vol. 1, no. 9

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. 9

Trial Ordered For 12 Vigilantes; — Leader Faces U.S. Court Sept. 15

At the insistent demand of the “San Francisco News” and liberal elements, Attorney General Webb early in August instituted belated criminal proceedings against vigilantes accused of participation in the Santa Rosa tar and feather party of August 21, 1935.

There were four startling developments:

1. A former G-Man, acting for Mr. Webb, investigated the outrage and collected evidence for presentation to the Sonoma County Grand Jury;

2. The Grand Jury, after hearing the evidence, failed to return indictments;

3. Warrants were sworn out by Jack Green, one of the victims, against 23 asserted vigilantes; and,

4. Preliminary hearings were started before Judge Warren C. Tryon to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to hold the accused for trial in the Superior Court.

SANTA ROSA, Aug. 28, 1936.— | Twelve asserted vigilantes were today held for trial in the Superior Court by Judge Warren V. Tryon. Charged with at liberty on $500 bail pending trial. Charges against nine others were dismissed because they were ‘merely present at the tar and feathering in the role of spectators, or were there in the pursuit of their duties as newspapermen.” Those held were:

Fred Cairns, Secretary of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce; Frank Silano and Ernest Demostene, Healdsburg bankers; William Casselberry, Healdsburg newspaperman; William and George Maher, butchers; Arthur Meese, druggist and President of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce; D. H. Madison, Santa Rosa newspaperThomas J. Campion, garage- man; man. Edward Jenkins, Santa Rosa businessman; Sidney Elphick and | John Barries of Santa Rosa.

: Charged With Six Felonies

The asserted vigilantes were charged with six felonies—kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm, and conspiracies to commit the foregoing offenses. All but one of th accused surrendered themselves (one was in Oregon and the complaint against him was dismissed by the Attorney General’s deputies), plead not guilty and were each released on the ' ridiculously small bail of $500. The defendants were represented by Finlaw Geary and C. J. Tauzer of the Santa Rosa firm of Geary, Geary and C. J. Tauzer. The Attorney General’s office was represented by Mr. A. B. Power and Mr. R. O. Marron.

Civil Trial September 15

The criminal proceedings will not end the two damage suits undertaken by the A. C. L. U. on behalf of the tar victims, Green and Nitzberg, against Fred. Cairns, alien leader of the vigilantes and Secretary of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce. The first of the damage suits will go to trial in the United States District Court in Sacramento on September 15. The veteran six felonies, they continued to remain A. C. L. U. attorney, Austin Lewis, will appear for the plaintiffs.

The preliminary hearing opened in Santa Rosa on August 21—exactly one year aiter the outrage occurred. The courtroom was so crowded that spectators (mostly relatives and friends of the vigilantes) stood three deep in the rear. The accused were granted the “special privilege” of not hav ing to be segregated in the dock or before the bar. They were scattered in the audience and when witnesses stepped out in the audience to make identifications, the vigilantes slumped down in their seats,

(Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

WARNICK MEETING!

Mass meeting called by the Jack Warnick Defense Committee, at Native Sons Hall, on Mason St., between Post and Geary Streets, San Francisco, on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 AT EIGHT P. M. To protest the threatened deportation of Jack Warnick.

Speakers: John D. Barry, Austin Lewis, and others.

SAVE THE DATE!

TEST SUIT READY ON “I DON’T READ HEARST” STAMPS

A suit to test the validity of the ruling by the Post Office Department that “I Don’t Read Hearst” stamps are non-mailable on the outside of mail is about to be filed in Washington, D. C., by the A. C. L. U. The suit has been been contemplated for several months but was delayed until a plaintiff could be found.

Last March the U. S. District Court held that ‘I Don’t Read Hearst” stamps hearing he inscription “The League Against Yellow Journalism” were libelous and, therefore, non-mailable. The decision, however, applies only to stickers used on the outside of mail.

