vol. 1, no. 11

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. 11

Six Santa Rosa tar and feather party vigilantes were acquitted of criminal charges in 16 minutes by a Sonoma County jury on October 26. Only two ballots were necessary. The first stood 11 to 1 for acquittal, while the second liberated the defendants. A ser- vile judge set the pace for the jury by dismissing charges against six others, though they were all identified by state’s witnesses.

Of course, no one expected convictions in mob-ruled Sonoma County. But what was hoped for, if not expected, was a competent and diligent prosecution of the case by the Attorney General’s office, and an impartial and fair judge to preside at the trial. Our hopes were smashed; we got neither.

Amazing Spectacle

Instead, we had the amazing spectacle of Deputy Attorney General Marron apologizing to the jury for prosecuting. It was quite unnecessary because, after all, it was _a defense jury, in whose selection the prosecution appeared only formally interested. The prosecution was remiss even in protecting its witnesses. But, then, how could o they be protected adequately when the prosecution never took the trouble to interview its witnesses outside of court. Why didn’t the prosecution introduce the tear gas bomb in evidence that was shot into ‘Nitzberg’s home; why was its cross-examination of witnesses so glaringly incomplete; why did it permit the introduction of extraneous and prejudicial testimony without a struggle? We are compelled to conclude that unless the prosecution was grossly incompetent, it shirked a distasteful duty, and sought ot turn over the trial of the case to Judge Arthur Coats.

Now, that elected official didn’t like the job either. For two days, while the prose- cution presented its case, the Communist issue was more or less successfully sup- pressed despite the strenuous efforts of the defense to bring it into the open. It had no business in the open; the defendants were charged with kidnappings and assaults and conspiracies to commit these crimes. The politics of the prosecution’s witnesses was immaterial.

Poison Minds of Jury

After faltering and floundering around for a time, Judge Coats succumbed to the defense plea to try communism and permitted the introduction of red baiting evidence that was calculated to poison the minds of the jury against the prosecution witnesses. In the end, the conclusion was inescapable that the prosecution witnesses and not the vigilantes were on trial. Apparently, it is a criminal offense to be tarred and feathered.

Yes, the vigilantes owe a hearty vote of thanks to his honor. After all, the Judge instructed the defense that it might show that the complaining witnesses were Com- munists; that they were committing felonies within the County of Sonoma, to-wit, criminal syndicalism; and that Green, et al, were merely seized in the course of a lawful arrest by citizens. The defense witnesses talked a lot about Communism and how the government was threatened with overthrow because a group of half-starved Sebastapol apple pickers had struck for higher wages, but they never finished the job the court had imposed upon them. No effort was made to show an attempted arrest of the complaining witnesses by the vigilantes; and no explanation was given why arresting citizens tarred and feathered their prisoners. No, the theory was too fantastic to uphold, and the testimony should have been stricken from the record even though the minds of the jury were already poisoned thereby. Instead, a weak judge reversed himself and refused to strike the irrelevant testimony about Communism, though it failed to satisfy the purpose for which is was admitted.

(Continued on Page 2, Col. 1)

PLEDGES

$284 in 1936 pledges remains unpaid. May we urge our subscribers to pay their pledges without delay, in order that we may meet our budget demands. Even if outstanding pledges are paid in full, $170 is still needed to carry on operations until January 1. That need must be filled before we seek to raise our next year’s budget. We solicit the help of our supporters. Won’t you please send what money you can afford to eliminate the 1936

DEFICIT

THE HOTEL WHITCOMB DRAWS A COLOR LINE

San Francisco’s large Whitcomb Hotel suddenly found itself without accommodations when James W. Ford, negro and Communist candidate for vice-president, sought to stay here over night. Strangely enough, the William-Taylor, which is under the same management, also had no accommodations.

If you are asking, ‘Well, what did you expect?”’, we’d like to tell you that reser- vations had been made at the Whitcomb Hotel on September 26 (more than 10 days ‘in advance of Ford’s arrival) and a deposit paid. The management cancelled the res- ervations on October 5, with the explanation that a convention had unexpectedly held over, leaving no rooms available. They agreed to secure full and equal accommodations at another hotel, but when it came to a show-down, they simply offered accommodations at the home of a colored minister. Under the California Civil Code, Section 51, ‘All citizens within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations. . of inns, restaurants, hotels, eating houses . and all other places of public accommodation or amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to all citizens.”

