vol. 1, no. 10

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. 10

Salinas resorted to a new brand of vigilantism-—deputized vigilantism, to break its lettuce strike. A conscription order, unparalleled in California’s labor history, issued by Sheriff Carl Abbott through the newspapers and by sound truck, commanded “all able- bodied citizens to report at City Hall for an emergency!”’

A nondescript rabble of 800 answered the first call. For lack of deputy sheriff’s badges they were furnished light blue arm ' bands, later replaced by khaki, and axe handles from the supply at the State Armory or produced by the boys at the High School. A few carried rifles or revolvers in holsters.

To the credit of the American Legion, only about 20 veterans responded to a previous command that “All members of the American Legion report at City Hall: at once.” It is significant that the local commander later denied that he had authorized the call.

Protected by a barrage of tear gas, the deputized vigilantes drove pickets from the streets and did “‘guard”’ work. A Chronicle camera man was temporarily held when he took pictures of the vigilantes, and Stanley Bailey, whose graphic strike stories in the Chronicle referred to the deputies as vigilantes and recited the indiscriminate use of gas by the authorities, was finally withdrawn by airplane when he was threatened with lynching.

The Salinas vigilantes were no more courageous than any others. Protected by tear gas bombs, guns and clubs they were brave, but I observed two young fellows hide their axe handles under their shirts and stuff their arm-bands in their pockets when they went off duty. Again, when four volunteers were needed to escort two pickets to jail, they were slow in appearing. When one vigilante sought to enlist, his comrade: pulled at him and said, “You damn fool, they’ll gang up on you.” Sheriff Abbott eventually conscripted an army of 1500 men who were all duly deputized, armed and held ready for instant mobilization. In fact, they did mobilize to meet a reported invasion of thousands of longshoremen from San Francisco which never developed.

The Sheriff claimed he had power to conscript citizens under the provisions of Section 723 of the Penal Code. He never bothered to quote that section. It provides that, “When a sheriff or other public officer authorized to execute process finds, or has reason to apprehend that resistance will be made to the execution of the process, he may command as many male inhabitants of his county as he may think proper to assist him in overcoming the resistance, and, if necessary, in seizing, arresting, and confining the persons resisting, their aiders and abettors.”’ It is quite obvious that the law applies merely TO THE EXECUTION OF PROCKSS, that is to say, to the execution of a warrant, subpoena, or other order of a court. The Sheriff has no power to organize and maintain a militia or vigilante army.

Civil authorities have abdicated in Sa-linas and the grower-shippers are running the community from the sixth floor of the Jeffery Hotel. Though the strikers are es- sentially conservative and some of their leaders red-baiters, the growers have exerted great effort in drumming up a red scare. We enumerate here the systematic build-up of the red menace that had no basis in fact:

1. Six Communists armed with dynamite reported ‘‘en route” to Salinas to blow up ice plant (Sept. 15) ;

2. Citizens Association of Monterey County issued a statement that-four autoloads of Communists were ‘“‘en route’’ to Salinas to call on business firms and threaten boycott for failure to support the strike (Sept. 16) ;

3. Report circulated that 500 cars containing 2500 to 8000 members of the International Longshoremen’s Assn. were “en route” to Salinas from San Francisco to reinforce the picket lines and give general support to the strikers. 1500 deputized vigilantes mobilized. Airplanes failed to locate longshoremen (Sept. 16) ;

4. When the Highway Patrol found numbered red-flagged markers on roadsides, Mr. Raymond Cato, Chief of the Patrol, announced that these were evidence of Communist leadership, and (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

SALINAS STRIKE PICTURES

Motion pictures of the Salinas lettuce strike troubles, taken by the A. C. L. U., will gladly be loaned to members and friends of the A. C. L. U.

They are 8 mm. pictures and take about five minutes to run. We DO NOT have a projection machine or curtain.

I DON’T READ HEARST” SUIT FILED IN WASHINGTON

An injunction restraining Postmaster

Vincent C. Burke of Washington, D. C..,: from interferring with letters carrying on the outside of the envelope printed stickers saying “I Don’t Read Hearst” was sought this week in the District Court of the United States by Dr. D. N. Shoemaker, a retired horticulturist of the Department of Agriculture. Frederick A. Ballard, counsel for the Washington Civil Liberties ‘Committee, is handling the case for Dr. Shoemaker.