HOUGARDY RELEASE IMMINENT; LORENE NORMAN OUT FOR SIX MONTHS

Al. Hougardy, Sacramento criminal syndicalism victim, who was sentenced to 18 months in San Quentin, will be released on parole within a few days, according to information from a reliable source. Norman Mini was released on parole last May 1.

It will be remembered that Lorene Norman, another of the eight victims, was released from the women’s prison at Tehachapi last year to permit the birth of her baby outside prison walls. The baby subsequently died. After returning Miss Norman to Tehachapi, the State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles on August 7 released her for six months because she expects another child.

ORDER WARNICK’S DEPORTATION

FLASH! Washington, D. C., August 27. The Immigration Department Board of Review today vacated the order for the deportation of Jack Warnick and referred the case to Madame Perkins, Secretary of Labor, for her decision.

The Department of Labor has decreed Jack Warnick’s deportation to Canada. Notice was given the local A. C. L. U: office on August 10 that a warrant of deportation has issued and that a further notice of the time of departure would be given later. The customary practice is to give thirty days notice.

Warnick, arested in October of last year and charged with past membership in the Communist Party, has been represented throughout the proceedings by Austin Lewis, A. C. L. U. counsel. The Civil Liberties Union will contest this deportation order and seek a writ of habeas corpus in the U. S. District Court on the grounds that it has never been determined that the Communist Party as it exists today advocates the foreible overthrow of the Government, which is the basis of the charges advanced against Jack Warnick is a native of Canada who has lived in the United States for 27 of his 29 years, a graduate of the University of Washington, and has done post-graduate work at the University of California. He was one of th defendants acquitted in the Sacramento criminal syndicalism trials of 1935, in which his wife, Caroline Decker, was sentenced to Tehachapi. His deportation would mean separation from his wife and family, all of whom live here, and exile in a country to which he is a total stranger.

Defense Committee Formed

Immediately upon release of the warrant, the Marionette Union of the Federal Theatre Project, with which Warnick works, sent out a call for the formation of the Jack Warnick Defense Committee. To date the Committe is composed of:

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 3)

FACES DEPORTATION

JACK WARNICK

Page 2 :

SCHOOL BOARD DEFIES JUDGE’S FLAG SALUTE DECISION

Press dispatches from Sacramento assert that the Sacramento Board of Education will not re-admit Charlotte Gabrielli to public school unless she salutes the flag. The Board’s decision to take this stand was made despite the ruling of Superior Judge Peter J. Shields that Charlotte would not be required to salute the flag if it interferes with her religious beliefs. Wayne Collins, A. C. L. U. attorney representing the child, has not received official notice of the Board’s supposed action.

If the reports from Sacramento are true, a hearing will be held shortly on Charlotte Gabrielli’s application for a writ of mandamus. Judge Shields’ decision was rendered in connection with a demurrer to the petition for a writ. The only question raised by the demurrer was whether or not any legal right had been denied, if all the facts as alleged were assumed to be true. The Court held that the California Constitution guaranteeing “‘the free exercise and enjoy| ment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,” directly applied, and that the child’s right to religious freedom had, therefore, been denied. The hearing on the writ wil! determine whether Charlotte’s religion forbids flag saluting and whether any other element is involved in her refusal to salute the flag.

Commenting editorially on the case on August 25, the Sacramento “Union” suggests “The whole issue is so far removed from rea! patriotism as to make this community appear ridiculous in the eyes of state and nation. We think the public should know that, as Judge Shields has ruled, there is no law requiring the flag salute as a test of patriotism in California.

“There is, moreover, no authority devolving on the board of education giving it the right to deny the child of a taxpayer the educational opportunities paid for by the taxpayers. The same applies to the school officials, employees of the taxpayers.”