SACRAMENTO FLAG SALUTE TRIAL SET FOR NOVEMBER 5

The Gabrielli flag salute case goes to trial in Sacramento on November 5, before Superior Judge Peter J. Shields. At that time it will be necessary for the child to prove that the reason she refuses to salute the American flag ig because of her reli- gious beliefs. She is a member of a religious group known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe it is idolatrous to salute any man-made symbol.

_The legal action takes tRe form of a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the school authorities to reinstate the child. Wayne M. Collins, San Francisco A. C. L. U. attorney, is handling the case.

Karly in July, Judge Shields overruled a demurrer to the petition for the writ and held that if the facts as alleged were true, tne child’s constitutional right to religious freedom had been denied. In spite of the court’s ruling, Sacramento school authorities announced when school opened this fall that Charlotte Gabrielli would not be allowed to attend her sixth grade class unless she saluted the flag. Instead of registering Charlotte entered a private school.

In New Jersey, the Supreme Court recently assumed jurisdiction in the Secaucus flag salute case involving the dismissal from school of two young Jehovah’s Witnesses, Alma and Vivian Hering.

Over the objections of counsel for the State Board of Education, Justice Bodine, sitting in Trenton, signed the writ of certiorari sought by Abraham J. Isserman, counsel for the New Jersey Civil Liberties Committee, representing the two children. The case will. be argued in December. The matter was taken to the courts after the Board of Education in a ruling on August 1, had sustained the State Commissioner of Education’s decision that the children must salute the flag or be dismissed from school. Both the Commissioner and the Board have refused to pass on the constitutionality of the flag salute law.

STREET SPEAKERS FACE TRIAL NOVEMBER 4

Jury trials for Lawrence Ross, Communist candidate for Congress in San Francisco, Dave Saunders and two others accused of blocking the sidewalk on the Embarcadero at a public meeting at 6:30 A. M., on September 21, were postponed from October 7 to November 4. The cases are scheduled for a jury trial before Judge Thomas M. Foley in the Municipal Court, Department No. 10.

SACRAMENTO C. S. APPEAL MAY BE ARGUED IN JANUARY

Leo Gallagher and Raymond Henderson, attorneys handling the appeals of the Sacramento criminal syndicalism victims convicted April 1, 1935, have secured until December 28 to file their opening briefs. Unless there are further delays, the cases will be set for argument in the Appellate Court in January or February.

Page 2

Vigilantes

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

Judge Coats Weak

Judge Coats was equally weak when he failed to exercise his right to comment on the testimony. Why? Could any honest man ignore the defendants’ guilt? Did not William Casselberry, one of the defendants, admit his presence at the entire proceedings, and did not the remaining witnesses accuse themselves by their own failure to take the witness stand? Why, Fred Cairns, was identified as being the leader of the vigilantes by three of the DEFENSE witnesses alone. How could the judge keep silent in the face of the overwhelming evidence that showed the guilt of the vigilantes?: :

The advocates of the vigilante cause, Messrs. C. J. Tauzer and Finlaw Geary, of Santa Rosa, didn’t have to do much to earn their money considering all the help they received. Even so, proclaiming the secession of Sonoma County, they wrapped themselves in the American flag and preached a crusade against reds and for the right of farmers to be immune from agricultural strikes. The local district attorney had refused to prosecute, pointed out Mr. Tauzer, and a ‘competent grand jury” made up of “your friends and my friends, respectable citizens of this county” had refused to indict the defendants, yet the Attorney General had “invaded’’ Sonoma County to prosecute the defendants. “Is it not right,” said Mr. Tauzer, “that the people of Sonoma County should judge and be judged by themselves ?”’ Shall the Attorney General “impose himself upon you and tell you what you shall and shall not do? Then followed a masterful declaration of independence: “The people of this county can rule themselves first, last and always.”

Flag Waving

Then, announcing that the mob had made one mistake, that of forcing Green, Nitzberg and the others to kiss the flag and thereby desecrate it by their foul breaths, Mr. Tauzer reverently drew an American flag from his breast pocket—“your flag and my flag. I love it. The bars are purity and courage. (Crescendo) Do you want to see that flag all RED?” The defendants, stated Mr. Tauzer, should be commended for their patriotic action, not “sent in forged chains to the dungeons of Folsom prison.”

