vol. 1, no. 8

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. I SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST, 1936 No. 8

FREEDOM OF WORSHIP UPHELD

Superior Judge Peter J. Shields of Sacramento on July 9 handed down an opin‘ion in the Gabrielli flag salute case upholding freedom of worship. The Court held that compulsory flag saluting in California’s public schools is unconstitutional when it conflicts with a student’s religious beliefs. Nine-year-old Charlotte Gabrielli, on whose behalf the A.C.L.U., through Attorney Wayne M. Collins, instituted the suit, belongs to a religious group known as _ Jehovah’s Witnesses.

They believe it to be idolatrous to symbol. When Chariotte Gabrielli, abiding by her religious beliefs, refused to salute the flag last October she was instantly dismissed from school. Similar cases have arisen in Lodi, Merced and Modesto, California, as well as in many other states.

When Attorney Collins filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, school authorities responded with a demurrer. In other words, granting all the facts as presented in the petition the school authorities nevertheless contended that no right had been denied the child. The Court held, in effect, that if the facts were true, a right had been denied,—the constitutional right of religious liberty.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS CHARLOTTE GABRIELLI

The defendants have filed an answer raising two issues: 1.Whether there is an element of disloyalty in the child’s act; and, 2., whether her religious beliefs actually prohibit flag-saluting. Counsel for the school authorities is now considering with them whether an appeal should be taken from the Court’s decision, or whether the issues in the case should be tried. It is quite probable that Charlotte Gabrielli will be reinstated to her classes without further court proceedings.

The Court’s decision, however, is only a partial victory for those who believe in liberty. Attorney Wayne Collins in his argument attacked compulsory flag-saluting on many other constitutional grounds. The Court brushed aside these reasons and stated that, “If there is a particle of political or social purpose involved in the matter her action will not be tolerated.”

(The Court’s decision in full will be found on page 2.)

salute any man-made

SPECIAL APPEAL

The Jack Green Santa Rosa tar and feather case goes to trial in Sacramento on September 15. It will cost $300 to try that suit and a like amount is required for the Nitzberg case. Att

orney General Webb, ignoring his sworn duty, has refused to prosecute the vigilantes. Vigilantism must be challenged! If Webb won’t do it, those who believe in civil liberties will.

Fighting vigilantism may be expensive, but it is more expensive to permit it to go unchailenged. In this emergency we turn to the members and supporters of the A. C. L. U. This 1936. We feel 1¢ is warranted and that you will want to respond.

Do your part! Send a coniribution to the A. C. L. U. NOW at 434 Mills Building, San Francisco.

VETS DENOUNCE JUDGE SHIELDS’ DECISION AS UN-AMERICAN

Dispatches from Sacramento state that Lieut. Kenneth Bell post No. 1058, Veterans of Foreign Wars, of Pasadena, have protested Judge Shields’ decision in the flag salute case as “un-American and unpatriotic.”” The protest was addressed to the Sacramento city school board, Governor Merriam and Judge Shields.

The protest declared Judge Shields’ decision to be “contrary to the accepted principles of all patriotic organizations.” It also added that the salute to the flag ‘fs not in conflict with religious principles.”’

The protest also urged that ‘corrective legislation” be passed by the next legisla- ture to compel school students to salute the flag.

McCONNEL HEARING POSTPONED

Scheduled for August 3, the hearing on F. J. McConnel’s naturalization petition has been postponed again to permit further investigation. A new date for the hearing has not yet been fixed.

McConnel’s petition has now been delayed for over two month’s because of the opposition of the Subversive Activities Commission of. the Legion. Harper L. Knowles, chairman of the group, contends that McConnel should not be granted citizenship because he favors repeal of the California criminal syndicalism law.

A conference has been arranged with Edward Cahill, Commissioner of Immigration, to inquire whether Inspector Patrick “Red” Farrelly, misrepresented the position of the A. C. L. U. in questioning McConnel concerning his membership in the local branch of the Union.