SAM WHITE GANG VICTIM IN KANSAS CITY

Samuel S. White, member of the Executive Committee of the Northern California Branch of the A. C..L. U., and at present organizer for the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union in Kansas City, was set upon by three gangsters ‘on August 6, taken for a ride and beaten. Ignoring an emphatic warning to leave town, Mr. White resumed his organizing of the garment workers, and.on August 26 was again atiacked by assailants. The extent of his injuries is not known at this time.

The International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union is prepared to demand a federal investigation of the affair on the theory that in the course of the ‘ride’ Mr. White was taken across the Missouri State line into Kansas. If this is a fact, the Lindbergh kidnapping law would apply.

SLUGGED

SAMUEL S. WHITE

“The Strange Case of Mrs. Eaton”

Reprinted from The New Yorker Aug. 22, 1936

For late-summer reading we recommend “The Strange Case of Mrs. Eaton,” published by the American Civil Liberties Union (not a mystery story). It is a report of the divorce proceedings in a Jersey court wherein the judge awarded the custody of the two children to the husband, on the ground that the mother of the children had Communistic and atheistic tendencies. The father was a conservative and a Methodist.

The decision of the judge reads in part: “He (the father) insists that he desires them (the children) to be religiously trained in his own faith and brought up as Americans. This he has a right to do. He charges that the petitioner has not only renounced her religion but denies the existence of a Supreme Being. This she admits. She frankly states that she no longer considers herself a Christian. . . . The petitioner, of course... may do with herself “as she will, but she is not privileged to instill into the minds of these young children, against the will of their father, these doctrines which she herself has embraced and which are looked upon with abhorrence by the vast majority of people living under the protection of our laws.”

The order of custody has been appealed, and the Civil Liberties Union, quick to bristle when human rights are at stake, is standing behind Mrs. Eaton.

From the extracts of the cross-examination which we have read, it appears that ‘Mrs. Eaton didn’t testify that she was either a Communist or an atheist—not that that makes any difference. Her testimony indicates that she possesses an inquiring mind rather than a satisfied one; and the judge apparently considered himself competent to say which of the two types of mind a child should be exposed to. Mrs. Eaton went to lectures at the Rand School, read Marx; and made cracks to her husband about the church. (She testified that she distinguished between the church and religion.) The children were seemingly getting Marx from their mother, and St. Mark from their father; and if we remember our American history, not even Jersey justice is privileged to decide which is the proper infant fare.

This is a big country and its mind is not on civil liberty. The land erodes and blows away in dust. The corn burns in the sun. Over the Southwest, the centennial spirit

SANTA ROSA VIGILANTES

eile folowing men were accused of participating in the Santa Rosa tar and feather party, according to complaints filed by the Attorney General’s office. Names appearing in dark-face type were specifically identified in the testimony of the victims:

Frank Selano and Ernest Demostene, Healdsburg bankers; Arthur Meese, druggist, President of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce; William Casselberry, former City Editor, Healdsburg; William Maher and George Maher, butchers; William Patteson, Santa Rosa,city editor; Frederick Cairns, Secretary of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce; Karl Weimer, real estate dealer; Herbert Waters, Santa Rosa newspaper reporter; Henry Maxon*, Edward W. Jenkins, John Barries, D. H. Madison, Thomas J. Campion, Richard Greenhaulgh, Ralph Estes, Forest Karns, Jerry Williams; and Alfred Loomis, Sydney Elphick, R. J. McClain@ and Julian Mayer, all four listed by the San Francisco Chronicle as ranchers. The United Press, howevér, claims there is but one rancher among the accused, vhile the victims of the vigilantes assert that none of those named “re ranchers.

*Case dismissed on motion of Attorney General because the accused is in Oregon.

Case dismissed on motion of Attorney teneral because the accused is in the hos- pital.