In fact, Mr. Tauzer stated that he himself was a vigilante; for, referring to the breaking up of an August 1 meeting held by the League Against War and Fascism, he asked, “What would you have done? You’d do what they (the defendants) did. You’d do what I did.” Finlaw Geary, brother of the local Superior court judge, took up where Mr. Tau- zer left off. Announcing that “this is not the United States of Soviet Russia, he shouted, “I am proud of that fact that I live in Sonoma County and proud of every one of these six men. It happened in Salinas, but it can’t happen here, notwithstanding the efforts of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco News.”

Race Prejudice

From local to race prejudice is but a step, and Mr. Geary took.it easily. Producing a picture of Ford, the Communist candidate for vice-president, who is a negro, he held - it up to the jury: “Shades of George Washington, shades of Thomas Jefferson,’’ etc. “Is THAT what you want in the White House? How do you like it?”

For the prosecution, Assistant Attorney General Powers summed up the evidence. Though he understated the case, the mere marshalling of the events that took place on August 21, 1985, were sufficiently damning. Substantiated as they were by witnesses for both sides, the jury could have had no doubt that an agreement was entered into to kidnap five persons, that these persons were kidnapped, assaulted, and assaulted with intent to do great bodily harm. Mr. Marron, decried the oratorical appeal on the part of defense counsel to passion and prejudice. He read the platform of the Communist Party to the jury and pointed out its similarity to the platforms of other political parties. He insisted that no defense to the vigilante acts had been offered or could be made; that the

Acquitted

flag which had suffered Mr. Tauzer’s eloquence did not stand for the violent over- throw of government perpetrated by the mob which took the law into its own hands when it kidnapped and tarred and feathered Jack Green and Sol Nitzberg.

Stool Pigeons

Among the defense witnesses were two stool pigeons, Melvil Harris and Stanley M. Doyle. Harris testified that he joined the Communist Party in Sacramento in January, 1938, and acted as Secretary to Elmer Hougardy against whom he testified in the Sacramento criminal syndicalism trials. Harris appeared as an expert on the organization and literature of the Communist Party. Among the volumes identified by him and introduced into evidence were, Why Communism, the Communist Manifesto, and Communist Party in Action.

Stanley M. Doyle stated that he is an attorney with offices in Chicago, Il., and was a member of the Communist Party in Portland in 1934, for about two months. Doyle withdrew as an associate counsel in the case when the judge discovered he had been working as an investigator in the case and was not a member of the local bar.

Tainted Jury

How much care was exercised by the prosecution in the selection of the jury may be gauged from the following statement made in a letter we received from Sonoma County: ‘‘Desirous of seeing fairness in vigilante trial being held in Santa Rosa, I am calling your attention to the fact that some members of jury are personal friends of the defendants. I am referring to the Healdsburg group. Mrs. Brown, a juror, and Mr. Meese (a defendant) are members of the same lodge.”

There are witnesses available, too, who can testify that the husband of another juror, Mrs. Kennedy, had collected funds for the defense.

The A. C. L. U. was not alone in its criticism of the prosecution. During the course of the trial three of the complaining witnesses addressed a letter to Assistant At- torney General Powers suggesting that he be “a bit better prepared to protect us against the insinuations of the defense.”’

‘Not one of the undersigned,” states the letter, is a Communist or ever has been; neither have we engaged in aiding or abetting the so-called ‘apple strike’ now re- ferred to by the defense; nor did we carry or distribute any pamphlets, leaflets or papers pertaining to the local labor and strike situation.

‘We have suffered financial and social loss in a very unfair situation and the handling of this trial so far does not seem to help us any.”

MOONEY HEARING DECEMBER 7; BILLINGS APPLIES FOR PAROLE

The Mooney case is tentatively set to come before the State Supreme Court on December 7, at which time attorneys for Mooney are scheduled to submit proposed findings of fact. The matter is likely to be continued until the first week in January, however, as the findings may not be ready until that time. It is not expected that the Referee will submit his own findings to the Supreme Court before May or June. It may, therefore, be a year before the State Supreme Court decides the case. If the decision goes against Mooney, it may be many months before a final decision is handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Warren K. Billings has made an application for parole. His petition will come before the State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles sometime in November.