KOCI CASE INFORMER AGAIN DISCREDITED

Carmen Joan Dodson, government informer in the Koci deportation proceedings, has once again skipped out of a judi-. cial proceeding. The lady who for ‘“patriotic motives” accused her ex-lover of advocating the violent overthrow of the government and then by disappearing spared herself the embarrassment of cross-examination failed to keep a Children’s Court appointment on July 22nd.

Miss Dodson’s appearance was scheduled in connection with a petition filed by the Children’s Protective Society of San Francisco to remove her from the custody of her six-year-old daughter, Clare McDon~ ald, because of gross neglect. Her absence did not stay proceedings. After a few witnesses had been heard the court made a temporary order sending the child to the Junior League home, Pinehaven. If process servers can ever catch up with the elusive Miss Dodson, she will appear in the Children’s Court at some later date for a final disposition of the matter. And, then, if the federal process servers are alert, she _ May be given another subpoena to. appear for crcss-examination in the Koci case. .

Beetug oui the contentions oi the A.C. L.U. that the government has sponsored a witness they cannot vouch for, witnesses at the Children’s Court testified that Miss Dodson is grossly immoral, has made bigamous marital alliances, has thoroughly neglected her child so that it suffers from malnutrition and uncleanliness and is exposed to conditions that threaten its wellbeing. The action to take the child from its mother’s custody grew out of complaints registered with the Society early in February — long before the deportation proceedings against Koci were started.

While Miss Dodson was at one time employed on an EEP dancing project, more recently she has been engaged on a WPA sewing project. When she left that job in July she informed officials that she intended to get married. (Miss Dodson has already been married six times.) Her last address was 639 Hayes street, San Francisco. It is believed she has fled to Los Angeles, but the report has not been verified. Anyone having information concerning her present whereabouts should at once advise the A. C. L. U.

In the meantime, no date has been set for a continuation of the Koci deportation hearing at which time the government is scheduled to present Carmen Joan Dodson for cross-examination. Koci remains at liberty on $1000 bail. A. Koci Defense Committee sponsored by the Socialist Party of San Francisco, San Francisco ' Theatre Union, Labor and Socialist Defense Committee and the Workers Alliance of America, has thus far raised $99.50 for Koci’s defense. More funds are needed and should be sent to the Committee at 434 Mills Bldg., San Francisco.

Cc. S. REPEAL CAMPAIGN CONTINUES While an insufficient number of signatures have thus far been secured to place the criminal syndicalism repeal initiative on the ballot, the California Conference for Repeal of the C. S. Act has announced that the campaign will continue until 240,000 signatures have been obtained. The new deadline for the drive is November 3.

Page 2

THREATS TO BURN MIGRATORY WORKERS CAMP AT MARYSVILLE

Fred A. Weller, regional attorney for the Resettlement Administration, has demanded an investigation by Attorney General U. S. Webb of threats to burn the Federal Migrant Workers’ Camp at Marysville. The threats were contained in two stories in the Yuba City Herald on July 9th. The stories were as follows:

‘Migrant Camp Is Red Hotbed

“The Federal Migrant camp in the city of Marysville is becoming a Red hotbed, a breeding place for the fomenting of strikes to destroy the peach crops of Sutter, Yuba and Butte counties.

“The U. S. Government these Reds at night, providing them with roofs, beds and living accommodations, together with a willing audience. “The strike at the Earl Fruit Company orchard Tuesday was fomented from this camp. Such conditions will not be toler- ated.

“The Herald calls upon Mayor and Chief of Police to clean up this place before it is burned down by the orchardists.

“This community will not tolerate the conditions that have existed this spring in the citrus district at Riverside. This community will not tolerate the conditions that exist in San Francisco today. And this community cannot afford a $50,000 Red trial like they had last year in Sacramento. county.

“The Marysville City Government can either keep that migrant camp cleaned of Reds or the ranchers will level it to the ground.” :

‘Red Agitators Due in Peach Bowl Sunday

“Tocal peace officers have received information from reliable sources that 25 Red agitators, fresh from the labor riots in Riverside county, where one striker was killed and a rancher beaten to insensibility with a log chain, are due in Marysville this week-end to bring the ‘united eommunist front’ into the orchards of Sutter, Yuba and Butte counties.

