vol. 2, no. 12

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. II SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER, 1937 No. 12

BOARD HEARS JEWETT CASE

Request To Revoke Credentials Is Taken Under Advisement

The State Board of Education on November 19 took under advisement a request to revoke the teaching credentials of Victor Jewett, Eureka Social Science teacher, ousted for alleged “unprofessional conduct.’”? Definite action has been promised at the Board’s next meeting in January. The matter came before the Board on motion of Dr. Walter Dexter, State Director of the Department of Education, and Alfred E. Lentz, Administrative Adviser. The latter informed the Board that in view of the District Court of Appeal decision upholding Jewett’s dismissal because he violated his loyalty oath, and because of their statement in the opinion that “Violation of the oath justifies a revocation of his credentials by the State Board of Education,’”’ the Board could proceed without any further hearing or investigation to “fix the severity of the penalty.”

Press reports that the State Board of Education has handed down a decision refusing to revoke Jewett’s credentials are apparently without foundation. Neither Jewett nor his attorney has received notification of any decision from the Board.

Decision ‘Neither Binding Nor Persuasive’’

On the other hand, Jewett’s counsel, Herbert Resner, contended that the court’s de- cision is “neither binding nor persuasive,” so far as revocation of Jewett’s teaching credentials is concerned. The court’s decision is not binding on the Board because what it stated in its opinion about revocation of Jewett’s credentials was beside the issue it determined. The only question it had before it was whether the Eureka Board of Education had sufficient grounds to discharge Jewett because of alleged “unprofes- sional conduct.”’ The court held that it did, and Jewett lost his position. That has nothing to do with the new issue that has arisen which divides itself into two questions: 1. Is the matter of revocation of Jewett’s teaching credentials properly before the Board without filing of charges, the call- ing of witnesses, etc.; and, 2, Whether the State Board of Education, in the exercise of its discretion, should revoke Jewett’s license because of charges that he violated his loyalty oath.

Violated An Oath He Hadn’t Taken

Not only is the court’s dictum not binding on the Board, but it is not persuasive. It resolves itself to the ridiculous declaration that Jewett violated a loyalty oath which he had not in fact taken until after the acts complained of were committed. Three charges were originally filed against Jewett in the fall of 1934: 1. That he criticized the form of government of the United States and extolled the virtues of Soviet Russia; 2. That he criticized and belittled the ability of great men in American history; and 3. That he “received from Russian sources sums of money for his services in spreading revolutionary propaganda in the public (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

We Depend Upon You

As we go to press only 87 persons have made pledges and contributions for 1938. We are a long way from raising the $4,000 necessary to carry on operations during 1938. We are depending upon every member to make some contribution or pledge to enable us to meet the following budget:

Salaries... $2,200 Printing and Stationery ................ 750 Rent 330 Postage 270 Telephone and Telegraph ............ 150 Traveling.... 100 Furniture and Equipment ............ 50 Miscellaneous ...... 150 Total... $4,000 If possible, we urge you to pledge $1.00 a month or $12.00 a year. We hope, too, that our friends who are able to exceed that amount or who can increase their subscriptions over last year will do so, for there are supporters who cannot afford the requested pledge, and there may be some who will feel obliged to reduce their previous gifts.

We are enclosing pledge cards and return envelopes for our members and friends who have not yet responded to the 1938 appeal. Incidentally, a lump sum payment of your pledge will save us the cost of future billing.

IF YOU WANT THIS IMPORTANT WORK TO CONTINUE, IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVE OUR MONTHLY PAPER, WON’T YOU PLEASE SEND YOUR CHECK NOW?

DO YOUR PART!

STATE FINGERPRINTS AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS

Since August 27, 1937, the Division of Drivers Licenses of the California Motor Ve- hicle Department has been fingerprinting applicants for operators’ and chauffeurs’ li- censes. The Department has informed us that the fingerprinting is purely voluntary, though no effort is made to inform the applicant of that unless he raises an objection. So far, it is claimed here in San Francisco, only a very small number have objected, including a few women who didn’t want to dirty their fingers.

