vol. 1, no. 6

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. 6

LEGION OPPOSES ADMISSION OF ALLEGED RADICAL T0 STATE BAR

Aubrey W. Grossman, University of California law school graduate, who recently passed the state bar examinations, may be disqualified and refused admission because of charges of “radicalism’’ made by the Subversive Activities Commission of the American Legion. Harper L. Knowles, Chairman of the Legion ‘Commission,’ Chief Justice William H. Waste of the State Supreme Court, charges:

BULLETIN SAN FRANCISCO, May 26. The California Committee of Bar Examiners decided today to refuse the request of the Sub versive Activities Commission of the Legion that Aubrey W. Grossman, candidate for the bar, be not admitted because of “pernicious radical activities’ on the U. C. campus. Grossman was the only witness called during a one-hour session.

“It is our understanding that it is necessary for one being sworn to the practice of law in the State of California to take an oath to support the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California. In our opinion, Grossman’s record while a student. at the University. of California would not permit him faithfully to subscribe to such an oath. If he takes the oath at all, it would in our opinion be with his tongue in his cheek. Grossman’s record while on the campus at the University of California, Berkeley, was one of continued and pernicious radical activity and of known Communist pronouncements.”’

In transmitting the Legion letter to Claude Minard, Executive Secretary of the State Bar, Chief Justice Waste asked that the matter be called to the attention of the Board of Governors. ‘““The Chairman of the Legion Committee,’ stated Justice Waste, “‘has been told that the matter contained in his letter is one primarily for the attention of the Board of Bar Governors, and that the burden of determining the matter referred to in his letter rests with that body.”’

Grossman is scheduled to be sworn in as a member of the bar on May 27. The Committee of Bar Examiners has decided to examine the charges at a meeting to be held in San Francisco at three o’clock on May 26.

Issue One of Good Moral Character

The only issue before the Committee is whether the applicant has the requisite good moral character. In a recent conference with Grossman, John H. Riordan, a San Francisco member of the Committee who at one time helped in the prosecution of criminal syndicalism cases in the Attorney General’s office, stated that if it was shown that Grossman had associated with persons who had violated the criminal syndicalism law or that he advocated a change in our system of government by force and violence, general strike, or mass action, that would be conclusive proof of bad character.

On February 9 last, T. P. Wittschen of Oakland, president of the State Bar, in a letter to W. C. Jacobsen, Secretary of a Fruit Growers and Farmers Convention, declared that the State Bar has no power to disbar an attorney for defending persons charged with communistic activities. The writing to made the following state and federal constitutions specifically provide a defense for every person accused of violating laws of American society.

“No Non-Aryans May Practice”

Let it be remembered that in Nazi Germany no non-Aryans may practice law, unless they did so prior to August 1, 1914, served in the trenches or had a father or son who served in the trenches. The law also-forbids a non-Aryan to practice with or to work for an Aryan. Propaganda discourages Aryans from using non-Aryan lawyers. Is California going the way of Nazi Germany? Ernest Besig, Northern California Director of the A. C. L. U., in a letter to Dave (Continued on Page 2, Col. 3).

SUSPENDED

CHARLOTTE GABRIELLI, 9-year-old Sacramento school girl who was suspended from school for refusing to salute the flag.

DECISION AWAITED IN NAZI FLAG SALUTE CASE

Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, praying silently throughout the proceedings, crowded the courtroom of Superior Judge Peter J. Shields in Sacramento on May 11 when Wayne M. Collins, attorney for the Northern California Branch of the A. C. L. U., petitioned the court for a writ of mandate to test the constitutionality of compulsory flag saluting in California. The writ was sought on behalf of nine-year-old Charlotte Gabrielli, suspended from the Sacramento schools on October 25th last for refusing to give the flag salute in (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1).