Of the 21 persons against whom charges are pending, 18 were identified by the testimony of the State’s witnesses.

dances like heat waves, and Billy Rose goes to put on a show for Texas. The govern- ment, fearing an invasion, hides its gold in the Kentucky hills, like an old woman sew- ing it up in a mattress. On the Great Lakes, terrorists wear masks and torture heretics, while millions vote in the Lucky Strike contest, the Major Bowes contest, the footballcoach popularity. contest. Our fleetest runners go to Germany, to win the green laurel in the land of the Aryans. At home the headlines raise the spirits of the local captains. Steel is at seventy-one per cent of capacity. Yearlings bring top prices at the Spa. Good weather aids business in Detroit. Rail income is up. Somebody is declaring a dividend. Mrs. Bumstead is giving a tea. These affairs occupy us, and leave little time for civil liberty; there are not many ~ people to worry about Mrs. Eaton, of Montclair, N. J., who can’t have her children till she changes her mind about God.

Civil liberty will probably never seem very pressing till it is almost lost. The Civil Liberties Union fights a rather lonely fight most of the time. To the more hidebound and well-heeled citizens of the land, the Union itself is in bad odor, since it always seems to be championing such un-American persons as Negroes charged with rape, laborers clubbed for picketing, and agnostics deprived of their children. There is no doubt that a good many Americans regard the Civil Liberties Union merely as the ally of our “more undesirable elements.” Those of us who see in its work the vital spark should be the more ardent, and, if possible, the more helpful.

The judge in the Eaton case obviously didn’t know much about children. If he had been a wily judge, anxious to give his country two more young Methodists, he would have awarded the custody of the children not to the methodical father but ‘to the agnostical mother. Children are “deeply suspicious of parental attitudes of ‘mind, and are as quick to revolt from agnosticism as from Methodism. It is one of the gentler ironies in this case that the judge, hoping to serve his American principles, is probably abetting a couple of potential atheists; while the Civil Liberties Union, if it should win its appeal this fall and deliver the children to their radicalminded mother, will unconsciously be winning two more little fundamentalists for a land already overburdened with them. Thus does Nature slyly arrange all.

KOCI CASE STILL PENDING

There have been no new developments in the Koci deportation proceedings. The last hearing was held on June 5. Shortly thereafter Inspector W. E. Walsh of the Immigration Department took a threemonths leave to go to the Philippines. ure ther action in the case waits upon his return.

The Government’s star witness, Carmen Joan Dodson McDonald, is in Los Angeles. It ig not known whether she will be subpoenaed by the Government to undergo crogs-examination by A. C. L. U. attormey Austin Lewis. Final action to remove Miss Dodson’s daughter from her custody because of gross neglect has been held in abeyance pending the location of the mother. A continued hearing has been set tentatively for the | middle of September. In the meantime, the child remains a ward of the court and lives at Pinehaven.

C. §. REPEAL LACKS SIGNATURES

Handicapped by the lack of funds, proponents of the measure to repeal the Cali- fornia criminal syndicalism law were unable to procure sufficient signatures to place the measure on the ballot this fall. Approximately. 187,000 valid signatures were needed. The petition has been filed with various county clerks and will serve as the basis of an appeal to the next Legislature to eliminate the law.

NO LEGAL BAR TO ORDERLY STREET MEETINGS IN SAN FRANCISCO

Chief Quinn’s recent threat to break-up an anti-war meeting on the Embarcadero

was protested by the American Civil Liberties Union in the following letter published in the San Francisco News on August 8: .“If free speech is a reality,’ asks your correspondent Paula Mendez, ‘“‘how, then, do you account for the refusal by Chieti of Police Quinn to grant a permit for the annual anti-war demonstration planned by the American League Against War and Fascism for August 1 on the Embarcadero?”