The procedure is to place a print of the right thumb on the application which is sent to the Department’s headquarters inSacramento. so-called dixograph or photograph of the print is placed on the license received by the applicant. While the records of the Department are not public in the sense that anyone may have access to the files, photographic copies of applications may be secured by persons involved in accidents or by anyone able to show a proper interest—whatever that may be.

The Department looks upon the finger printing as a positive method of identification, but does not have the equipment or funds available to catalogue the fingerprints. Nevertheless, it sees in the fingerprinting a psychological deterrent against fictitious applications.

The entire procedure is a very questionable one. It is undoubtedly the prelude to compulsory fingerprinting of all automobile drivers and consequently of a large percentage of the residents of the State. At the 1937 session of the State Legislature, the reactionary and vigilante-minded Assemblyman Hubert Scudder of Santa Rosa introduced Assembly Bill No. 2059 which would have required the fingerprinting of automobile drivers, but the measure died in the Committee on Motor Vehicles.

Generally speaking, the people have not responded favorably to the idea of finger- printing, even though nation-wide publicity campaigns were carried on in its favor. There is a lurking suspicion in the minds of some, and Labor in particular, that the purpose behind such an expensive identification system is to hobble the free movement and activities of the working classes and minority political groups. Labor associates fingerprinting with the iniquitous blacklist, and with some reason, because past experience has shown that public officials usually work hand in hand with powerful monied interests.

Fingerprinting may have some benefits, but in the wrong hands it can become an instrument of oppression. Remember, then, you don’t have to give your fingerprints when securing a drivers’ license, unless you want to!

MAKE A PLEDGE FOR '38

An Appeal From Tom Mooney

“Once again a partisan and prejudiced California court has shamed the name of justice by denying my petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which, in simple honesty, it should have granted, and freed me. The majority of the judges, at the dictates of the powerful big bankers and captains of industry who framed me and keep me in prison because of my undying loyalty to the entire labor movement, has shamelessly disregarded my admitted and unequivocally established innocence.

“I am not discouraged. We expected California to deny us justice. We have just begun to fight. The case will be appealed immediately to the United States Supreme Court, where we hope to secure freedom and honorable vindication.

“The tremendous and expensive job of preparing the case for the United States Supreme Court, which will cost at least $15.-000:00, is now before us. The 14,000-page transcript of testimony must be certified at a cost of 5c a folio, totaling $2,000.00. Three legal documents costing $3,000.00 must be prepared and printed: my habeas corpus petition, a supporting brief, and a supplementary abstract of the record. The rules of the Supreme Court may require us to print the entire record, which would cost an additional $7,500.00. We have dispatched my attorney, George T. Davis, to Washington to prepare the case in collaboration with Frank P. Walsh, my chief counsel, and John F. Finerty. The expenses are great to prepare and present a case such as ours to the United States Supreme Court. My defense is penniless.

“Won't you please once more respond generously as you have in the past and contribute to our defense? Weare desperately in need of your whole-hearted, enthusiastic, ~ undivided, ioyal support. are lost. I appeal to your sincere interest ‘in this cause and the struggle we have been making for twenty-one years. Your contribution now will enable us to meet the financial burden which otherwise would block all our efforts. Please give. As generously as you can, but whatever you can. Every contribution will help.

“The only sure key to our freedom is the organized might of the labor movement and progressive and liberty-loving people everywhere. I call upon you, I plead with you to hold mass meetings and demonstrations to protest the California decision and to speed our case to the United States Supreme Court.... Sincerely TOM MOONREY, 31921.”

Direct all funds and communications to Tom Mooney Molders’ Defense Committee, Box 1475, San Francisco, California.

N.B.C. Broadcasts Ickes’ Speech At A.C.L.U. Dinner

Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes and Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia of New York will address the annual dinner meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union at the Hotel Roosevelt, New York, on Wednesday, December 8th, the Union announced today.

The meeting will commemorate the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Mr. Ickes’ address will be broadcast ‘nationally over WJZ and the N.B.C. Blue Network from 9:00 to 9:30 p. m. E.S.T, Other speakers will be Federal Judge Julian W. Mack of the U.S. District Court, Southern District, a former teacher of Mr. Ickes, and Col. William Jay Schieffelin, president of the Citizens’ Union.