WOMAN INFORMER CAUSES ARREST OF SOCIALIST

Immigration authorities on May 15th arrested Frank Koci, also known as Frank Kovar, and held him for deportation to Czechoslovakia on the charge “that he believes in, advises, advocates or teaches the overthrow by force and violence of the government of the United States, or all forms of law and order.”

After being held on Angel Island for four days, Koci was released on a $1000 bond provided by friends. He is represented by Austin Lewis, attorney for the Northern California branch of the Union.

Voluntary Statement

The warrant tor Koci’s arrest was secured on a voluntary statement by one Carmen Joan Dodson ot 535 Sacramento Street, San Francisco. Miss Dodson ciaims to be a student of Isadora Duncan and conducts what she calls ‘““The Isadora Duncan Dancing Studio’, which is an EEP project. She boasts of teaching ‘ ‘revolutionary dances” and has appeared in radical circles as an entertainer.

Patriotic Motives ~ “Have you any persuuadi auimosity to Mr. Koci?”’, Miss Dodson was asked.

I think that all radicals who try to get women, particularly mothers, in that kind of an organization are objectionable,”’ she responded.

“Q. Have you any personal objection to him?

“A. No.

Q. The reason you are reporting this man is for patriotic motives as an American citizen?

A. Yes.

As a matter of fact, Miss Dodson’s patriotic motives and impersonal attitude towards Koci only developed after a telephone conversation she had with him four or five days prior to her sworn statement to the Immigration authorities. That conversation was an unsuccessful attempt to effect a reconciliation with Koci, with whom the latter alleges she had been living for the past six months.

Kid McCoy Head Man

Miss Dodson at one time lived in Los Angeles. It is also reported that she made her home in Berkeley, where she had an interest in the Friends of the Soviet Union. Kid McCoy, well known boxer who served time in San Quentin on manslaughter charges, heads the list of Miss Dodson’s matrimonial ventures. Persons having further information concerning her activities should get in touch with the director of the Civil Liberties Union at once.

In her statement Miss Dodson claims that Koci was at one time a member of the Communist Party. She tells how she accompanied him to Jefferson Park on several occasions when he sold copies of the New Militant.

Ruling Class Should Clean Sewers

“Did he ever talk to you about any change that the Communist Party desires to bring about?’ she was asked. ‘Yes, about the fact that they would bring about a revolution and in the process of warfare he would delight in seeing the ruling class (Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

Repeal The Criminal Syndicalism Law .. .

‘the Massachusetts flag salute law, the most recently enacted of the thirteen such state statutes, will be the first whose constitutionality will be tested exhaustively in the courts, Roger N. Baldwin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared recently in reviewing pending cases involving children of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

If the state courts uphold the law in both the Lynn (Carlton Nichols) and the Bel- chertown (Opielouski children) cases, an appeal will be carried on one of them to the Supreme Court of the United States. While suits are pending or planned challenging denial of free public school education to children who retuse on religious grounds to salute the flag in eight states, the American Civil Liberties Union will concentrate its attack on the Massachusetts law under which the first of the cases occurred.

Thirty-five Children Involved

Other states where children have been expelled for refusing to join in flag exercises and salutes are New Jersey and Washington, where state laws are involved, and California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, where there are no statutes but where school regulations have been invoked. More than 35 children in all are involved, the Union said. In these suits, attorneys representing the Civil Liberties Union, are acting jointly with counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

‘The case of the three Opielouski youngsters, aged 10, 12 and 15, expelled and ordered committed to a county training school, has aroused most attention throughout the country, according to the Union. A similar attempt to break up a family was made in the state of Washington last February, but Juvenile Court Judge William E. Campbell threw the whole proceedings out with a statement defending the rights of religious freedom.

Cited as a civilized position by the Civil Liberties Union was that of the Superintendent of Schools in San Francisco who wrote the Union that he had cautioned his teachers against disciplining children of Jehovah’s Witnesses by warning them that their job was “to teach our children to love and respect their flag and country —not to fear it.”