‘There are three ways to handle these reds: ye oz

“1. What the Reds most prefer is to be arrested and stage a $50,000 trial as in Sacramento; they got plenty of publicity out of that.

“2 The farmers can lay down and take it—like Chinamen.

“2 A dozen farmers with pick handles ean chase the gang out of the migrant camp, burn it, and roughouse any hotel which harbors their leader or their attorney, Gallagher. And paint the office door either red or yellow of any peace officer negligent in his duties.”

On July 16 the Herald carried a story under the caption, ““The Herald Stands Pat on Its Charges of Red Activities in Federal Migrant Camp.” The article stated that, “The local migrant camp committee and the camp manager can either keep their camp clean or it will be cleaned. Protests of chinafied citizens and threats from sneaking Red lieutenants of Harry Bridges and Julius Nathan will have no effect on The Herald.”

Attorney General Webb announced that he will request the sheriff and district at- torney of the county to advise themselves of the matter immediately. Nothing could be more futile. Those gentlemen must know of the situation or they are unfit to hold their public offices. If they are unfit and fail to enforce the law the Attorney General is empowered to supersede them. The question is, how long will the people of California tolerate Mr. Webb’s continued indifference to California lawlessness?

HOW GOES THE BILL OF RIGHTS

We have just received from the na. tional A. C. L. U. office copies of the 1935-36 survey of civil liberties. This 96-page pamphlet, entitled HOW GOES THE BILL OF RIGHTS? is available at a cost of 15c per copy to cover printing and mailing. Send your orders to the A. C. L. U., 434 Mills Bldg., San Francisco. |

The petitioner herein, a young girl who was attending the Fremont School in this city refused to salute the flag at the daily flag exercises in the school room. For this refusal she was later expelled from the school and denied all right of attendance upon the public schools within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Board of Education. It is to be restored to the school that she has brought this proceeding.

In defense of her conduct and as a reason for her refusal to salute the flag the child states that to do so would be contrary to the convictions of her conscience and the tenets of her religion which she sets forth with particularity. In this relation the Constitution of the United States, in the first section of what is known as the bill of rights provides that ‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishement of re- ligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’’ This provision does not apply here; I cite it only to show the sanctity with which our country clothes and invests the principles of religious freedom. But the Constitution of California which directly applies, provides: “‘The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and wor- ship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this State.”

The right which we in this country think is a natural right, and which has been so solemnly announced and safe-guarded is subject to this well-defined qualification, that laws may be passed essential to the public welfare and that no religious belief ean beasserted against the things necessary to the maintenance of the Government or the preservation of the public health, safety or morals. Saluting the flag does not come within any of these exceptions. It is a very admirable exercise to which our people have long been devoted. To refuse to salute the flag arouses a general protest because of its implication of disloyalty to the Government. But this child protests her devotion to her country and her loyalty to all the things of which the flag wis a symbol. Her asserted TrelleTon is*ume auupica—vy few people in this country. To great numbers of persons it appears to be unreasonable not to say offensive. But we are not to be the judges of the reasonableness of anothers religious belief nor the merits of his conscientious convictions. The Constitution says that we may exercise our religious profession ‘‘without discrimination or preference.” Under this principle we of

Judge Shields’ Opinion mn Sacramento Flag-Salute| Case

America have known a measure of freedom unknown to any other people. A happy experience has taught us to suffer the irritation of a conflicting religious practice, no matter how unreasonable we may deem it, in order that we may preserve the principle, which in turn protects us. There is no law requiring this child to salute the flag; it is not required by any course of study prescribed by the State Board of Education; it is not required in all of the schools in the district.

In the absence of Jaw the practice might have become so traditional, and through general acquiesence have come to so express the fixed educational policy of the State that it would have a support equivalent to law. But that is not the case here. In California the private schools do not require this salute as a regular discipline. — Yet we encourage these schools and accredit their students according to their scholarship and without regard to the absence from their experience of this flag discipline. |

I am informed that the question here presented has come a number of times before other courts of the country and that in all cases, where there was no law requiring it the right of the child to her religion has been recognized. Were it not that this child’s religion is objectionable to so many people and conflicts with a practice to which the Nation generally is so devoted, we would in obedience to the American ideal, instantly concede her the right she here asserts. But our devotion to the principle of religious liberty should stand this test; it is in such cases that our own sincerity is tried. :

What has been said herein is upon the assumption that the petitioner’s objection to the required salute is purely religious in character. If there is any element of dis- loyalty to the country or disrespect for the flag, if there is a particle of political or social purpose involved in the matter, her action will not be tolerated. The answer

Stay raise that-issues————

The Demurrer will be over-ruled and the Defendants given ten days in which to

ANSWER. 7

Dated: July 9, 1986.