The suit also names Postmaster General James A. Farley as defendant. A letter bearing the disputed matter was submitted for mailing on August 11, 1936, and rejected the next day as unmailable under Section 599 of the Postal Laws. The petition filed by Mr. Ballard challenges this ruling as “unauthorized, wholly arbitrary, and a violation of the rights of the plaintiff under the Constitution of the _ United States.”

‘Last winter a suit over a 1 somewhat similar sticker was brought by the A.C. L. U. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York but was lost when the Court took exception to the fact that the stickers carried on them in addi- tion to the slogan the name, “‘The League Against Yellow Journalism. » The present stickers say only “I Don’t Read Hearst.

DAMAGE SUIT GIVES WAY TO. CRIMINAL TRIALS IN TAR CASE

The trial of Jack Green’s damage suit. against Fred Cairns, alleged leader of the Santa Rosa tar and feather mob, has been postponed from September 15 to December 15. The delay was granted by Federal Judge Roche on the motion of attorneys for Mr. Cairns, who declared the trial would interfere with the preparation of their defense in the tar and feather criminal trials scheduled to open in the Superior Court in Santa Rosa on October 19.

An excellent response was received to the recent appeal of the A. C. L. U. for funds to carry.on the Green and Nitzberg cases. Ninety persons and organizations helped fill-the war chest and in doing so reminded us once again that the work of the A. C. L. U. in northern California has loyal, and generous support. We are exceedingly grateful for all the help and greatly encouraged.

INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF SANBORN ASKED BY A. C. L. U.

Following the appearance of Col. Henry R. Sanborn, publisher of the red-baiting #merican Citizen,” as ‘coordinator’ of law enforcement agencies in the Salinas strike situation, the following telegram was sent to Attorney General U. 8. Webb urging an inquiry into his appointment and activities:

“We urge you to inquire into newspaper _ reports that one Colonel H. R. Sanborn has become: so-called coordinator of law enforcement agencies of the state, several counties and one municipality mn the Salinas strike situation. We believe his re- ported activities and powers, whether a delegation or usurpation of same, to be illegal. In your judgment do not his reported activities constitute the impersonation of an officer?”’

The following telegram was dressed to District Brazil: .

“If reports are correct that Colonel H. R. Sanborn directed a search at the home of George Kircher without a warrant, and that personal property was seized, we re- spectfully urge you to prosecute ‘without delay.”

Sanborn claimed that some of his men had seized a box full of Communist literature at the home of Kircher, delegate of the striking fruit and vegetable workers to the State Federation of Labor Convention, which indicated that the strike was “inspired by Moscow.” Kircher denied the charge and claimed that the literature was. “planted.”

VIEWS ON C. S. LAW MAY PREVENT CITIZENSHIP

The citizenship application of F. J. McConnel of San Francisco will be heard by Judge Lauderback in the U. S. District Court at the Post Office Building, San Francisco, at ten o’clock on the morning of Wednesday, September 30th, too late to be reported in.the October issue of the A. C. L. U.-News. The Subversive Activities Committee of the American Legion, thru Harper Knowles, its chairman, has opposed McConnel’s application because he was at

. also adAttorney Anthony one time secretary of the Conference for the Heng of the Criminal Syndicalism Law.

Page San fol

In response to the protest registered with the San Francisco Police Department against the breaking up of a political meeting on the Embarcadero on September 21, Acting Chief of Police Michael Riordan sent the Union a copy of his letter to Mayor Rossi’s executive secretary outlining the Police Department’s attitude toward street meetings.

September 23, 1936.

Mr. Maurice Rapheld, Executive Secretary, The Mayor’s Office, City Hall, City.

Dear Mr. Rapheld:

I am in receipt of your letter of September 18, 1936, with which you forwarded a copy of-a letter received by you from Mr. Lawrence Ross, a candidate for Congress, Fifth District, in which he complains that his meetings, held on public streets and sidewalks, have been interferred with by the police. In reply, permit me to advise as follows:

Mr. Ross, in his communication, seems to indicate that the constitutional provisions guaranteeing freedom of speech carries with it, as a matter of right, the privilege of holding meetings on public highways, irrespective of any interference which such meetings may cause others. In this connection, I wish to state that under the law streets are devoted to the use of the whole public, and the use must be enjoyed so that the rights of all are observed.