An unusual development has been the establishment in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and California, of private schools by Jehovah’s Witnesses, pending the outcome of various test suits now under way. By sending their children to these schools, parents are freed from the threat of court action against them during the period when the courts are deciding these cases.

Kansas Had First Law

The first flag salute law was passed in Kansas in 1907, according to a recent survey of the laws for the Union by the New York attorneys, William G. Fennell and Edward J. Friedlander. Twelve other COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTING states since the war have enacted such statutes varying from the Kansas and Delaware requirement of a daily salute, through the Massachusetts one for a weekly salute, to Nebraska’s provision tor a salute on Lincoln’s and Washington’s birthdays, Memorial Day, and Flag Day. The Georgia statute, enacted in 1935, is unique in requiring a salute and pledge to the state tiag only. States requiring salutes and pledges to the American Flag follow: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New .Jersey, New. York, Khode Island, and Washington. The District otf Columbia also asks a salute. Salutes and pledges are provided in a number of other states and many communities by special regulations of school authorities, the Union said.

Laws Unconstitutional

“While the Supreme Court of the United States,” Mr. Baldwin said, ‘‘has never passed on the constitutionality of the flag salute laws, our attorneys are confident that the statutes will be held unconstitutional as violating the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. They point to a decision in Meyers vs. Nebraska in 1922 voiding a law prohibiting the teaching of any language but English below the eighth grade and laying down the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens not only from bodily restraint, but also assures the right ‘to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.’ It would be difficult to justify flag salute laws as a legitimate exercise of a state’s police powers, necessary to protect health, safety, and public morals.”

A possible compromise between those desiring flag laws and those opposing them was suggested by the A. C. L. U. attorneys who said, “If the flag salute requirements are construed to permit the pupil who is conscientiously opposed to saluting to stand quietly and not take part in or recite the oath or extend the arm, there can be no constitutional objection to the laws as ‘So constructed.”

All the current batch of flag salute cases have involved Jehovah’s Witnesses, form- erly the International Bible Students’ Association, with headquarters in Brooklyn, N. Y. According to their religious publications, a flag salute “would be a violation of the divine commandment stated in Exodus 20:3-5” and “is part of the creed of a false religion and from such all true Christians are commanded to turn aside.” In an official statement Jehovah’s Witnesses declare that “This present attempt to force Christian people to join in the services of a patriotic cult is an attempt to force a religion on them in opposition to their conscientious beliefs. This is revolting to a civilized mind, and is directly contrary to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

HEADS BOARD

DR. HARRY F. WARD, Chairman of the national Board of Directors of the A.C.L.U.

HOW THE AMERICAN CIVIL | LIBERTIES UNION STARTED

“The American Civil Liberties Union is an outgrowth of the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which came into being in 1917 with the war restrictions on civil liberty,— first as a department of the American Union against Militarism, and later, in October, 1917, as an independent organization.

“The Civil Liberties Union succeeded the Bureau in January, 1920, extended its scope beyond war cases, enlarged its governing body, and restated its objects to meet the post-war attacks on the civil eS of labor, the farmers and the radicals.

“The reorganization came on the heels of the great coal and steel strikes, the greatest demonstrations of working-class power in the history of the country, both of which were beaten largely through the wholesale denial of civil rights, engineered jointly by the government and the employing interests.”’

LEGION OPPOSES BAR CANDIDATE (Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

F. Smith, Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners, concerning the Grossman matter, stated that ‘‘We feel that no legitimate question has been raised concerning the applicant’s good moral character.”

“Three charges have been made against him,” stated the letter. ‘‘First, it is said that if Mr. Grossman took the oath to support the Constitution ‘it would in our opinion be with his tongue in his cheek.’ It is necessarily assumed that any person taking an oath does so in good faith. There is no reason to depart from this assumption in this instance. ‘ihe Commission makes the serious and unsupported charge that Mr. Grossman is about to commit a crime.