PETER J. SHIELDS, Judge. ENDORSED:

Filed: July 9, 1936:

T. F. PATTERSON, Clerk.

By: W. HICKEY, Deputy.

P. G. and E. Attorney and Prominent Churchman Advocate Repeal of C. S. Law On March 17, 19238, the old San Francisco Call published two interviews by George P. West, at present editorial writer for the San Francisco News, which can bear repeating now that the campaign for the repeal of the California criminal syndicalism law is in full swing. One interview is with Rev. Edward L. Parsons, Bishop of California, and the other with Eustace Cullinan, attorney for the Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

Bishop Edward L. Parsons:

I am glad to endorse the movement for the repeal of the criminal syndicalist law _,.. It is legislation growing out of the excitement in regard to bolshevism immediately following the war... . No sensible man believes that the nation.... is really in danger from a few thousand ‘radicals’ _... The surest way to encourage the spirit of revolution is to make martyrs of the revolutionaries .... It is injustice which makes revolutions, whether in America, France, Germany, Russia or anywhere else .... Free speech and free assembly are not only rights we all want for ourselves _,.. They are the conditions and the only conditions under which peaceful social progress can be made. Let men talk. They blow off steam. It is the safety valve. But furthermore it is the necessary preliminary to real consideration of grievances.... If the grievances are not real, repression gives them a semblance of reality.

Any American community ought to be far beyond the big stick czarist method of | dealing with such things. We had our birth as a nation simply because such methods don’t work.

California ought to be able to find a better way to deal with a very small group of “agitators” and ‘“‘radicals’” than a way which includes a woman like Anita Whitney. Or else it had better frankly say that the day of free speech is over.

Eustace Cullinan, Esq.: |

The trouble is that the syndicalist law, logical as it is, leaves to the decision of a jury, reflecting all the prejudices and popular errors, and delusions of the moment, the determination in each case of question of fact whether the particular utterance of the accused person does advocate, teach, or “aid and abet’ unlawful methods of bringing about industrial or political changes. .

‘‘Aid and abet’’ is a very general phrase permitting much latitude in its application. Few of us find much difficulty in damning, as tending to excite violence in some more or less proximate degree, almost any novel political or industrial opinion in which we do. not happen to concur. |

.... Any attempt to suppress the free utterance of opinions . . is a political mistake which breeds more evil than it represses, and because, in particular instances, such laws lead to grave injustices by making the intelligence and prejudices of a casual jury the measure of the criminality of opinions expressed by accused persons.

THE AMERICAN CITIZEN GOES TO TOWN

The offices of that righteous 100 percenter, THE AMERICAN CITIZEN, have been removed from the rustic environs of Marvelous Marin to 509 Sansome Street, San Francisco, where it can more conveniently enjoy the society of its good neighbors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Liberty League, and the Industrial Association, not to mention the Associated Farmers. The new offices, on the fourth floor of a loft building, are as yet somewhat bleak, being furnished in the main with packing-box desks and bundles of un- distributed back-numbers of THE CITIZEN. However, in conformity with the rugged American rags-to-riches routine preached by THE CITIZEN, we can look for mahogany-topped desks to be moved in aly oay.

The gentleman in charge and his stenographer are most courteous; besides giving out copies of the anti-alien petition sponsored by the Fruit and Vegetable Packers Association of California, they volunteered the information that there are 465 Ameri- cans in Berkeley who help to support THE CITIZEN, that San Francisco is almost twice as patriotic, Alameda boasts 200 odd, but these gosh-danged farmer towns lag behind with most of them only showing circulation in single unit figures. Once they distributed 1000 copies of THE CITIZEN at the Sather Gate in Berkeley, and almost had a riot on their hands. Maybe the college students aren’t so rugged and patriotic as they used to be. Or maybe they are.