If anyone intending to address a gathering of fellow citizens were to arbitrarily choose a time and place of meeting upon a public highway—and | accordingly, hold said meeting — the purposes for which such highways are maintained would be defeated.

In addition to the duty devolving upon the police department of keeping streets and sidewalks open for reasonable travel and traffic, another element enters into the question of public gatherings on public highways, and that is the disturbance they may cause others who do business or reside in the immediate vicinity of the point where the meeting is held.

There is no provision of law better established than the one which demands that every person must use his own right so as ‘not to infringe upon the rights of others. The following extract from the works of a national authority on constitutional rights unequivocally indicates that the unrestricted use of public highways as mieeting places cannot be claimed as a matter of common right:

“The right to meet peaceably for consul-. tation in respect to public affairs has been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States to be implied in the very idea of a government republican in form.

“The constitutional right of assembly, however, does not include the right to use. for that purpose the streets and other places owned and controlled by state or municipality, but presupposes that those’ who assemble have a right to control the place where they meet. If this were not so, the right of assembly would constitute a serious disturbance of the rights of others. “Streets and public places are devoted to the use of the whole public for purpose of traffic, intercourse, and exercise, and the use must be enjoyed so that the rights of all are observed. An assembly, however, always interferes with the general public use, and a number of meetings at the same time may cause disorder and conflict. Under proper regulations this effect may perhaps be avoided, but plainly the use for this purpose cannot be claimed as a matter of common rights.

“Tt must be subject to a police power of regulation, and may be restrained as to time and place, and number and duration of meetings. Since this power of regulation is commonly delegated to municipalities, the courts control it as to its reasonab!2 ex- ercise, and an absolute prohibition of meetings in public places would, as has been intimated, be held to be unreasonable. “On the other hand, the absolute author

Francisco Police Department Outlines icy On Street Weetings

ity of the legislature to control the use of public places has been upheld by the Su-. preme Court of Massachusetts, and confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, on the ground that the power over public places is of a proprietary character.”

-,.. We have, in this city and county, a regulation known as Ordinance No. 833, approved June 11, 1903, which reads as follows: as

“Whenever the free passage of any street or sidewalk shall be obstructed by a crowd, except on occasion of public meeting, the persons composing such crowd shall disperse or move on when directed so to do by any police officer.”

The violation of said ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable, upon conviction, by a fine or imprisonment in the discretion 0 the trial court. .

While the ordinance referred to does not define the term “‘public meeting,” it is very evident that it does not mean that an individual may assemble members of the general public at any time or place selected by himself and without regard to the rights of others. To my mind, the term presupposes that some municipal department charged with the regulation of traffic and the maintenance of the public peace, should be notified so that it may determine, in advance, whether or not the point selected for the meeting is a reasonable one. Furthermore, the citations hereinabove referred to clearly indicate that the right to meet on public highways is not without restrictions. In other words, the privilege must be exercised within legal limitations and with regard to the rights of others.

Mr. Redfern Mason called at the office of the Chief of Police during the afternoon of Monday, September 21, 1936, in connection with the activities of members of the police department in dealing with meetings held on public streets and sidewalks on. behalf of the candidacy of Mr. Ross. I discussed with him the regulations herein referred to and Mr. Mason agreed that the meetings should be held under circumstances which are reasonable.

I advised Mr. Mason that this department was ready and willing to co-operate with him and that if this office were furnished, in advance, with a schedule of meeting places, we would co-operate in the accomplishment of its objective, provided the places selected would not unreasonably interfere with the rights of others in the use of our streets and highways. Mr. Mason was satisfied and. expressed his thanks for the police co-operation in the contemplated plan.

: Very respectfully yours, MICHAEL RIORDAN, Acting Chief of Police.

A. C: L. U. POLICY ON STREET . MEETINGS

The following reply was made by the AC i U to Actine Chiet of Police, Michael Riordan, of San Francisco, concerning the Police Department’s policy in restricting street meetings and outlining the policy of the A. C. L. U.:

September 26, 19386. Hon. Michael Riordan, —_—’ Acting Chief of Police, Hall of Justice, San Francisco, Calif.