“A second charge is that Mr. Grossman’s activities are ‘of known Communist pro- nouncements.’ Just how Mr. Knowles intends this widely used and widely interpretable expression is not indicated. In the absence of such explanation, it is reasonable to give this expression its stronget interpretation, namely, that Mr. Grossman subscribes to the tenets of the Communist Party. Since that party is a lawful one in California the charge, were it true, offers no ground for complaint.

“Pernicious Radical Activity”

“The final charge is that Mr. ‘Grossman’s record while on the campus at the Uni- versity of California, Berkeley, was one of continued and pernicious radical activity.’ In the absence of specific charges the accusation is meaningiess. At most, it is a repetition of the charge that as far as Mr. Grossman’s political activities are con- cerned, he is a Communist.

“It must be well known to the Committee that the organization making these charges is becoming discredited by activities of this sort. Its policy of heresy hunting if followed can only result in the denial of fundamental constitutional liberties.

“It would seem to us to be an unwise and dangerous precedent, too, to rule a person to be of bad moral character because he is a ‘radical.’ We trust that membership in the State Bar will never be predicated on political considerations.”

“Incipient Hitlerism”’

Characterizing the Legion’s action as “incipient Hitlerism,” the San Francisco News stated that, “It would be hard to conceive of anything more un-American and subversive than an attempt to prevent a brilliant, sincere and high-minded graduate of the University of California law school from being admitted to the bar because he had participated in radical activities during his student days.”

NATIONAL DIRECTOR

ROGER N. BALDWIN, National Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

NORMAN MINI C. S. PRISONER RELEASED FROM SAN QUENTIN PRISON

Norman Mini, Sacramento criminal syndicalism victim, was released from San Quentin prison on May first. Unaccompanied by the usual publicity, the news has just leaked out.

The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles fixed Mini’s sentence at three years, with sixteen months to be served on parole. Translated into realistic terms, this means a sentence of 36 months with 8 months credit for good behavior, or 28 months. Then the 16-months parole period is subtracted, leaving a jail sentence of 12 months. Since Mini entered prison on May 1, 19385, he was released May 1, 1936.

Mini has been paroled to an uncle who owns a farm near Vallejo. He may not leave the County without the consent of ‘the parole officer.

We are informed that the manuscript of his novel which Mini was revising has been confiscated by the prison Warden until it can be censored.

‘In the meantime, the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles fixed sentences for two of the three women criminal syndicalism victims. Both Caroline Decker and Nora Conklin received five-year sentences, with the last 18 months to be served on parole. All persons are urged to sign the petitions for the repeal of the criminal syndicalism law. Petitions may be secured at the A. C. L. U. ofice. Petitions should be turned in on or before June 10.

WOMAN INFORMER (Continued from Page 1, Col. 3)

at the St. Francis Hotel taken out and be made to clean the sewers and do the most undesirable work in the city. If they wouldn’t, he would like to behead them.”

“He told you he believed in the overthrow of the government by force and violence?” the Immigration Inspector asked.

“Veg,” Miss Dodson responded, “he workae towards that by propagandizing.”

Unexpected Visitors On the afternoon of May 22nd, Mr. Lewis’ telephone rang. In his absence, it was answered by the director of the A. C. L. U: A voice at the other end represented herself as Carmen Joan Dodson, who had -eaused Mr. Koci’s arrest. She complained that since the arrest she had had numerous strange persons inquiring about dancing lessons; that just that day a negro had come to the building and sought a job as a model, although no one wanted a model. She was sure that Mr. Koci was responsible for these unexpected visitors, because he was a terrible fellow who had done terible things in the past. And, of course, because of our interest in the case, she want‘ed to warn us that she would call the police. An army officer, the Legion and the immigration authorities were all backing her, we were told.