NUMBER 8 Eight lynchings have occurred in the United States thus far in 1937. And the ate filibusters against the anti-lynching bill.

Without it we

A.C.L.U. DEFENDS RIGHT OF IMPECU NIOUS ALIENS TO CITIZENSHIP

Whether or not an applicant for citizenship may be denied naturalization because the primary purpose of obtaining such citizenship is to secure the benefits of a state old age pension law, is the issue in the cases of seven aged applicants arising in the Fed- eral Court in Los Angeles and San Francisco. In five of these cases citizenship has already been denied.

Judge Albert Lee Stephens, who decided the Los Angeles cases, justified his action as follows: ‘In each case, as I now recall, there appeared an entire lack of appreciation of American citizenship, except the desire to get on the old age pension roll. Most definitely I would say that the mere fact that a person was poor and expected to benefit through the old age pension would be no legal, nor good moral, nor practical ground for denying his citizenship, and such has been my consistent rulings.”

In San Francisco on November 1, Judge Theodore Roche denied the application of Sotiries Andrew Poppageorge, 66, on the ground that “petitioner is not disposed to— the good order and happiness of the United States in that his main purpose in applying for citizenship is to obtain a pension.” According to Examiner Stanley B. Johnston, “this alien has obtained a fair understanding of our government. He has resided in the United States since 1903, has been on relief during the past seven years and states that he desires citizenship so that he may at once apply for the old-age pension.” Another San Francisco alien whose case is pending has been in the United States 48 years. His case is complicated by the fact that he is ‘unable to learn principles of American Government.”

In co-operation with the American Committee for Protection of Foreign-Born, the A.C.L.U. intends to file new applications for the old men who have been denied citi- zenship in Los Angeles and to make a test case of them, appealing if necessary to the higher courts. The A.C.L.U. has taken the position that these men have complied with the requirement of law which states that applicants for citizenship must be of “good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same,” and that discrimination against them because of their poverty is absolutely illegal. A. L. Wirin and I. Charles Rubin, attorneys for the A.C.L.U., are representing the five aliens.

SAN JOSE, CALIF. PICKETING INJUNCTION APPEALED

Supporting the appeal of the Warehousemen’s Union, I.L.A. against an injunction granted by the San Jose, Calif. Superior Court prohibiting picketing in the absence of a strike, the American Civil Liberties Union and the International Juridicial Associa- tion are preparing a brief amicus curiae in the California Supreme Court. Jerome Hel- lerstein, New York attorney, is engaged on it.

In granting a temporary injunction to the E. H. Renzel Co. on September 11, the court upheld peaceful picketing in a “‘bona-fide labor dispute” but held that “the right to picket, or maintain pickets, or maintain a boycott for the purpose of unionizing a place of business when there has been no strike by employees and no labor dispute of any kind or character between the employer and employees, cannot lawfully be permitted.”

The union men were picketing in order to protect the union’s scale of wages and hours in San Jose.

THE WAY TO FREEDOM

Says Frank Scully, noted newspaperman: ‘And while you’re at it, will you join my committee to raise funds to get a set of golf clubs for Tom Mooney? Once we can con- vince the world that he is a good golfer he can even rob banks and have carpets laid down for him on his way to a producer’s office.”

FILE DAMAGE SUIT IN GRAHAM DEPORTATION CASE

Los Angeles Immigration Inspectors Judson F. Shaw, Milford M. Henderson, Francis Hickey and three John Does were made defendants in a $35,000 damage suit arising from the arrest of Marcus Graham, editor of MAN. Graham was seized by Immi gration officers on October 6 on the basis of a warrant issued in 1919 and without additional charges being placed against him. It is the fourth time he has been made a defendant in deportation proceedings in the last 18 years.

The damage suit, which is sponsored by the A.C.L.U.,.charges that Graham was arrested unlawfully, that his home was searched without a search warrant, and that various valuable personal papers as well as articles for his publication were carried from his home in Los Angeles by Immigration authorities.