When complaints were made to the Civil Liberties Union that the Chief would break up any attempted meeting on the Embarcadero, we at once conferred with him. He asserted that such a meeting would interfere with the rights of others and that his men would, therefore, arrest anyone attempting to hold the meeting on charges of “blocking the sidewalk” and ‘failing to move on,”

While it is within the so-called ‘“‘police power” of a state or municipality to regu- late the place of street meetings, the courts of this state have nevertheless heid that “Primarily it is for the legislative branch of city government to determine, in the exercise of proper discretion, what streets, and within what particular portion of the city, the public welfare may demand such regulation.”’ (Ex parte Thomas, 102 Pacific 19) Ordinance 838 of the City and County of San Francisco, approved June 11, 1903, provides that ““Whenever the free passage of any street or sidewalk shall be obstruct- ed by a crowd, EXCEPT ON OCCASION OF A PUBLIC MEETING, the persons composing such crowd shall disperse or move on when directed so to do by any police officer.”’ That is the ONLY law applying to street meetings that the lawyers now codifying our ordinances have been able to discover.

The Board of Supervisors has not conferred power upon the Chief to issue permits to hold street meetings and I understand that the Chief does not claim such power. Nevertheless, any interference with orderly public metings by police officers of the City of San Francisco is wholly unwarranted and clearly illegal.

ERNEST BESIG, Director.

WHAT IS THE CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM ACT?

What is the California Criminal Syndicalism Act? Certain interests favoring the law, anticipating that the criminal syndicalism repeal measure might find a place on the fall ballot, and looking for a method to fight it, asked that question of 2000 persons in the bay area. One canvasser discovered just a handful of people who knew the law or its purpose. The attitude of most was, “I don’t know the purpose of the law, but I’m, all for it.”

The opponents of the Act, on the other hand, are generally much better informed. They know that the law has been abused; ihat it has been used to defeat the organization of agricultural workers, and that it stands as a threat to organized labor and civil liberties. We have usually assumed that they also knew its provisions. There is no real basis for that assumption. After all, very few lawyers know much about the law. Consequently, we are printing the Act that you may oppose it, not only because you know how unfairly it works, but because you know its provisions as well.

(Continued on Page 4,, Col. 3)

S. O. 5.

The National Board of the A. C. L. U. has appropriated $300 to prosecute the Santa Rosa tar and feather cases, on the condition that a like amount be raised by the local branch of the Union. Remember, the case goes to trial in Sacramento on September 15. We have raised only $43. Two hundred and fifty-seven dollars must be raised in the next fifteen days. This is our only special appeal made this year. Won't you please help in this emergency!

Page 3

What’s Next on the Mooney Case?

Miriam Allen deFord

Now that all the evidence is in, in the protracted Mooney habeas corpus hearings and nothing remains except the preparation otf briefs and the arguments on them, it is pos- sible to determine just what the hearings accomplished and what the probable future of this most famous of legal procedures will be.

The hearings took up 135 actual court days, spread over more than a year. ‘The transcript covers nearly 15,000 pages. Like a bomb-shell, almost at the close, came the Supreme Court’s ruling empowering Referee A. K. Shaw, who had repeatedly been told that he was merely a sort of glorified notary public to certify the record, to make findings of fact on the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. This ruling is be- ing protested by Attorney George T. Davis (of the A. C.L. U. Executive Committee). The court may or may not reverse it, and agree to consider the evidence directly instead of through the openly hostile eyes of the referee. (The court on August 24 refused to vacate its order.—Ed.) But it is a last proof, if proof were needed, that it is Impossible for Mooney and Billings to obtain justice in California, that the decision of th court (direct or indirect) will in all likelihood be adverse, and that the only hope lies in the Supreme Court of the United States. These hearings were held be- cause when Mooney’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was heard in Washington last year, he was told to go back and first exhaust the resources of the state courts. The Superior Court of Marin County turned his application down without even bothering to read it. The Appellate Court ruled against it two to one. There remained the State Supreme Court, which (already showing its anticipatory bias) appointed to act in its stead an obscure lawyer who had never before been connected in any way with a criminal case.