LAWRENCE SIMPSON MEETING NOVEMBER 11

Gifford A. Cochran, who gained international attention when he came to the assistance of Lawrence Simpson, American sailor recently convicted of treason in a Nazi court,-speaks in San Francisco, November 11. A meeting has been arranged at Sorosis Hall, 536 Sutter street, at 8 P. M., under the auspices of the Interproprofessional Association. Admission is 25c.

ELKS SEE RED IN OROVILLE

A threatened attack on civil liberties in Oroville, California, by the Elks met the following criticism by the director of the A. C. L. U. in a letter printed in the Oro- ville Mercury-Register on October 14:

San Francisco, Oct. 18, 1936.

Editor.—Your edition of October 5 carries a story with a head announcing that “Elks Start Fight on Reds.” The body of the story quotes Mr. Myron Openshaw, ruler of Oroville Lodge No. 1484, as follows:

Fighting Times

“These are fighting times. I am calling upon fearless fighting men to combat sub- versive influences rampant in our state and union.”’

The Elks, of course, have the same right to promulgate their ideas as any other group. It is distinctly un-American, however, to engage in heresy hunts and redbaiting practices. Patriotism means tolerance for the opinions of others, no matter how foolish we think these opinions may be. That is the price of liberty. It is well to remember, too, that truth is not the attribute of any single person or group.

Who Are the Reds?

Who are these “reds” that are being fought? Has not the term become an epithet which we apply willy-nilly to anyone with whom we disagree? John Steinbeck quotes one definition of a “red” as any worker who wants 25c an hour when the employer is willing to give him only 20ce. ie us make the issue clear. Who are the reds?

The American method is to permit freedom of discussion on all matters of public concern. The hope of democracy is that through freedom of speech the best remedies for our common problems will be discovered. Suppression of ideas has no justifiable place in American life.

The implication of Mr. Openshaw’s words, however, is that suppression will replace education in combatting an elusive body of reds. Therein lies a real danger that fundamental constitutional guarantees will be overthrown in an intolerant crusade against an undefined and relatively non-existent foe.—Ernest Besig, Director, American Civil Liberties Union.

The same issue of the Oroville MercuryRegister which carried the above letter also carried the following editorial comment: =

The director of the American Civil Liberties Union has a very interesting letter on this page... The sentiments expressed are right in line with American principles . . The sentiments expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union always are —studiously so.

The union’s forces almost always are found fighting for those who claim they have been deprived of liberties guaranteed by the American bill of rights ... We say ‘almost always”... We do not remember a protest from the union when Mr. Hearst’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer was closed by a gang and 600 of his employes were thrown out of work.

. branch of the C. P.

There are many who claim that the union is a branch of the Communist party, which designs to overthrow our government... We do not know about that... If it should be, its adherence now to the American guarantee of certain liberties would be interesting. . .. If the Communists ever should take us over the first thing we would do would be to abolish freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press ... none of these liberties exist in Russia.

Elks Talking Rough

. The difference between the Elks and the Communists is that the Elks are talking rough now and the Communists will wait until they have us under their thumbs to disregard the Bill of Rights and talk rough.

As we have remarked before, any disease speeds up the development of antibodies in the blood... This is so successful in the case of smallpox that one can’t take it twice... . The Communists (who are the “reds” the Elks refer to) fed from

(Continued on Page 4, Col. 3)

Colonel Henry Roble Sanborn; Unfrocked, Unspeakable, Unashamed

NATURALIZATION EXAMINER RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF McCONNEL CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION

On October 7, 1936, Stanley B. Johnston, naturalization examiner, recommended to the United States District Court in San Francisco that Frederic J. McConnel’s application for citizenship should be denied because ‘“‘the alien has not at this time made a sufficient showing that he is a ‘person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.’’? Attorney George R. Andersen, who represents Mr. McConnel, has made arrangements to introduce further testimony to meet the examiner’s objections.