Following a protest entered with the Department of Labor, the seized property was - returned to Mr. Graham. The defendants in the damage suit have all been disqualified from participating in the deportation proceedings by the Department of Labor.

At the present time Inspector Del Guercio is in charge of the hearings. Efforts to dis- qualify him on the ground of bias were unavailing. Del Guercio recommended Graham’s deportation to Mexico in 19380, but the recommendation was not followed by the Department of Labor in Washington.

Called to the stand by A.C.L.U. counsel appearing for the alien, Judson F. Shaw and four other immigration officers sued in the federal court refused to testify. In this regard they followed the example set by Graham, who refused to answer questions on the ground that the proceeding is unconstitutional.

According to the November issue ‘of Man, the request to reopen the 1919 deportation proceedings against Graham originated in San Francisco on February 20, 1936, when Edwin L. Haff, District Director stated: “‘It is thought possible that this alien may be able to give information concerning himself which may be of assistance in bringing about his deportation but that such information, if obtainable at all, would probably have to be secured through court proceedings to compel the giving of such testimony.”

Since Graham has now refused to testify, it is expected that contempt proceedings will be filed forthwith in the federal court. He is represented by A.C.L.U. attorneys A. a Wirin, Lee B. Stanton and Jack Greenerg.

In the meantime a nation-wide committee of authors, artists and editors has been formed to defend Graham. Members of the Committee include: Newton Arvin, Roger Baldwin, Alice Stone Blackwell, Lewis Browne, Konrad Bercovici, Howard Brubaker, Steven T. Byington, Witter Bynner, Vicki Baum, Countee Cullen, John Dewey, Vardis Fisher, Kate Crane Gartz, Hippolyte Havel, Carl Haessler, John Haynes Holmes, Arthur Garfield Hays, Walter Pach, John Dos Passos, Edna St. Vincent Millay, James Rorty, Ruth Suckow, Donald Ogden Stew- art, Frank Scully, George P. West, Harry F: Ward, James Waterman Wise, Freda Kirchwey, Charles Edward Russell, Art Young and George W. Hartmann.

PAGE THE LaFOLLETTE COMMITTEE

Did you notice that Roland Flinn, who was killed in an attempted hold up of a night club on November 3rd, was a suspected member of the notorious ‘“‘Count”’ Victor Lustig international counterfeiting ring? Not only was he one of the ‘‘closest friends’ of Chief of Police Verne Smith of Alameda, but “Chief Smith said Flinn had been deputized as a special police officer during labor riots last summer, but had actually been an emorr? of a packing company, not of the city.’

Decision Awaited In Sacramento Flag Salute Case

The Third District Court of Appeals now has under submission the appeal taken by the Sacramento School Board from the decision of Superior Judge Peter J. Shields ordering the reinstatement of Charlotte Gabrielli, 9-year-old public school pupil, expelled for refusing to salute the flag. Arguments on the appeal were heard by the three-man court in Sacramento on November 9. The child was represented by A.C. L.U. attorney Wayne M. Collins, while Assistant District Attorney Wm. A. Green appeared for the School Board. Under the law the District Court could withhold a decision until March 1, 1938, but an earlier decision is expected.

A supplemental brief filed by Mr. Collings on November 15 concludes as follows:

“Hundreds of little school children in this State and thousands in other States who are members of religious sects which object to the salute upon religious grounds have been exempted from the salute and pledge by wise school superintendents and other school authorities who respect the children’s religious views, even though in many of these States there are statutes which command the salute and pledge. In our own State the school authorities in Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles and elsewhere, where the ‘‘custom” is observed, have exempted such children where they claimed exemption upon religious grounds.

“If the respondent should be denied the right to attend a public school simply be- cause she refused to endanger her spiritual salvation by saluting the flag, hundreds of other public school children in this State of the same or similar faith, who are now ex- empted from this ceremony, will likewise be expelled from school and be denied a public school education.