The hearings have accomplished something more than merely to fullfill the re- quirements of the United States Supreme Court. They have furnished the first orderly presentation of the entire case, from beginning to end, and not merely of the Preparedness Day explosion and the trials and convictions themselves, but of the background which caused the framing of the defendants—the P. G. and E. strike of | 1913, the attempts by Mooney to organize the United Railroads, all the way back to the graft prosecutions of 1907 and to Fickert’s election in 1909, as a union labor candidate (right-wing union labor), pledged to dismiss the remaining graft indictments. Nearly all of those, on both sides, eonnected with the original cases who are

SUSPENSION OF SEATTLE PAPER IN IN STRIKE NO FREE PRESS ISSUE

No question of freedom of press was involved, the American Civil Liberties Union declared, in the suspension of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Hearst publication, fol- lowing a strike of the paper’s unit of the American Newspaper Guild. When teamsters and longshoremen joined the striking reporters on the picket line, pressmen refused to enter the plant and publication was suspended.

The Union’s position in the matter was given in a wire to Irving Clark, Chairman of the Seattle Civil Liberties Committee, who had asked for a statement of policy. The Union’s message, signed by Lucille B. Milner, secretary, said:

The American Civil Liberties Union stands on the principle that the right to strike and picket peacefully are fundamental. Newspaper publishers are under the same obligation to recognize these rights as any other enterprise in which there is an employer-employee relationship. Suspension of a newspaper either because of effectiveness of a strike or because of refusal of management to negotiite with strikers cannot be regarded as ‘nfringement of free press.

still alive appeared on the witness stand. Mooney. and Billings themselves (meeting , in the County Jail for the first time in twenty years) testified at length. Over — every obstacle and objection, Mooney was able to give publicly in court, for the first time, his own declaration of principles, to analyze the reasons for his framing, and to refute the vicious attacks of Goff, Cunha and the ruined shell of Fickert, by his ringing declaration: “I am a social builder. The whole aim and object of my life has been the building of a better society, in which there should be justice for the worker.”

More, a search of over a month in the attorney-general’s office and the basement of the Hall of Justice brought to light over a thousand documents, reports, letters, and other pieces of evidence which all these years have been suppressed or concealed. Some of these were of vital importance. Everyone of them confirmed the already staggering proof of connivance at perjury by the prosecution, suppression of evidence, and the other allegations of the habeas corpus petition. When—as seems almost certain to occur—Attorneys John F. Finerty and Frank P. Walsh once more bring the petition before the United States Supreme Court, they will have material and arguments which will overwhelmingly prove their contention that Mooney did not receive a trial ‘by due process of law” in 1917. On the basis of the Scottsboro decisions, the court should, and it is to be hoped that it will, decide that here also the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution has ben violated, and order Mooney’s discharge (which inevitably would be followed by the freeing of Billings as well).

There is a ray of light ahead in the twenty-year-old Mooney case at last. But it is a ray which comes from Washington, not from Sacramento or San Francisco.

ORDER WARNICK’S DEPORTATION (Concluded from Page 1, Col. 3)

The American Civil Liberties Union.

The American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 236.

International Labor Defense.

International Longshoremen’s Association, Local No. 38-79.

International Workers’ Order, Branch No. 119.

Joint Board, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union.

Masters, Mates and Pilots, Local No. 90.

Socialist Party.

Waiters and Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, Local No. 30.

Resolution Against Deportation

On page 4 of this issue will be found the text of a proposed resolution opposing Jack Warnick’s deportation. Please present this resolution for adoption to any organization of which you may be a member. Also send personal protests to Madame Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, Washington, D. C. Funds are needed to carry on the legal fight and publicity work on this case. Please send funds to the Jack Warnick Defense Committee, 434 Mills Building, San Francisco.

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 PAULINE W..DAVIBPS.2.... 2... Associate Editor

Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year.

Five Cents per Copy.