The Objections

The examiner’s objections to McConnel are:

1. That he participated in the San Francisco May Day Parade on May 1, 1935;

2. “The Alien’s subscription to the newspaper ‘Western Worker’ and also to ‘The Masses’ is not indicative of his alleged good disposition to the welfare of our gov- ernment; the first publication being an official organ of the Communist Party and the latter an Anarchist publication;”’

3. That McConnel, as Secretary of the Association for the Repeal of the Criminal Syndicalism Act, signed a joint telegram with Ida Roth of the International Labor Defense, addressed to Judge Roy B. Maxey, presiding in the Modesto “frameup” trials which states, according to the examiner, “that at a meeting called by the I. L. D. and the Conference for the Repeal of the Criminal Syndicalism Act, on July 19, the assembly passed a resolution of protest against the frame-up charges by the Modesto Police and the Standard Oil Company, against nine waterfront workers, and ends with the words, ‘We demand the immediate and unconditional release of these workers;’”’

4. That McConnel has not ‘‘acted in entire good faith with the State authorities

. .? in regard to securing relief;

5. “The Alien insists upon his right to advocate the forcible overthrow of our government under certain circumstances. _.. While it may be shown that a number of our own citizens hold to this same view, yet, when the alien’s whole record is considered, such insistence upon his part assumes the importance of additional evidence of his general attitude and lessens the force of his claim to being ‘well disposed to the good order and happiness’ of our government.”

Trotsky and Stalin

Among the witnesses called by the petitioner was Tanna Alex, an attorney by pro- fession, at whose home Mr. McConnel rents a room. An immigration inspector named Cole was sent to interview Miss Alex. Concerning his report of the interview, the examiner asked:

“Q. He has made a report that in your rooms he observed two framed photographs, one of Leon Trotsky and the other of Joseph Stalin?

“A. He did observe those. very large crayons of Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll. Then I have what I call a thumb sketch of Trotsky given me by an artist friend who took it personally of him. I like it very much. It is on one of my book cases. I have two small pictures of Stalin and Lenin on another book case. He reported correctly, except they are large pictures; none of them is.”

Apparently the fact that Mr. McConnell rents a room at a home where there are pictures of Russian Communists is to. be held against him in his present application for citizenship.

Fish Story

Because Mr. McConnel is a member of the A. C. L. U., Mr. Hugo Ernst of the Executive Committee of the Northern California Branch of the A. C. L. U., was called to testify as to what the organization stands for. In his cross-examination, the examiner referred to the Fish Committee report of January 17, 1931, and read portions of the testimony of Roger Baldwin, national director of the A. G. L. U., torn from its context, in order to make him appear to be an advocate of

(Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

I have two.

“Colonel”? Henry Roble Sanborn, who has so often “exposed” the A. C. L. U., church groups, migratory workers, and the mildest of trade unionists as dupes and tools of Moscow in the screaming sheets of his American Citizen, has at last been pretty well “exposed” himself. In a leading article, entitled “‘Poison Gas in America’s Salad Bowl,” the Literary Digest for October 10, reporting the arrival of the “Colonel” in Salinas to ‘“‘take charge” as “co-ordinator of law enforcement agenciés’’ by installing ‘‘a dictatorship of nothing but force,’ asks: “Who was he? A soldier of fortune, who said he served as chaplain with both the Canadian and American Expeditionary Forces in France, a reserve officer, a whilom Episcopal rector who was unfrocked by his Bishop for a juicy morals crusade in Alaska, the Editor of a weekly called American Citizen, published, in the language of its masthead, ‘in order that Fascism may not become necessary to prevent Communism becoming a reality.’ ”

The Colonel Can’t Take It

The sensitive Col. Sanborn, who dishes out uncomplimentary remarks with delightful abandon in his own chimerical sheets, seemingly can’t take it. For under the title “Literary Digest is Duped by Radical Correspondent,” the Reverend Colonel’s American Citizen of October 16 sputters its familiar refrain— the Digest story is nothing but “lurid radical propaganda.” It sounds as though it had been written “by one of the poison-pen staff of the Communist Daily Worker,’ screams the Citizen. However, much to our regret, we are denied the details of that “juicy morals crusade in Alaska,” for ‘“‘No reply will be made,” says the Citizen, “to the despicable personal attack on Colonel Henry R. Sanborn, publisher of The American Citizen, who acted as co-ordinator of the official peace authorities of the state, county and city represented in Salinas at the time, and the vicious falsehoods and slurring inuendoes contained in the article. The laws still provide a proper time and place for such reply.”’