“The consequences of this is dangerous. If their parents cannot afford to send them to private schools, and most of them cannot, they will be liable to arrest and impri- sonment under Section 1.273 of the School Code, and their children will be subject to arrest as truants under Section 1.303 of the School Code and be confined to a parental home or a juvenile detention home, or be allowed to be reared in ignorance. Parents and children will be made criminals,

“This will revive religious intolerance and persecution. It will make religious martyrs. It will fill our jails and detention homes with people and children whose only offense has been that they harbor religious views that are in themselves quite harmless but which differ from the views of the great majority.”

“Religion is sacred, vital and imperishable, but. it does need constant vigilance and the aid of our Courts to safeguard this precious liberty.

“We submit that the decision of the trial court in upholding the respondent’s relig- ious liberty and in allowing her exemption from this ceremony and in securing to her the right to a public school education was a proper and just decision and should be af- firmed.”

FREE SPEECH VERBOTEN AT U. C. EXCEPT FOR “SAFE” SPEAKERS

The administration at the University of California refused to permit the students to discuss peace on the U.C. campus on Armistice Day unless it was permitted to hand- pick the speakers. The students wanted Harry Bridges, the administration wanted someone who was “safe.’”’ Result: When Harry Bridges couldn’t attend the students selected Lou Goldblatt, C.I.O. leader and U. C. graduate, as the main speaker. Instead of holding the meeting on the campus it was held at the U. C. Hyde Park, just outside the Sather Gate entrance to the campus. The meeting was perfectly peaceful and well attended. What is more, the students learned the lesson that there’s no free speech on the Berkeley campus.

Page 3

Labor Strength Marks Defeat Of S. F. Anti-Picketing Proposal

San Francisco on November 2nd rejected a proposed drastic anti-picketing ordinance by a vote of 74,012 to 88, 891, or by a margin of 14,879 votes. The vote against the proposition was the highest ever polled in San Francisco against an anti-picketing or- dinance.

The vote reflects Labor’s increasing strength in San Francisco. Statistically minded persons will be interested to know that in the 4th Congressional District, the home of San Francisco’s working class population, the proposed ordinance was defeated by 22,952 votes, whereas in the essentially middle class and wealthy 5th Congressional District the proposition gained a majority of 8,073 votes. In the silk-stocking 27th Assembly District the proposition was favored 11,461 to 5,058, whereas in the strong working class 21st Assembly District the proposition was defeated by more than 8 to 1, the vote being 3,232 to 10,569. The apartment house dwellers in the 22nd. Assembly District favored the anti-picketing ordinance by the narrow vote of 14,007 to 12,148.

Workers Turn Out

The working class population turned out in greater numbers than the economic royal- ists. In the 5th Congressional District only 57.7 per cent of the registered voters cast their ballots, while the working class 4th Congressional District voted 64.5 per cent of its electroate.

The defeat of the proposal, however, is not alone a demonstration of Labor’s strength. The drastic nature of the proposal, the anonymity of its sponsors, and a recognition by the general public of the right of Labor to advertise the unfair employer were important factors in overcoming charges that an anti-picketing ordinance was necessary to meet alleged ‘‘excesses and abuses of the right to picket.”

“If leadership can and will enforce peaceful picketing,’”’ says the San Francisco Chronicle, ‘there will be no excuse for future attempts to legislate against picketing.” Certainly, since the electorate has now expressed itself twice within one year against an anti-picketing ordinance, the issue is probably settled for some time to come. But that does not entirely solve the picketing problem in San Francisco.

Police Interfere With Picketing

Local police have on at least two occasions in recent months interfered with picketing directed against Japanese merchants. And, on several occasions peaceful pickets sta- tioned outside the Nazi, Italian and Japanese consulates have been arrested for car- rying signs.

The theory on which the police act appears to be that picketing is lawful only in labor disputes. If no labor dispute exists pickets are charged with violating Or- dinance No. 80 regulating and restricting advertising. Section 2 of the ordinance makes it unlawful ‘‘To appear on the streets of the City and County of San Francisco car- rying banners or boards, or placards with advertisements; provided the provisions of this section shall not apply to notices or advertisements by labor, fraternal or chari- table organizations of their meeting, acts or other affairs.” As we have said before, while this ordinance may be valid as far as business advertising is concerned, it cer- tainly has no application to picketing of any description.