Dear Chief Riordan: _ Thank you for your letter of September 24 enclosing a copy: of your letter to Mr. Maurice Rapheld which sets forth in detail the position of the Police Department with regard to street meetings. I am glad that the subject is being considered in an objective way.

The matter of holding street meetings in San Francisco, or any community, it seems to me, will be solved by addressing ourselves fairly and honestly to the problems involved. I am sure that an intelligent policy can be worked out, and in doing so you may be assured of the unqualified support of the American Civil Liberties Union.

-men Joan Dodson,

Our own policy is set forth in a leaflet issued by our New York office. “Meetings in public places,” reads the statement, “may properly be regulated by permit but without any discrimination whatever on account of the political program or views expressed. The fullest freedom of speech should be encouraged by setting aside places in streets or parks for use without permits, and in the use of public buildings for public meetings of any sort.’ Is this not the position more or less expressed in your letter to Mr. Rapheld?

It has never been our contention that the legislative branch of the government cannot regulate the use of streets, so long as such regulation is reasonable. We submit, however, that the Police Department may not undertake such regulation unless express powers are delegated to it by the legislative branch of the government—in this case, the Board of Supervisors.

We agree that the right to regulate comes within the police powers of a state, but you as an attorney know that this means simply that the legislative branch of the government may, in order: to protect the peace, health or safety of the community, pass reasonable legislation regulating the right of assemblage on public streets. If such laws are enacted, it then becomes the duty of the Police Department to enforce them.

I am interested in your quotation of the law in other jurisdictions. I feel, however, that it is more helpful to rely upon California precedents. In the case of In re Thomas, 10 Cal. App. 375; 102 Pac. 19, — a Los Angeles ordinance prohibited street meetings within a defined area. In upholding the conviction of the petitioner for vio- lating the ordinance the court said, ‘‘Primarily it is for the legislative branch of the 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 reg

= Wation,

In the City and County of San Francisco the Board of Supervisors has NOT passed legislation restricting street meetings. Ordinance 833 is the only local law that re- fers to the subject, and it can hardly be said that that ordinance is restrictive. You point out that the term ‘public meeting” used therein is not defined. Perhaps the advisable thing is to ask the Board of Supervisors to draft an ordinance that is unambiguous, and that will respect fundamental liberties, and whose administration will, as far as possible, satisfy all persons and groups who are interested.

Do you have any meeting places in mind that would satisfy your department? If so, I ‘would appreciate being informed of them. Don’t you think that the Embarcadero at Clay street, particularly at sixthirty o’clock in the morning, is a reasonable place to hold a street meeting?

I would suggest that a conference be arranged to discuss the entire situation. I feel confident that some workable plan can be evolved ‘to eliminate the difficulties that arise whenever a street meeting is held in San Francisco.

Very truly yours,

Copy to: Ernest Besig, Director.

Mr. Maurice Rapheld.

KOCI DEPORTATION CASE STALLS:

The Frank Koci deportation proceedings have stalled. The government has made no move in the case since its star witness, Carfled when she was scheduled for crossexamination four months ago. We doubt whether she will ever be produced, for as time goes on more and more facts come to light that reveal her as a thoroughly irresponsible and un-. reliable person. Her testimony must be stricken if she is not produced.

Miss Dodson, withal a very tragic figure, is still staying in Los Angeles where she has been forced to accept relief from the Catholic Welfare Bureau. Once again malice has driven her to seek the deporta| tion of an alien with whom she was recently intimate. When he deserted her she registered a complaint with immigration officials in Los Angeles charging him with “a police record.” As far as we know, the man has not been arrested.

STATE HIGHWAY PATROL ACTS AS pT RIRE-BREARING AGENCY IN * SALINAS

The following public statement issued by the American Civil Liberties Union on Sep- tember 18 charged the State Highway Patrol with provoking violence and acting as a strike-breaking agency in the Salinas lettuce strike :

“A two-day survey of the Salinas lettuce strike area by Ernest Besig, Northern Cali- fornia director, convinces us that the State Highway Patrol has flagrantly exceeded its authority by acting as a constabulary force. California law does not clothe the Patrol with powers of state policemen, yet such powers have been arrogated to turn the Patrol into an effective strike-breaking agency for the employers. In fact, many public agencies have been exploited for the benefit of only one party to this labor dispute.