Messianic Mission

Let us follow the “Colonel” around in the course of his messianic mission. He was born in California, July 24, 1892. After serving a year and four months in the Army or National Guard, the LIVING CHURCH ANNUAL reveals him as station

MEET THE COLONEL!

COL. HENRY ROBLE SANBORN, alias Mr. Winters, unfrocked clergyman, rabble rouser, and publisher of the red-baiting AMERICAN CITIZEN

Page 3

ed at St. Paul’s Church, Sparks, Nev., during the years 1920-21. The NAVAL REGISTER reports that he was appointed from Nevada in 1921 as acting chaplain and Lieutenant, (Jr. G.) on the U.SS. “Alert’”’ at San Pedro. He served as chaplain until May, 1924, when he resigned from the service. The year 1928 found him listed as Archdeacon of. the Episcopal Church in the Missionary District of Alaska. The LIVING CHURCH ANNUAL for 1930 reports his severance from the Church in the usual terse form under “Deprivations and Depositions from the Sacred Ministry.” “SANBORN, HARRY R., Presbyter, by the Bishop of Alaska, March 10, 1929. Deprived. Renunciation of the Ministry. ‘For causes which do not affect his moral character.’’’ At the present time Sanborn is a reserve officer attached to the Intelligence Unit of the Ninety-first Division.

Delusions of Persecution

According to his own account, Sanborn moved from Albany to San Rafael in August, 1935, ‘‘after receiving threats aganist his children.’’ Despite the change of resi- dence, in December, 1935, we find the “Colonel”? and his family are the victims of a “‘purported plot to annihilate them.” On the night of December 22, 1935, his son Starring, 16, and his daughter Merle, 15, were overcome by gas escaping from a loose vent pipe on the furnace in their home. Although a search and check of “red’’ fingerprints was made, the intruder who had removed the pipe in order to do Sanborn to death was never found. Sanborn’s next connection with gas, excepting the CITIZEN, occurs in Salinas.

The American Citizen

The ‘“Colonel’s” red-baiting American Citizen was first published on August 2, 1935, at San Rafael. Last July, however, its headquarters were removed to 509 Sansome St., San Francisco. Supported by a meager subscription list of only 1500 at $1.00 per head, and no advertisers, it nevertheless receives wide circulation as a throw-away in the bay area and in other sections during strikes and red-baiting campaigns. It had been discovered inserted in the pages of the San Francisco Examiner, and mail-deliveries have been received in envelopes of the red-baiting Associated Farmers. Such wide distribution ig expensive and requires subsidizing. The Waterfront Employers Association and the Associated Farmers are most frequently referred to as the paper’s “angels.” There are very likely others as well.

In 1934, during the vigilante raids in the bay area following the general strike, “Colonel”? Sanborn was reputed to be “‘Secretary” .of the “Berkeley Nationals” when that group went on its wrecking spree. Subsequently the Colonel was credited with organizing and training vigilantes in Eureka and Crockett.

“Employed by the Sheriff”

With the foregoing wealth of experience Sanborn was a natural selection for red- baiter-in-chief during the present lettuce strike in Salinas. Though most of the local officials assert that Sanborn had no authority, the American Citizen insists that “Colonel Sanborn was employed by the Sheriff of Monterey County, with the knowledge and approval of all the public officials of the county. He was called in to assist the sheriff of Monterey county, and the sheriffs of Santa Cruz and San Benito counties, who were faced with the same problem, and the Chief of Police of Salinas.”

Alias Mr. Winters

First, as. Mr. Winters, and then as “Colonel”’ Sanborn, ‘co-ordinator’ of law en- forcement agencies, Sanborn drummed up the red scare in Salinas from September 12 to September 20. Once the Colonel got busy, all California at once knew that known Communists had swarmed to Salinas, and that Harry Bridges’ red army of longshoremen, 3000 strong, was marching (Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

Page 4

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

Phone: HXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. Hditor PAULINE W. DAVIBS.......W.0.-------000----- Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifity Cent3 a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

HEARST’S EXAMINER INCITES MOB VIOLENCE AGAINST A. C. L. U. DIRECTOR

Fantastic front-page newspaper stories recently carried a tale of how Ernest Besig, northern California Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Ralph O. Marron, one of the Santa Rosa tar and feather case prosecutors, “almost came to blows before spectators separated them. Besig grabbed Marron by the coat as he left the courtroom and accused him of ‘iaying down on the job’ in prosecuting the cases. Such was the United Press story, which had its inception with the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. Mr. Hearst’s papers printed a more vicious story.