‘CONGRESS ADJOURNS WITHOUT ACT

ING ON ALIEN HARDSHIP CASES

Congress adjourned without acting on ‘the Department of Labor’s bill or resolution which would hold up the deportation of almost 3,000 aliens now on the suspend‘ed list in what are known as _ hardship cases. :

Commissioner of Immigration Daniel W. MacCormack can perhaps be persuaded to continue holding them up until Congress again considers the issue, provided he gets enough letters from influential people and organizations so urging.

We urge every organization and individual to address letters at once to Hon. Daniel W. MacCormack, Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., asking that these deportations be stayed. Last year these depoprtations were stayed by the following resolution submitted by Congressman O’Day:

WHEREAS during the past two years the Department of Labor has stayed the deportation of some two thousand six hundred hardship cases of aliens technically subject to deportation whose deportation would involve the separation of many families, leaving approximately seven thousand dependent relatives here, of whom approximately five thousand are wives and minor children, pending consideration by Congress of certain proposed legislation; and

WHEREAS the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on June 18, 1934, unanimously adopted a_ resolution urging the continued stay of deportation in such cases pending such time as the Congress required for a further opportunity to study the problem:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in order that the Congress may have adequate time to consider the proposed legislation, the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization be requested to continue the stay of deportation until March 1st, 1936, in the cases of aliens of good character, excepting those involving a question of moral turpitude, in which deportation would result in unusual hardship; and be it further _ RESOLVED, That on or before January 15, 1936, the Commissioner submit to the Congress for its consideration a list of all cases, excepting those involving a question of moral turpitude, stayed up to and including Dec. 31, 1935, and to submit a list of the names of all cases, together with the full and complete file of each name and case, and all facts pertaining to same.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: In the following article Mr. Clarence Rust, attorney for the Northern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. and a member of the Advisory Committee, gives a first-hand account of the orange pickers’ strike in Santa Ana. Mr. Rust represented the A.C.L.U. in the course of the strike which was settled by agreement on July 27.)

“There are human rights and there are property rights—and the one can not get along without the other.’”—Justice of the Peace J. I. Spence of Fullerton.

Three thousand Mexican workers toil beneath the burning sun of Orange County. For 12 to 14 hours a day they work, and their reward is a wage often as low as $2.00 or $3.00 a week—sometimes as little as 12c a day. According to a survey of the Association of Young Mexican Catholics, “the breadwinner of the average family of father, mother and four children earned an average yearly wage of $264.00, or $22.00 a month to support this family. Of that amount, $130.00 a year went for rent, light, water and gas, leaving $134.00 a year for food and clothing.”

The System

The orange growers have a system. A large part of the wages they distribute is siphoned back through charges. They charge for transportation to, from and between orchards; they charge for sacks and scissors, for drinking water, for ladders. In many places workers must buy from company stores and live in company ‘“‘houses.”’ But only a warped civilization could regard the “houses” as such. They are lowceilinged, unfinished cardboard shacks, poorly ventilated and badly lighted; on hot days the temperature in them is terrific. Children cannot live in them during the day; they congregate in old tubs and mud holes under the low trees.

The Strike

A $20,000,000 citrus industry dominates the scene! :

It is the end of June, harvest time; oranges are big and luscious.

Three thousand Mexican workers, members of the Mexican Agricultural Workers’ Union, lay down their sacks and scissors and go home. They are on strike for ‘“A40c an hour, free transportation and Union recognition.

And now let an Orange County local paper (Santa Ana Journal) tell the story:

JULY 2—‘‘Growers defy strike leaders. Deputize 125 men as shotguns face agitators. Sheriff Jackson and Stuart Strathman (grower) declare: ‘Strike is broken.’ ”’

JULY 3—‘‘Army of 350 men policing groves. Army includes Highway Patrol. Sheriff and District Attorney address packing house men and 150 are sworn in as deputies. Highway patrolmen arrest 15 men for questioning. (It was on this day that Sheriff Jackson issued his now famous order ‘shoot to kill!’).”