“Law and order should be established in Salinas, but the principal reason why its streets are unsafe is not because of anything done by strikers but because of the reckless abuse of power by the Highway Patrol, local police and deputized vigilantes who. have united to prevent peaceful picketing, which is an undeniable element of the constitutional right of peaceable assemblage. Without warning the Highway Patrol bombarded orderly picket lines on Gabilan Street with tear and nausea gas last Tuesday morning. Only a few rocks were thrown by angered men or provocateurs (socalled labor detectives) after the Highway Patrol had acted. In fact, the pickets warned each other not to throw rocks or to do anything unlawful.

“The bombing of the environs of the Labor Temple was utterly indefensible. A few strikers had armed themselves with crude clubs as a defense against the vigilantes, and were congregated in the yard and in ' front of the Labor Temple. The only disturbance came from persons sworn to uphold the law. Newspaper men, women and babies and even a County Supervisor were suddenly caught in the crazed attack of the Highway Patrol and local police that came without a moment’s warning to disperse.

“The Highway Patel has provoked violence by its unconscionable use of tear and nausea gas. Reported gas attacks, without warning, upon men, women and babies who have committed no wrongful act cannot be condoned. The Patrol should be kept out of strike duty where it has no business except as provided by law. It is the plain duty of the Governor to see that the Constitution and laws of this state are respected and upheld by the Highway Patrol and that lawless enforcement of the law. is ended.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Chairman Dr. Chale A. Hogan

| Director Ernest Besig

Prof. Harold Chapman Brown A. Alan Clark 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 Charles Erskine Scott Wood

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

NO FINAL DECISION IN WARNICK CASE; PROTESTS GO TO WASHINGTON

The District Commissioner of Immigration, Edward W. Cahill, recently confirmed press reports that the deportation order in the Jack Warnick case was abortive. Under date of September 11 the A. C. L. U. received a brief letter from the Commissioner stating that, ‘“With regard to the case of Jack Warnick you are informed that a final decision has not as yet been rendered by our Central Office in Washington.’”’ Apparently through an administrative error, the deportation order was issued before the case was passed on by the Board of Review in Washington. T

he confusion over the order resulted in Warnick’s dismissal Theatre Project. After a few days, however, when the difficulties were ironed out, he was again reinstated.

On September 22nd the Warnick De-. fense Committee held a protest meeting at Native Sons Auditorium in San Francisco at which John D. Barry, Austin Lewis, Nadja’ Manito, Jennie Matyas, Oleta O’Connor, David Stevens and Rabbi Jacob J. Weinstein were the speakers. Those present signed a petition urging Madame Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, to dismiss the deportation proceedings against Warnick.

The Tacoma, Washington, Central Labor Council, on September 16, “went on record vigorously protesting against the deportation” of Warnick and notified Frances Per- kins to that effect. Kathryn E. Malstrom, a Washington State senator, who has known the Warnick family in Tacoma since 1909, also appealed to the Secretary of Labor for a “favorable consideration” of the case and the Humanist Society of Berkeley and the Northern California Newspaper Guild took similar action.

POLITICS AND RELIGION VERBOTEN AT SAN JOSE STREET MEETINGS

The city of San Jose allows street meetings, but restricts the nature of the meet- ing. “Permits may be granted,” reads the ordinance, ‘‘to any person to hold meetings for the purpose of the observance of or in commemoration of the anniversary of. the declaration of national independence, or for other public celebrations, events, or demonstrations of a patriotic, municipal or memorial character; provided that no per- mit will be granted for the purpose of discussing, expounding, advocating the prin- ciples or creed of any political party, par‘tisan body or organization or religious denomination or sect, or the doctrines of any economic or social system.”

What is more, “It shall be unlawful for any person to discuss, expound, advocate or oppose the principles or creed of any political party, partisan body or organization or religious denomination er sect, or the doctrines of any economic or social system in any public speech made or delivered on any public street or in any public park in or under the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose.”’ :

The ordinance has been effective in San Jose since August 29, 19384, but has just been called to our attention. Under its terms the Salvation Army or other religious groups are barred from holding street meetings. In prohibiting political and economic discussions there is no discrimination against minority political groups. Republicans and Democrats, Communists and Socialists are all denied the right to hold street meetings. One is permitted to talk patriotism, but politics and religion are verboten.