The San Francisco Examiner, through its staff correspondent, Alvin D. Hyman, viciously incited the vigilantes to violence against Mr. Besig:

“Intense animosity was directed against Ernest Besig,” said the Examiner, “who twice intruded on the day‘s proceedings— once by directly criticizing and attempting to dictate the prosecution strategy and by assertedly coaching a witness under ex- amination for the defense.

“Fears that the resentment against him might develop into a display of physical violence were apparently dispelled tonight as sentiment crystallized into this repeat- ediy heard declaration:

‘“‘He’s asking for it, but he’s not going to get it.

“Spokesmen for the group, in which feeling against Besig runs highest, pointed out that he and his organization have had previous experiences with angry farmers. In 1934, farmers of Brawley, Imperiai County, beat Besig for his interference in a strike of agricultural workers.

“When W. Finlaw Geary was examining Nitzberg, Besig was standing against one wall, ostensibly taking notes. Suddenly Geary stopped and stared at Besig. Then the defense attorney said to his associate, Clarence J. Tauzer.

“Please stand between Mr. Besig and the witness.

“There was a commotion in the spectators’ section. Edward Jenkins, one of the four defendants dismissed by Judge Arthur Coats yesterday, took up a position directly in front of Besig.

“Examination of Nitzberg continued while Besig repeatedly changed his position and Jenkins ostentatiously placed himself between the attorney and the witness stand.

“Many observers asserted that prior to Geary’s maneuver Besig had been making motions with his hand and with his pencil which they interpreted as signals.”

On October 22nd, Mr. Besig released the following statement to the press:

“There is no foundation in reports that Deputy Attorney General Marron and I nearly came to blows while discussing the conduct of the prosecution in the tar cases. I did not grab Mr. Marron by the coat, nor were we ‘separated by spectators’ as we ‘nearly came to blows.’ The American Civil Liberties Union’s representatives do not engage in vigilante tactics.

_ “Y did condemn the State’s indifferent handling of the tar case trial. The State did practically nothing to protect Mr. Mayer when he testified this morning, though much of the examination by the defense was on extraneous issues. I have not yet been able to discover the relevancy of the Communist Party platform of 1936 in a trial for crimes that occurred in 1934. Anyway, if the trial is to be reduced to a farce, why not introduce the platforms of all the other political parties?

“Under present conditions in Sonoma County it is difficult, at best, to secure a fair trial. Is it not, therefore, incumbent up the State to prosecute its case with great diligence?”

COL. HENRY R. SANBORN

(Continued from Page 3, Col. 3) from San Francisco to infest Salinas. (This last story is defended in the Citizen on the ground that, ‘Reports had been received from four separate sources, all reliable and including the police departments of San Francisco and [ho-hum] Piedmont, that such a move was under way, the reports varying only in the estimates of the number of the threatened invading force.’’)

Unfortunate Occurrence

The Sanborn red alarm reached ludicrous heights when small red flags used as markers by the State Highway Department were cited as evidence of a Communist plot. “This was admittedly an unfortunate occurrence, but it was not Colonel Sanborn’s idea or anybody’s fault,” says the Citizen. “‘The gross exaggerations and misstatements of fact are purely. radical propaganda. Not hundreds, but half a dozen, red flags, each bearing a number and a date in pencil, were picked up in lettuce fields by state highway patrolmen and the sheriffs of Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties and taken to headquarters.” We accept the Colonel’s apologies, but we are really grateful to him for furnishing the year’s most amusing red-baiting story.

Finally, the Colonel’s ‘‘men” conducted a raid upon a worker’s home WITHOUT A WARRANT and seized a quantity of red literature that showed incontrovertibly, of course, that the strike was led by Communists. The worker, on the other hand, insisted that the. literature was “planted.”’ Sanborn now claims that the documents ‘‘were voluntarily handed over to the officers by the owners of the dwelling who in the first instance had notified police that they had discovered a quantity of seditious literature in their home and wanted to get rid of it.”