We present here a tabulation of the vote for and against an anti-picketing ordinance as it has been recorded by the electorate in San Francisco on the three occasions when a referendum was taken

For Against Plurality Nov 7, 1916.2... 5; 74,028 68,299 65,729 (For) March 9, 1937 ...... 8,765 78,098 9,333 (Against) Nov 2,-1087 2. 74,012 88,891 14,879 (Against) Following is the vote on the proposed anti-picketing ordinance by Assembly Districts:

Assembly District : For | Against C0 4,289 1,322 DL See 3,232 10,569 DO ee ee 14,007 12,148 VR 4,893 11,275 CAS a er 6,424 11,309 OD ses a ee 10,940 11,316 VA 6,509 10,481 Ble ee 11,461 5,058 — USB ee 12,257 9,413 Ota. 74,012 88,891

SAN QUENTIN INMATES APPEAL TO. A.C.L.U. FOR HELP

From time to time the A.C.L.U. receives requests for help from inmates of our State institutions. Recently a man serving a life term for murder claimed he had been con- victed though innocent. Naturally, we ine vestigated.

The record showed that he had been accused of beating a man to death and then robbing him of $1.08. Various police officers testified to a confession which was unsigned. Alibi witnesses called by the defense failed to establish a good alibi. The conviction was upheld on appeal. The man not only denies the crime but claims he has no recollection of the confession. He is mentally deficient and probably belongs in some other institution than San Quentin. We couldn’t find any grounds for assisting him. Now we have a request for help from another inmate of San Quentin.

Generally speaking, once a man has been convicted and an appeal lost the only escape from the verdict is executive clemency. The exception to this rule is a case where a man has been convicted on perjured testimony and the prosecution knew of the perjury (as in the Mooney case). In the latter event the Supreme Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus will be granted, if subornation of perjury by the prosecution is shown.

SURPRISE!

All that can be said for the State Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Mooney ha- beas corpus proceedings is, “‘Well, no one expected anything different.” The only surprise is that the Court needed fifty printed pages to say “No.”

PARENTS FINED BECAUSE CHILD REFUSED TO SALUTE FLAG

An appeal from the conviction of the parents of 13-year-old Grace Sandstrom on the technical charge of keeping the child out of school because she refused to salute the flag on religious grounds, will be taken by the American Civil Liberties, it was an- nounced by Arthur Garfield Hays, Union counsel who represented Charles and Hilda Sandstrom at their trial in Centereach, L. I.

The Sandstroms are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious sect that regards flag-saluting as idolatrous. Because Grace had on six occasions refused to pledge allegiance to or salute the flag, she was expelled from the Lake Ronkonkomo school which she attended, and her parents fined $10 each. In their defense, Mr. Hays held that the only issue was whether ‘we can compel people to violate their religious beliefs . . . Saluting is a mere formality and patriotism cannot be cultivated by force.”

Another case involving a New Jersey schoolgirl who refused to salute the flag because she was a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is now being prepared by the Civil Liberties Union for appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

If you are among the thirty-eight persons who have not yet paid their 1937 pledges, won’t you please do so without further delay? We are depending upon the income from this source to carry us through December. And, at the same time, may we not have a pledge or contribution for 1938?

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. DAVIBS.......... Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

Jewett Hearing (Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

school of the City of Eureka.’’ Even if these acts were committed and do constitute a violation of the loyalty oath, nevertheless Jewett committed no wrong because he could not violate an oath he had not taken.

Also Charged With Union Activities

The School Board dropped the charges, but a year later, August, 1935, after Jewett had taken the oath, the same charges were revived and two others added: 1; That he “actively engaged in a strike conducted in the County of Humboldt, by the Timber and Sawmill Workers’ Union; 2, That he has “appeared in company with known pickets in the picket lines maintained by the said Timber and Sawmill Workers’ Union.” The original charges were still based on acts committed prior to the taking of the loyalty oath, while the additional charges were grounded on Jewett’s conduct as a member of the American Federation of Teachers at the time of the bloody timber strike in 1935.