Certainly there was never a bolder effort ‘to limit freedom of speech. This ordinance must and will be challenged!

“IT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE”

A dramatization of Sinclair Lewis’ novel “Tt Can’t Happen Here’”’ will be produced simultaneously in 28 major cities of the United States by the Federal Theatre starting Tuesday night, October 20. Mr. W. E. Watts is directing the San Francisco production.

from the Federal.

Page 3

STREET MEETING BROKEN UP BY S. F. POLICE; FOUR ARRESTED

The latest police interference with orderly street meetings in San Francisco is set forth in the following protest sent to Chief of Police, William J. Quinn, by Ernest Besig, northern California director of the © A. C. L. U. on September 21:

“Reliable reports have comé to us that a Communist election campaign street meeting held on the Embarcadero at 6:30 o’clock this morning was broken up by some of your officers and four persons arrested, three of them, the chairman of the meeting and two speakers, on charges of violating Section 833 of the ordinances of the City and County of San Francisco which prohibits the obstruction of a street or sidewalk by a crowd. As director of the American Civil Liberties Union, I posted bail for two of the men, Lawrence Ross and Dave Saunders.

“We are not interested in the political opinions of these men, and I trust that po- litical considerations did not enter into their arrest. On the other hand, we are in-. terested in the right of all persons freely to express their opinions. I respectfully submit that the arrests by your officers were in defiance of specific provisions of the law and in derogation of the Constitu-. tional right of free speech. The law provides quite definitely that it is not applicable ‘‘on occasion of a public meeting.’’

Certainly, a meeting in the interest of a po~ litical candidate—no matter what his political complexion happens to be, IS a public meeting.

“The violation of the law by your officers seems to us to be quite clear, and we must therefore enter a strong protest against the denial of fundamental liberties by your subordinates. We look to you to take unequivocal measures to see that this situation is corrected.”

Ordinance 8383, referred to in the above letter, provides that, ‘““Whenever the free passage of any street or sidewalk shall be obstructed 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.”

We are informed that no effort was made to interfere with another political meeting held at the same place as the foregoing meeting the succeeding day. Law-rence Ross, editor of the Western Worker, was again among the speakers. Jury trials for the four men are scheduled for October 7.

U. S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REOPENS CAMPAIGN FOR REDBAITING LEGISLATION

The United States again faces the prospect of a bitter fight to enact federal and state red-baiting laws, if we may judge from a letter issued by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce under date of September 14.

Chester Leasure, manager of its Resolu-. tions and Referenda. Department, address-: ing secretaries of member ‘organizations and chairmen and members of legislative committees, urged them to take ‘‘measures against subversive activities.”

A federal criminal .syndicalism law, a variety of legislation against aliens, another MecCormick-Tydings bill to punish the imagined promotion of disaffection among our armed forces, and a Gestapo to hound the reds, are proposed measures included in the Chamber’s federal program. “May we suggest,’ says the Chamber, ‘that if your organization has as yet no position upon these subjects, early action be taken?”

“You may also wish to discuss the subject of the curbing of subversive move-. ments with your Senators and Congressmen in advance of the convening of Congress on January 5, 1937,” suggests the Chamber. And, then, if you want to keep the fear of the red menace burning fiercely within your bosom, send for “The American Economic System Compared with Collectivism and Dictatorship,” and a mimeographed periodical bulletin entitled, “Safeguards Against Subversive Activities.”’ Isn’t it time for those who believe in . civil liberties to take active steps to oppose ‘the renewed campaign for anti-red bills?

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: HXbrook 1816 ERNEST BBESIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVES occ ees -Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. — Five Cents per Copy.

silantism (Concluded from Page 1, Col. 2) that the numerals indicated the number of comrades expected to concentrate at the designated spot. The California Highway Commission, however, claimed the flags were highway construction markers, and were none too grateful to Mr. Cato’s boys for removing them. Mr. Cato also asserted that that the Communists were broadcasting their instructions from two-way radio cars, some of which came from as far away as Oklahoma and Illinois. But all is well; Mr. Cato knows who these Communists are and has their automobile license numbers.