Married Several Times

She assured us that the only thing that could be said about her was that she had been married several times. One of these marriages, she explained, was to a very distinguished man who is the father of her six-year-old daughter. She claimed, too, that on one occasion Mr. Koci had threatened to have her daughter taken away from her and had even discussed the matter with a children’s agency. We agreed with Miss Dodson that if any one sought to molest her she should by all means call the police.

Member of Socialist Party

Mr. Koci has lived in the United States since 1921 and is a member of the Socialist Party, which was instrumental in raising the necessary bail for his release. Koci’s hearing has been set for June 5.

A MAN’S LIBERTY IS AT STAKE

Frank Koci is a poor worker. He does not have money to finance the fight for his freedom. A Defense Committee has, therefore, been set up to raise necessary funds. Wont you do your bit by sending a contribution to: Samuel 8. White, Treas., Koci Defense Fund, 434 Mills Bldg., S. F.

Finger Printing -+F or What?

A movement is gaining national headway to finger-print all persons as a means of identitication. It is backed primarily by police and crime-prevention agencies, but it is also promoted by employers, obviously with a view to better control of labor activities. :

In recent months the movement has taken on really formidable proportions. It was endorsed ,by the Conference on Crime called by Gov. Herbert H. Lehman of New York in the fall of 1935. lt was given hearty support at the round table on “Crime and Youth Today,” organized by the New York Herald-Tribune. A bill was introduced in the New York legislature for compulsory finger-printing, the first of its sort in any state. lt provides that all persons over the age of eighteen shall register their finger-prints with their county clerks, and shall carry police cards with the record of finger-prints, to be shown to any officer on request.

Police Regimentation

While such legislation is an extreme application of the idea, it is the goal toward which the finger-printing campaign is being directed. It would subject the whole population to police regimentation. It would be used in a score ot ways to invade the rights of citizens.

So objectionable is compulsory fingerprinting that its sponsors are now contining themselves to voluntary measures during a period of “public education.” Colleges, clubs, chambers of commerce, hospitals and even boards of education have taken steps to persuade all those in their employ or who can be influenced by them to submit to voluntary finger-printing.

Professional Patriots

The arguments advanced to justify so extraordinary a measure not only cover the apprehension of criminals, but the identification of missing persons and unknown dead. These are the avowed arguments. There are others not so easily determined, such as those which make employers enthusiastic for the scheme and those which play into the hands of the professional patriots who have long desired to register all aliens so as to make it easier to deport “undesirables.”

Detection Argument Illusory

The argument that criminals can be better detected by universal finger-printing is illusory. The lax administration of justice in the United States and the corrupt politi- cal influences exercised by organized crime have far more to do with the high rate of criminality than inability to keep track of persons with records. Countries like England and France have no such system of universal fingerprinting, yet crime is far below the rate in the United States. Universal finger-printing would have little relation to the detection of crime, for skillful criminals already use gloves or cover their hands with a substance to prevent leaving finger-marks.

The argument that universal fingerprinting would help identify missing persons and unknown dead is absurd. At best it would affect only a tiny fraction of the population a year. It is unworthy of consideration as justification for so sweeping a measure.

Police Surveillance

The objections to compulsory and universal finger-printing are obvious. The whole population would be subject to police surveillance. Any citizen would be liable to questioning at any time by the police with the requirement to carry an identification card, and upon failing to produce it, he would be subject to detention. No democratic country in the world has ever submitted to such a procedure. It should be unthinkable in the United States.