Resner in reviewing the history of the case declared that Jewett was a victim of an “anti-red witch hunt’ generated by a candidate for district attorney who was looking for an issue on which to get elected. Representatives of organized labor who attended the Board hearing defended Jewett’s right as a member of the Teachers’ Union to assist Labor in its struggles. Rabbi Jacob J. Weinstein, member of the Executive Committee of the A.C.L.U., made a strong plea for academic freedom that was greeted with spontaneous applause.

“Closed Issue,” Says Eureka

“So far as Eureka is concerned,” says the red-baiting and self-righteous Humboldt Times, “‘the affair seems to be a closed issue. And so far as most of us are concerned, no one wants to see the man deprived of his right to teach—provided that he has prof- ited enough by his experience that he will not introduce subversive talks and actions into the schools wherever he may be employed.

A Plea for Help

The following letter, dated November at, was just received from an inmate at San Quentin prison:

“It is to my most greatest interest that I beg to informe to you Sir; That I’m taking to my knowlegement all in my utter power to have the honor to your suitable and per- sonal interview, in regards as to my present case.

“I hope you will allowed me the pleasure to discuss the matter personal. In the event that you are coming kindly let me know of your coming So I will be anxiously looking forward for the special occasion.

“Thanking you in advance for whatever consideration you see fit in my behalf Sin- cirely wishing a favorable outcome “Remain As ever *“Respitiful Yours”’

MOSCOW GOLD

Several years ago William F. Hynes, head of the Los Angeles Red Squad, was found guilty of an unlawful search and seizure, Ida Rothstein, Communist Party organizer, secured a judgment of $75 in a suit sponsored by the A.C.L.U. Hynes paid $15 and for several years claimed he was unable to pay the balance. Ordered to appear in court to testify concerning the present state of his finances, Hynes suddenly made a payment in full.

For 1938 Shows Need

For Strong Branch Of A.C.L.U.

As we approach the end of another year the following questions present themselves: “‘What has been the status of civil liberties in Northern California during 1937, what part has the A.C.L.U. played therein, and what is the prospect for the future ?”’

There has been a marked decline in civil liberties violations in Northern California - during the current year. And such violations as have occurred, except for one, have been less violent and spectacular than those of former years. The one exception occur- red in Stockton on April 23rd when vigilantes, disguised as deputies, and State Highway Patrolmen fired shots and tear gas into the ranks of pickets assembled in front of the Stockton Food Products plant, resulting in injuries to approximately 50 persons.

Two important court decisions during the year resulted in the reversal of the convic- tions of the Sacramento criminal syndicalism victims, in which case the local office joined the national office in filing two amicus curiae briefs, and the refusal of the State Supreme Court to grant Tom Mooney a writ of habeas corpus. The Sacramento flag salute case, involving a question of religious freedom, has been argued by A.C.L.U. counsel and a decision is expected in the near future.

Picketing

In the field of picketing the courts have been active in granting anti-labor injunc- tions on the petitions of employers. In San Jose the A.C.L.U. has joined the Interna- tional Juridical Association in preparing an amicus curiae brief in a case where the court prohibited picketing in the absence of a strike.

In San Francisco the A.C.L.U. has joined in two campaigns against anti-picketing or- dinances. Last March the 20-year-old ordinance was repealed by the electorate, and on November 2nd a more drastic proposed ordinance was rejected. In Berkeley the A.C.L.U. joined with the International Juridical Association in filing an amicus curiae brief in the ‘‘Fels case” now pending before the District Court of Appeal in which the lower court held that the Berkeley antipicketing ordinance was unconstitutional so far as it prohibited peaceful picketing.

The Santa Rosa tar and feather party saw its final innings in Sacramento last March when a federal court jury refused damages to Jack Green, one of the victims who sued through the Union, against Fred Cairns, the alleged leader of the mob.

Repressive Legislation Combatted

The Union was particularly active in the Legislative field during the first five months of 1937. Repressive legislation was successfully combatted. A bill providing for compulsory military training in State Colleges was passed only after the drill was made elective. Of the civil liberties bills sponsored by the Union only one was en- acted, that providing for an inquiry into the frame-up of the “Modesto defendants.” The civil liberties records of Assemblymen have been catalogued for future use.