5. The Salinas Chamber of Commerce reported that the following ‘“Communists’ were in Salinas directing the lettucestrike: Elaine Black, Malcolm Ryder, Walter Lambert, Rudy Lambert, James O. Tracy, Emmet Kirby, Pat Patterson, Bill Ramos, Myrto Childe, Fred West and Paul Heide. Cruse Carriel, Secretary of the Citizens Association, announced in his bulletin of Sept. 17, 1936, that “A notorious Communist, Elaine Black, is either in the Salinas area or will arrive soon to arrange bail for riotous strikers arrested in the past few days, and to organize marauding bands who will attempt to intimidate lettuce field workers.” Communists were reported to have set up headquarters at the Poodle Dog Inn on the highway just south of Salinas. From there they sent out their instructions by radio, distributed literature, _and drilled the strikers (Sept. 17, ’36) ;

6. Col. Henry Sanborn, professional redbaiter, and self-styled ‘co-ordinator’ of law enforcement agencies, announced on Sept. 18 that a raid on the home of George Kircher, Union delegate to the Convention of the State Federation of Labor, had disclosed a ‘“‘large box of Communistic literature, including Lenin’s ‘Doctrine on Revolulutionary Tactics.””’ The raid is also alleged to have produced a letter written by Kircher to a comrade in Long Beach referring to membership in the Communist Party. Sanborn estimated that 1500 of the 3000 lettuce workers are affiliated with the Communist Party.

7. Ella Winter, radical writer, was reported discovered in Salinas leading the strike (Sept. 18);

8. “Red’’ Hynes, head of the Los Angeles police red squad, revealed that Communists were sending reinforcements to Salinas from Los Angeles.

Thus far the Filipino Labor Union has not joined the strike. Its members have continued to cut lettuce, possibly remembering how in 1934 the white workers refused them help. Since the strike the Filipino’s wages have been increased from 25c to 60c an hour, at least for the duration of the war. Conscious, however, that their good fortune will not last, their leaders have agreed to join the strike if they may have equal representation on strike committees and if neither group will return to work until the demands of the other are satisfied.

Efforts to hold a mass meeting of the Filipino workers was defeated recently when they were compelled.to remain in their camps on the ranches or driven from the highways by roving bands of vigilantes when they got that far. Unless the Filipinos join the strike, the growers will very likely be successful in breaking the Fruit and Vegetable Packers Union—the strongest agricultural union in the state.

actionary legislation.”’

This survey of the record of the Legion While charging that the American Legion has most often in the past “sided with the forces of reaction against the interests and rights of the people,” the American Civil Liberties Union declares in a pamphlet just published that there is hope that “rank and file veterans ‘“‘will move to put an end to “red-baiting”’ and “‘strike-breaking’ and “help prevent the passage of reon matters affecting the Bill of Rights, “The American Legion and Civil Liberty,” was prepared by Walter Wilson, contributor to such magazines as Harper’s, The Nation, Common Sense, The New Republic and The American Mercury. He is also the author of “The Militia” and “‘Forced Labor in America.”

“Generally speaking,’ the pamphlet says, ‘‘ever since its inception the dominant forces within the Legion have reflected the interests of Big Business and taken on the attitudes of ‘professional patriots.’

“They have promoted repressive legislation in conflict with the Bill of Rights;

“They have been used by big employers to break strikes and crush labor. unions; “They have denied free speech and free assembly to those they oppose;

“They have joined with militarists and jingoistic preparedness advocates in opposing peace movements.”’

Rank and File Gets No Benefit

“The average member of the American Legion, like the average citizen,” the pamphlet reads, “receives no benefits from strike-breaking and red-baiting. If he joins in such activities it is because he is fooled ~by his Post or state or national leadership.

Not until this rank and file Legionnaire makes his officers feel his own faith in de- mocracy, in the Bill of Rights, in tolerance and fair play, will the American Legion be able to fulfill its avowed purpose of transmitting to posterity the principles of jus- tice, freedom and democracy.”

“There are two trends in the veteran movement today,” the Union says, “‘just as there are two trends in all American life.

JUDGE BORAH REVERSES SELF; GRANTS WPA WORKERS CITIZENSHIP

Granting of citizenship papers by Federal Judge Wayne G. Borah of Louisiana to the four WPA workers whom he had rejected in June as liabilities to the government was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union as ‘‘a distinct victory in the fight for equal rights for aliens and relief workers.”’