JULY .4—‘Sheriff Jackson declared today his little army of 350 shotgun-guards is doing its work.” :

JULY 6—‘“‘Highway patrolmen cover county.”

Night Riders

JULY 7—‘“Night riders swoop through strike area. Bloodshed in guerrilla war. Vigilantes out. In 50 cars, American men whose blood was hot over injuries to guards in citrus groves, rode through the county ready to meet violence with violence. 12 additional highway patrolmen rushed here from outside counties. Supervisors this afternoon authorized Sheriff Jackson to buy additional arms. Action was taken at request of William Biedefeldt of the Growers’ Association. Yesterday’s battles ended with one man shot, one ‘very low’ in a hospital, at least 10 injured and more than 200 in jail, including 160 Mexicans herded in yesterday by Sheriff’s officers and California highway patrolmen.”

Machine Gun and Tear Gas

JULY 8—‘‘Machine gun covers strike trial. A loaded machine gun and five deputies ‘stood guard’ at the preliminary hearing of thirteen alleged rioters in the Anaheim Justice Court. Vigilantes broke up a strike meeting with tear gas. Little army of 400 men guard strike-breakers. One

SHOOT TO KILL” |

Page 38

sheriff car equipped with shotguns and tear gas bombs. Fifty or sixty automobiles belonging to strikers are impounded. Workers told that ‘Mexicans who are not Ameri- can citizens are in no position to demand concessions.’ ”’

JULY 10—“Gang wrecks strike hall

Mexicans are stoned and clubbed. Women beaten as night riders spread terror in two cities. clubs, eyes behind dark glasses, again rode the highways of Orange County last night leaving behind them gassed and clubbed Mexicans, broken windows and doors, and terror among striking orange pickers. They stoned, clubbed and attacked with tear gas Mexican men, women and children at Placentia.”’ ;

JULY 11—‘“Mexican consul appeals to Governor Merriam.”

Clarence Rust Appears On Scene

In the midst of this terror and the abrogation of all human and constitutional rights by the Hitlerized local government, the writer arrived in Orange County; and in company with Pauline Frumpkin, a Spanish interpreter, went to the county jail. There he was admitted only after the Sheriff had run out of excuses and had had Miss Frumpkin searched. Returning to the Sheriff’s office, a permit was sought for a woman to visit her husband who had been continuously asking for his wife, and who was in the hospital from a serious gun wound in the leg. The sheriff finally terminated the interview by stalking out-of the office and two hours later caused the writer’s arrest on four fictitious petty traffic charges.

District Attorney Represents Growers

On July 15, the preliminary hearing of 139 strikers was called in Fullerton Justice Court. The writer appeared as counsel for the strikers and was immediately challenged by Judge Spence to prove his authority to represent them. The defendants had not even been brought to court. Deputy Distri¢t Attorney James Davis arose and stated, “I represent the orange growers.’ The writer promptly objected that a declared — representative of the orange growers had no standing in Court. Judge Spence hotly replied: “The hell he hasn’t! He has more standing in Court than you have.” .The cases were all continued. On this day the Santa Ana Journal carried the following significant item: ‘Hearing of all strike cases was postponed today. Request for continuance was made yesterday by Jack Prizer and A. J. McFadden, grower leaders, to District Attorney A. J. Menton. They stated that the strike might be settled soon and said they wanted the cases held over. The District Attorney said he was not certain if the charges would be pressed if the strike was settled.” :

“Twenty-eight Los Angeles Bums:”’

To revert to the Vigilante action, it now develops (and is proved by affidavits which

(Continued on Page 4, Col. 3)

A. C. L. U. ATTORNEY CLARENCE RUST

Fifteen silent men, armed with

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union News

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

Phone: EXbrook .1816 ERNEST BESIG... Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

FRUIT and VEGETABLE PACKERS ASSOCIATION SPONSORS ANTI-ALIEN PETITION

Under the aegis of the table Packers Association of California, functioning through a so-called Central Committee on Alien Initiative, Box 308, Brawley, California,” the AMERICAN CITIZEN is circulating a vicious California anti-alien petition which they hope to place on the November ballot as an initiative measure. The proposed statute makes it illegal for any person to employ or cause to be employed any “alien who is not a legal resident of the State of California and who is within the United States zs violation of the immigration laws thereof.