The Union joined other organizations in opposing an edict by Harold RB. Pomeroy, 8.R.A. Administrator, prohibiting his employees from lobbying on their time and in their private capacities. The order was withdrawn after a Legislative inquiry, and two dismissed employees were reinstated.

The Union has continued its support of Victor Jewett, Eureka school teacher, dis- missed for an alleged violation of his loyalty oath. Charges of “unprofessional con- duct” against Charles L. Gastineau for teaching the Townsend Plan in his Social Science class in San Andreas were dropped after the Union extended assistance to him.

Deportations Opposed

Three deportation cases handled by the Union are still pending. Hearings on the Pappas and Koci cases were recently concluded. A favorable decision was handed down in the Pappas case which has not yet been made final by Washington. An unfavorable decision by the local Immigration ‘in California.

Service in the Koci case will be argued shortly before the Board of Review by our Washington representative. Steps have -been taken to secure a final decision in the long pending Warnick case, The Union several months ago condemned wire-tapping by government officials as “un American, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and illegal.” The fascist nature of “General Barrow’s Army” of vigilantes has been exposed, and fingerprinting as an instrument of oppression has been fought. A study of the San Francisco Nazi menace showed that that body has little or no present strength.

In the naturalization field the Union has campaigned against denial of citizenship because of political and social views and because of poverty. The conduct of the local naturalization examiners is undergoing — study at this time.

Complaints of various persons in state institutions that they are being held illegally have been investigated. Legal advice and co-operation have been furnished in many instances where court action was unnecessary or inadvisable. —

News releases on civil liberties issues have been furnished the public press, and the director has spoken on civil liberties issues to. numerous groups. Twenty-two thousand copies of the A.C.L.U.-NEWS have been circulated during 1937—an average of more than 1800 every month.

Obvious Need for A.C.L.U.

The need for maintaining a strong branch of the Civil Liberties Union in Northern California seems obvious. The present business recession, with its inevitable clash of interests, is bound to reflect itself in increasing violations of civil liberties, as it has in the past. The danger of fascism continues to hover around these United States. The violations of liberty in Tampa, Dallas and Harlan County constitute a threat to liberty Today violations of civil rights abound in the South and East. Tomorrow we may be combatting the same or worse violations of rights in vigilante-minded California.

It is not sufficient to point out as Herbert Hoover did recently that we must be vigi- lant to sustain free speech. There must be something more, too. We must challenge denials of civil liberties wherever they occur in the Union. We must act! Not sepa- rately, but only by organized effort can we Hone ie maintain free speech in the United States!

MOONEY MASS MEETING DECEMBER 5; SENATE INVESTIGATION STARTS DEC. 15

Elmer Benson, Farmer-Labor Governor of Minnesota, heads the list of speakers for the Mooney Mass Meeting scheduled at the Exposition Auditorium, Sunday afternoon, December 5, at 2 o’clock. John Shelley, president of the S. F. Labor Council, will be chairman, while addresses will also be made by Sheriff Dan Murphy, Harry Bridges, West Coast director of the C.1.0., and roeee F. Irvine, of the Railroad Brotherood.

In Washington on December 15 a Judiciary sub-committee of the Senate will begin hearings on a resolution under which Congress would ask Governor Merriam to grant a full and complete pardon to Mooney. Senator Jos. C. O’Mahoney of Wyoming is chairman of the committee. Tom Mooney himself may be subpoened to appear at the hearing as a witness, since he knows more about the case than anyone. To make this certain, our readers are urged to send letters at once urging such action to the following five members of the J udiciary subcommittee, Senators Johnson and McAdoo and the Congressmen from your district: Sen. Jos. C. O’Mahoney, Sen. Pat McCarron, Sen. Fred Stiewer, Sen. James H. Hughes, and Sen. Mathew M. Nealy. Similar communications should be sent to Senator Murray and Congressman Jerry O’Connell, joint authors of the resolution.