WARNICK RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Department of Labor has recently issued a warrant of deportation directing the return of Jack Warnick of San Francisco to Canada; and,

WHEREAS, such order for deportation is based merely on the political opinions held by the deportee and his activities in organizing California agricultural workers; and, _. :

WHEREAS, Warnick was acquitted at the Sacramento Criminal Syndicalism trial in 1935, and the same evidence is now made the basis of deportation charges against his; and,

WHEREAS, Warnick was brought to this country by his parents. at the age of two and has ever since, for the past 27 years, resided here as a hardworking and law-abiding person, a graduate of the University of Washington and a former graduate student at the University of California; and,

WHEREAS, he filed a declaration of intention to become a United States citizen, but could not become naturalized because he was unable to furnish the proper records, through no fault of his own; and,

~’ WHEREAS, deportation would separate Warnick from his wife and family and send him to a country in which he would be a total stranger; and,

WHEREAS, such deportation is contrary to the traditional American . policy of freedom of opinion and the right of political asylum; now, therefore, be it :

RESOLVED, that. ..2:202-20 3...

(name of organization) goes on record as favoring the revocation of the order for deportation in the case of Jack Warnick; and be it further ;

RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be sent to Madame Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, Washington, D. C., and to the press.

ADOPT IT! ~The above resolution has thus far been adopted by:

Brewery Workers’ Union, No. 7, of San Francisco;

Seamen’s Union of the Pacific;

Socialist Party of San Francisco;

ey Employees’ Union No. 665, I. B. of F:;

Masters, Mates and Pilots, Local No. 90;

Waiters and Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, Local No. 30.

VIGILANTE BODY IS ORGANIZED IN EL DORADO AREA |

The following story appeared in the’ Santa Rosa “Press Democrat” on Friday, August 28: .

PLACERVILLE (El Dorado Co.), Aug. 27.—The announcement was made yesterday of the formation of a Citizens Protective Association of El Dorado County, pat‘terned after early-day vigilante committees, to act during labor troubles or to preserve law and order during times of stress.

The membership of the organization is secret, but is said to be composed of sub| stantial citizens of the county. The plan of mobilization is based around seven key members, two of whom are in Placerville, and the balance at strategic points in the county. Each has an aid in the event they are not available or are unable to act. Each key man is at the head of a squad of ten men in addition to the aid.

The decision to form the organization followed recent labor troubles in the fruit packing industry.

Vigilantes Face Trial

(Concluded from Page 1, Col. 2)

turned their heads away, or hid in the crowd standing in the rear.

Flag Violated

The now familiar story of the outrage was presented by the various victims. Cross- examination by defense attorneys was directed essentially toward a complete description of the vigilantes, an investigation of irrelevant details (who took pictures of the victims; what sort of coats were draped on their shoulders and what became of the coats, etc.) and their political beliefs. Defense Attorney Geary wanted to know why Sol Nitzberg refused to obey the vigilantes’ order to kiss the flag. The answer was more than the attorney had bargained for: “These vigilantes,” exclaimed Mr. Nitzberg, “were violating every principle that the flag stands for!”

“We’re Americans!”’

Another “patriotic” note was thrown into the hearing when Mrs. Beulah Heaney, from whose home Ed. Wolff was kidnapped by the vigilantes, testified that she objected to the vigilantes trespassing on her property. (Apparently, she had the good old American notion that her home was her castle). ‘““What’s the meaning of this intrusion,’ she demanded of the vigilantes. ‘Where is your warrant?” “We need no warrant,” they responded, ‘“‘we’re Ameri‘cans!”’

After holding the hearing on August 21st and the morning of August 22nd, the hearing was continued until August 28. Only Jack Green'remained to testify when court adjourned. The accused were reduced to 21 when charges were dropped against one man reported to be in the hospital.