Section 3 of the measure takes care of the alien who is rash enough to think he can survive without employment. It states, “It shall be unlawful... to give, cause to _ be given, or offer to give, directly or indirectly to any alien not a legal resident of the state of California... any money, food, clothing, shelter and/or support supplied in whole or in part from funds furnished by the State of California, or by any county, city . . . or any political subdivision.” Section 4 prohibits the issuance of licenses for any purpose, including marriage and driving licenses, to such aliens.

Following sections provide that all employers shall keep ‘accurate record showing the names and citizenship of all workers employed . .. which record shall be open to the inspection of the chief of the Division of Labor Statistics and Law Enforcement of the State Department of Industrial Relations . . . and to all law enforcement officers of the County or City and County in which such employmert takes place.” To these officers and agents is delegated the power, authority, and duty “‘to enter into and upon any premises at all reasonable hours where persons are employed and inspect the records of the employer and shall gather and assemble evidence of any violation of this act and present the same to the proper prosecuting authorities for prosecution.” A maximum fine of $500 and a year’s imprisonment is stipulated for violations of the provisions of the act.

The petition is accompanied by a fourpage multigraphed argument citing the bars to immigration established by other nations and lamenting our own backwardness in this respect. Most of this matter is reprinted in the July 15 edition of the AMERICAN CITIZEN. The argument is summed up in the following healthy, if ungramatical, sentence:

“What we need here in America, is a more ‘selfish Americanism’ and forget this sentimental rot called internationalism, a little more devotion to our own needs, less concern that is unappreciated, for this whole horde of illegal aliens and remove the only reasons for which they are here, employment, or something for nothing, all other countries in the world have laws against us, lets quit being the world’s biggest suckers and saps, lets return the com_ pliment and kick out this horde of criminals by the only method we believe it can be done and this proposed initiative provides the means by which the State of California can and will notify the whole world that this part of the United States will cease to be the rendezvous for the mentally and morally unfit riff-raff of the earth; that we are going to say who the strangers within our gates shall be and how he conducts himself while he is within those gates; once we do that we won’t have to go to the expense of deportation, they will be glad to deport themselves at their own expense and others won’t come when we hang out the sign this initiative proposes.” |

“Fruit and Vege

Press Comment on Flag-Salute Decision SAN FRANCISCO NEWS (July 11, 1936)

FREEDOM—WITH STRINGS

A Superior Court judge at Sacramento does the right thing in the wrong way.

Judge Peter J. Shields rules that a 9year-old child belonging to a religious sect does not have to salute the flag as a condition of remaining in the Sacramento public schools.

“The Constitution,” rules Judge Shields, “states that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this state. ‘Saluting the flag does not come within the requirements necessary to the maintenance of the Government or the preservation of the public health, safety or morals. It is, however, a very admirable exercises to which our people long have been devoted. But this child professes her devotion to this country and her loyalty to all things of which the flag is a symbol.

“What has been said herein is upon the assumption that the petitioner’s objection to the required salute is purely religious in character. If there is any element of dis- loyalty to the country or disrespect for the flag, if there is any particle of political or social purpose involved in the matter, her action will not be tolerated.”

Shakespeare’s Dogberry could not do worse than that.

Has Judge Shields ever heard of another provision in the State Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech?

No Nazi could go farther than Judge Shields’ implication that if little Charlotte Gabrielli had other grounds than adherence to a religious sect for refusing to salute the flag, the state would crack down on her.

There is an explicit denial of the essential American idea of freedom in what Judge Shields says.

And what a craven concession to the mob is his dictum that saluting the flag “is a very admirable exercise to which our people have long been devoted!” Free men will fight for the flag and what it stands for so long as it stands for freedom. Only potential slaves will salute it by law.