A Citizens Welfare Committee in Salinas protested loudly against Sanborn’s antics and he was suddenly withdrawn, though Mr. Sanborn claims he left because he had a previous engagement. When last heard from he was reportedly headed for Seattle to look after Mr. Hearst’s interests in the Post-Intelligencer strike.

McCONNEL PETITION

(Continued from Page 8, Col. 1)

assassination and murder. As a matter of fact, Baldwin’s full testimony reveals that he stood on the traditional American position of defenders of free speech who draw the line between the word and deed as the basis for action by the public authorities. He even more cautiously excluded specific incitements to acts from the protection of free speech.

‘““Who’s Un-American?”

Ernest Besig, northern California director of the Union, testified before the ex- aminer on October 3rd, that the naturalization service misrepresented the position of the A. C. L. U. if it relied upon statements made by Mr. Baldwin which were torn from their context. The examiner, nevertheless, refused to accept in evidence a pamphlet of the A. C. L. U. entitled ‘““Who’s Un-American? An Answer to the Patriots,’”’ which sets forth Baldwin’s complete testimony, because the copy was not authenticated—“‘is a little too violent and a little too partisan to be accepted as an authentication of what that testimony really was.” At another point the examiner declared that “This pamphlet is highly inflammatory. ... In refusing to accept this pamphlet .. . I do so in the belief that it would not only be accepting a document which is not authentic, but because of the apparent argumentative nature of the document, and because of the radical cartoon on the face.”

‘Not a Red-Baiter”’

After due objection was made to the examiner’s intemperate statements, he assured us that, “I am! distinctly not a redbaiter.”’ At another point, Mr. Johnston stated: “I want it understood, Mr. Besig, when I take the position either for or against an alien, I am acting as just as patriotic an American as any member of

TUNE IN

ERNEST BESIG, northern California director of the A. C. L. U., speaks on “THE FACTS IN THE TAR AND FEATHER ACQUITTALS” over Station KGGC, 1420 Kilocycles, NOVEMBER 11, from 9:15 to 9:30 P.M. The program is under the auspices of the Italian-American Educa- tional Labor Bureau, of which Dr. G. Facci is director.

NOVEMBER 11

the American Civil Liberties Union and not a red-baiter.”’

‘Near the close of the examination, the examiner said, “‘Let us consider it a credit to Mr. McConnel the fact that he does belong to the American Civil Liberties Union.”

ELKS SEE RED (Continued from Page 3, Col. 3)

Soviet Russia, are a disease in America, and it looks as though the Elks might be the antibodies . . . Some oppose vaccination against smallpox.

Editor.—It is not my desire to enter into any controversy with the Mercury-Register but I feel it is necessary to make two comments about your editorial of October 14. First, you arraign the American Civil Liberties Union for not protesting when Mr. Hearst’s Seattle POST-INTELLIGENCER was “closed by a gang and 600 of his employees thrown out of work.”’

Where there is a legitimate claim of a denial of civil liberties, the A. C. L. U. is always prepared to lend its assistance. We do not regard Mr. Hearst’s claim of an in- terference with the freedom of the press as a legitimate one. Early in the strike our New York office set forth its position when it wired the chairman of the Seattle Civil Liberties Committee that: ‘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 negotiate with strikers cannot be regarded as infringement of free press.”’

On the other hand, the A. C. L. U. did come to the assistance of Mr. Hearst when the Senate Lobby Committee seized telegrams and letters on the authority of a blanket subpoena. We felt this action constituted a violation of the search and seizure provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing that citizens shall be secure in their effects ‘‘and that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

A. C. L. U. Non-Partisan

Secondly, the A. C. L. U. is emphatically not a branch of the Communist Party or any other political group. Ours is a nonpartisan organization which stands ready to defend the civil liberties of any group or individual. We defend the civil liberties of Communists on the theory that the Constitution applies to all, and that if the rights of an unpopular minority may be violated, the rights of all others become insecure. We defended the right of The Friends of New Germany, a Nazi organization, to hold meetings in New Jersey. We likewise protested denial of rights to the Ku Klux Klan, and to Congressman Hamilton Fish, one of our severest critics, when

he was denied use of the radio. The principle of free speech is bigger than any of the organizations or individuals mentioned above. And, after all, we do not choose our clients; lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us.

ERNEST BESIG, Director.