If trials are ordered for some or all of the defendants, “The ultimate decision rests with a Sonoma County jury,” commented the San Francisco Chronicle. “If the public sentiment, that doubtless influenced the Grand Jury, also influences the trial jury, at least the responsibility for the breakdown of the law will be fixed. Sonoma County will be on trial.”

Trial Should Be Transferred

But the ultimate decision should not rest with a Sonoma County jury! Certainly it is inherent in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, which is a state court, to transfer the trail to another part ofthestate that is not mob-ruled. The public should demand that the Attorney General take steps to bring about a transfer! It should be alert and watchful to see that there is no let-down in the prosecutions. The Attorney General’s deputies have done a credit

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEES »

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Chairman Dr. Charles A. Hogan Secretary-Treasurer A. Alan Clark Director Ernest Besig

Prof. Harold Chapman Brown George T. Davis Hugo Ernst Prof. Glenn Hoover Mary Hutchinson Dr. Edgar A. Lowther Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn Judge Jackson H. Ralston Helen Salz Rabbi Jacob J. Weinstein Marie De L. Welch Samuel S. White

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Wayne Collins James J. Cronin, Jr. Rev. Earl N. Griggs Morris M. Grupp Dr. Robert F. Leavens Clarence E. Rust Rev. Ray N. Studt Rev. E. C. Vanderlaan

able job thus far, but they have a long road to travel before the law is vindicated.

The Attorney General’s office can and should go into this situation in a deeper way. Money has been collected in Sonoma County to finance acts of lawlessness. The higher-ups who paid for vigilantism should be exposed and prosecuted just as the Black Legion is being prosecuted in Detroit, to the end that vigilantism may once and for all time be ended in California.

Funds Needed

liven now many citizens of Sonoma County are openly lining up with the vigilantes. A huge defense fund has been raised. Won’t you people who believe in civil liberties help to end vigilantism by sending funds without delay to finance the civil suits against the alleged leader of the mob? No matter what happens in the prosecutions of the vigilantes, we will expose the whole story of their lawlessness in the United States District Court in Sacramento on September 15th. Won’t you please help us do the job?

WHAT IS THE C. S. ACT? (Concluded from Page 3, Col. 1)

Criminal Syndicalism Act

1. “Criminal syndicalism” defined. The term “criminal syndicalism”’ as used in this act is hereby defined as any doctrine or precept advocating, teaching or aiding and abetting the commission of crime, sabotage (which word is hereby defined as meaning willful and malicious physical damage or injury to physical property), or unlawful . acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership er control, or effecting any political change.

2. Unlawful acts. Any person who:

1. By spoken or written words or personal conduct advocates, teaches or aids and abets criminal syndicalism or the duty, necessity or propriety of committing crime, sabotage, violence or any unlawful method of terrorism as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change; or

2. Willfully and deliberately by spoken or written words justifies or attempts to justify criminal syndicalism or the commission or attempt to commit crime, sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism with intent to approve, advocate or further the doctrine of criminal syndicalism; or

3. Prints, publishes, edits, issues or circulates or publicly displays any book, pa- per, pamphlet, document, poster or written or printed matter in any other form, con- taining or carrying written or printed advocacy, teaching, or aid and abetment of, or advising, criminal syndicalism; or

4. Organizes or assists in organizing, or is or knowingly becomes a member of, any organization, society, group or assemblage of persons organized or assembled to advo- cate, teach or aid and abet criminal syndicalism; or

5. Willfully by personal act or conduct, practices or commits any act advised, ad- voeated, taught or aided and abetted by the doctrine or precept of criminal syndi- calism, with intent to accomplish a change in industrial ownership or control, or ef- fecting any political change;

Is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more than fourteen years.

3. Constitutionality. (Usual saving clause).

4, Urgency measure. Inasmuch as this act concerns and is necessary to the immediate preservation of the public peace and safety, for the reason that at the present time large numbers of persons are going from place to place in this state advocating, teaching and practicing criminal syndicalism, this act shall take effect upon ap- proval by the governor.