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (July 11, 1936)

THREE CHEERS FOR JUDGE SHIELDS California can hold up its head a little more proudly today. One of its Superior Judges, Peter J. Shields at Sacramento, has decided that the State cannot deprive nine-year-old Charlotte Gabrielli of a schooling for no better reason than that her parents happen to hold odd religious notions.

The puissant Board of Education of Sacramento had put nine-year-old Charlotte out of school because, being a child who honors her father and mother, she obeyed their strange religious notion that forbids them to pay honor to any man-made symbol, be it flag, swastika, fasces, hammer and sickle, or anything else. Charlotte did not salute the Flag with other children. Therefore, said the Board in effect, we will punish this child for the consciences of her parents and force her to grow up illiterate. so Judge Shields tells the Board there is no law in California compelling anyone to salute the Flag and that it exceeded its authority when it tried to impose penalties on a child who had broken no law. Good for Judge Shields!

Charlotte’s parents belong to the sect called Jehovah’s Witnesses. This sect thinks the Bible forbids them to do homage to anything but God. Their literalism says it is wicked to perform an act of homage to a flag, any flag. There is no question of patriotism, one way or the other, in their refusal to salute the Flag. It is, with them, purely a matter of conscience.

This may be an odd notion. But if every child whose parents entertain odd notions were to be put out of the schools then a great many school teachers would be out of jobs for lack of material.

Odd as may be this notion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is it any odder than the notion that patriotism can be made to sprout in a child by an act of compulsion? Is it any odder than the notion that children should be punished by being deprived of a schooling because of the consciences of their parents? Or any odder than the notion that patriotism consists in outward conformances?

The letter killeth, said St. Paul, but the spirit giveth life.

And again three cheers for Judge Shields!

SACRAMENTO UNION (July 11, 1936)

“COURT RULES FLAG SALUTE IS NOT TRUE TEST OF PATRIOTISM”

Judge Peter J. Shields raises an interesting point in ruling that Charlotte Gabri- elli doesn’t have to salute the flag after all. Charlotte was expelled from Fremont School last fall when she refused to join her classmates in a flag salute on the grounds of religious scruples.

Saluting the flag is neither a legal requirement nor a bona fide test of patriot- ism, the judge rules in the first decision of this sort ever handed down in California. We have read into the flag salute a lot of things that aren’t there, he says in effect.

Technically the little Gabrielli girl has won the first skirmish in this court fight. The principles of the creed to which she and her father subscribe forbid the ‘paying of hamoge’ to any inanimate object, as a form of “idolatry.” Inasmuch as these principles do not actually come in conflict with the laws of the land, the flag salute cannot be forced, the court says.

We are glad that Charlotte Gabrielli proclaims ‘her devotion to the country and her loyalty to the things for which the flag is a symbol.” That clears up many obscure angles to this case.

According to the law, it appears that the heart is a better gauge of both religion and patriotism than the hand, after all.

And now the little Gabrielli girl is en-— abled to go back to school, where she be- longs.

SHOOT TO KILL

(Concluded from Page 8, Col. 3)

will be submitted to the A.C.L.U. within | the next few days) that the “American men whose blood was hot’ were twentyeight Los Angeles bums, recruited from streets and beer halls through a detective agency and paid eight dollars a day by the citrus growers to foment violence and terrorize the striking Mexicans.

Every office of government in Orange County, from relief agency to and including most of the courts, is under the complete control of the citrus industry. And with an iron hand on the relief agency growers sought to starve the strikers into submission by refusing aid. Through their control of the police and highway patrol they held up food trucks headed for the strike camps. (The writer found many places where whole families were living on flour and water.) Through their control of the economic life they brought pressure on the water company to turn off water on the slightest pretext, and by reason of their ownership they resorted to eviction of workers from their houses.

Strikebreaking Justice

Through their control of the courts they were able to get the Fullerton Justice Court to hold 189 strikers to answer for rioting, although there was not an iota of evidence © introduced even to identify the defendants. In holding them to answer, Judge Spence said: ‘There are human rights and there are property rights, and the one can not. get along without the other. There is nothing for me to do but hold these men to answer. They will be better off in jail away from the present bad influence.”

By the time this appears, all defendants will undoubtedly have been released on Habeas Corpus proceedings.