor films on political grounds, Judge Toms declared that Pickert “is not charged with the self-suggested duty of preserving the international relations between the United States and Hitler and Mussolini.” The power of the police censors was limited to the prohibition of pictures which are actually indecent or immoral, Judge Toms contended,.and further indicated that the question of whether or not a picture may be prohibited on grounds other than those specified in the city ordinance is essentially a judicial question for determination by the courts. After these statements by Judge Toms, Commissioner Pickert issued a permit for the showing. An injunction prohibiting police from interfering with a performance of “Damaged Lives,’ a film depicting the cause and effect of social disease, was granted by Circuit Judge Guy A. Miller in Detroit on September 14. Judge Miller ruled that police may prohibit the showing of a motion picture only when it is indecent in itself. Commissioner Pickert had ordered the performance stopped and revoked the theatre’s license.

Another film, “Spanish Earth,” was banned by the Pennsylvania Board of Censors. The reason: too much horror.

hibiting the police of LaGrange from interfering with Jehovah’s Witnesses distribut- ing religious literature. Attorneys for the religious cult hold that the city ordinance on leaflet distribution is unconstitutional.