Judge Borah granted citizenship papers to the four men on Sept. 10, reversing his ruling of June 15 when he had held that each one because of receiving relief “‘is a liability as contra-distinguished from being an asset to the Government and for which reason is not attached to the principles of the constitution.”

The case was handled by Isaac S. Heller, New Orleans counsel for the Civil Liberties Union, with the assistance of Attorney Dudley Yoedicke, also of New Orleans.

In petitioning for a new trial, Mr. Heller and Mr. Yoedicke declared that the ruling was “an obvious miscarriage of justice’ that would prevent all aliens on direct or work relief from becoming citizens. It was pointed out that the four men had been without counsel in the first hearing, that no record of the proceeding had been kept, and that the unfavorable evidence had been reports with which they were unfamiliar of aid rendered to them by NRA and WPA.

“It is unconscionable to deny them citizenship,’’ the petition said, ‘merely be- cause an econmic depression, over which they had no control, forced them to accept temporary assistance and employment from our government. Certainly the acceptance of:-the assistance did not indicate a depraved character or an inclination to be a permanent burden to the community.” Citing an imposing list of legal obstacles to aliens seeking work, the attorneys held _ that as aliens they were likely ‘“‘to constii and Givil Liberty One is fighting for greater freedom and seeurity for all, and the other toward maintaining the status quo. One is toward a changing social order and the other is toward Fascism.’’ :

Trend Toward Civil Liberty

As indicating a “growing rank and file resistance to the imposition on the Legion of the atttitude of those on top,” the pamphlet lists examples of the trend toward civil liberty of which a few are selected:

The refusal.of a Legion Post at Burlington, N. C., in the 1934 textile strike to serve as “strike-breaking special policemen . . similar action was taken by Legionnaires in Posts in Portland and other Pacific Coast aS during the longshoremen’s strikes in 034."

The refusal of the Eli Wittstein Post, No. 523 of Cincinnati “to snoop down and spy on our neighbor” as, according to the Post, was required by the orders of the National a Committee in December, 1934, Sharp condemnation by the Barre (Vt.) Post No. 10 of the use of the National Guard in a strike in 1933.

A statement by Abraham J. Rosenblum, — Legion Commander of New York County, in May, 1935, refusing to help “break up” anti-war meetings and affirming the right of free speech to all groups. In general the Union held the news from New York’s -veterandom was “encouraging.”

The outspoken free-speech attitudes of the Milwaukee Legion Posts and the National Press Club Post in Washington, D. C.

Commander Ray Murphy is described as an exception to the general run of Legion leadership ‘“conspicious by his liberalism.” “Notable as a sign of liberalism in the citadel of reaction itself, the national administration of the Legion, was the speech made before the National Education Convention in Portland on July 2, 1936, by Frank Miles, editor of the Iowa Legionnaire, who appeared for Commander Ray Murphy. Mr. Miles in forthright terms declared the Legion’s opposition to loyalty oaths for teachers, urged respect for academic freedom, and criticized newspapers of ‘fascist tone.’ ” :

SCOTTSBORO TRIALS.

The postponed Scottsboro trials have now been set for November. At that time it is expected that Andy Wright and Ozzie Powell, two of the boys riding in the car in which a deputy sheriff was slashed during the return from Decatur to Birming© ham, will be arraigned for assault with intent to kill. Meanwhile the appeal of Haywood Patterson, one of the chief defendants in the Scottsboro case who was sentenced to seventy-five years last January, has been filed. The Scottsboro Defense Committee is handling the cases.

tute a perpetual burden to the people of the United States.”’

The four men are Albert Guerrero, a mechanic who had worked for the Ford Motor Company and the United Fruit Company; Nicholas George Bouyelas, a seaman and hotel worker who had served in the © United States Army and been honorably discharged; Andrea: Joseph Felletti, a photographer and interpreter; and Natal Martello, an experienced ship rigger, no © longer on relief.

Judge Borah after conferring with the attorneys granted a new trial and immediately reversed himself. He declared that his first refusal of citizenship had been based on the assumption, since proved to be incorrect, that the petitioners “‘were and had been for some time living entirely on the dole and not on compensation for services rendered.”. While Judge Borah’s distinction between those on direct and work relief seems artificial and arbitrary, his reversal should do much to remove the im- plication that those on relief are of bad — moral character and so unworthy of citi- zenship.