Compulsion of Employers

Voluntary finger-printing is open to no such objection as compulsory, but most so- ealled voluntary finger-printing is far in fact from being the willing act of the per- sons who register their finger-prints. It is usually done under the compulsion of em- ployers. It serves no useful purpose except

Page 3

to build up a practice which may afford a basis tor compulsory regulation. pome iorms of finger-printing for surer identiiication are unopjectionable. ln connection with the issuance of licenses ior certain occupations, linger-prints are oiten required. ine practice is fairly common in cities 1n Connegtion with licenses ior taxl drivers, Junk dealers, pawnbrokers, public porters, Cartmen and the like. ‘Lhe reason ior this iinger-printing is that the means of identification 1s more complete than a photograph and more certain. ‘ihe public interest Which demands the Licenses also justifies the means of identification

Criminais

The finger-printing of persons convicted of crimes 18 aiso entirely justitiabie. In some States this may be done only in the caSe OL Leionies or specilied misdemeanors. in others the viOlation of any state or local law, however trivial, may carry with it a tinger-print record. In New York State, for instance, Sec. 940 of the Code ot Crimihal Procedure, permits the tinger-printing Only oI persons charged with a teiony or SIX Specilic misdemeanors. Attempts have been made to amend the section by permitting the finger-printing of persons convicted of any crime or ior the oitenses ot disorderly conduct and vagrancy. Constant €110rls are Made by the police to extend the right to iinger-print.

Return of Finger-Prints

In many cities persons are finger-printed upon ariest regardiess. oi the charge, and the Tluger-prinus are. retained: wneiher or not there is a conviction. Urdinarly under the precedents established, any person acquitted. may secure the return of iinger- prints upon request. Ii the police retuse, a court order may. be secured ordering their destruction.

It is easy to foresee with the tendencies of police departments to regard strikers and radicals as criminals now, the extension finger-printing in minor cases may be used to biacklist organizers and“‘agitaSo strong is the practice already that in the New York State legisiature in 1986, a bill was introduced to prohibit employers from taking finger-prints oi applicants for jobs.

Restrict Finger-Printing

Every effort should be made to restrict finger-printing to its legitimate uses, namely, in the cases of persons convicted of crime whose records the police departments and prison authorities may properly keep; and those whose fingerprints are an essential means of identification in occupations licensed by police authorities. All other forms of compulsory finger-printing should be opposed. Voluntary fingerprinting should be discouraged as of no practical use and as an insidious method of public education to prepare the way for a nation-wide system of compulsion foreign to every conception of American democratic liberties.

A. C. L. U. SCORES VICTORY IN SANTA ROSA TAR AND FEATHER CASE The Northern California Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union recently scored a victory in its struggle against vigilantism. The vigilantes who tarred and feathered Jack Green and Sol Nitzberg in Santa Rosa withdrew a Superior Court ‘damage suit filed against their victims after Austin Lewis, veteran A. C. L. U. attorney, had riddled their complaint beyond recognition and amendment. Their complaint had charged that Green and Nitzberg “did. pull, push, jerk, jostle and strike Plaintiffs,” and that in consequence they ‘‘were rendered tired, sore and lame.”

The vigilantes who brought the suit were Harold Campbell and Fred Cairns. The latter is an alien and Secretary of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce, against whom damage suits resulting from his mob activities are pending in the federal court in Sacramento where they were recently transferred. Mr. Lewis’ motion to set these cases for trial will be heard in Sacramento on June 8.

American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly at 434 Mills Building, San Fran- cisco, Calif., by the Northern California Franch of The American Civil Liberties Union. Phone: EXbrook 1816

ERNEST BBSIG. Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

NAZI FLAG SALUTE CASE (Continued from Page 1, Col. 2) accordance with the compulsory regulation of the Sacramento Board of Education.

Charlotte’s parents are deaf mutes. They belong to the religious group known as Je- hovah’s Witnesses, who believe it is idolatrous to salute any man-made symbol. In his argument, Mr. Collins contended that if students may be suspended from public school because of their religious beliefs and are too poor to attend private school, it will result, as in Massachusetts, in sincere parents being arrested for ‘“‘failing’’ to send their children to school, and in the children being forced to associate with delinquents in detention homes.

Case Under Submission

Deputy District Attorney William A. Green argued the case on behalf of the Sacramento School Board, Superintendent Charles C. Hughes, and other school authorities. Both sides have now filed briefs and a speedy decision is expected from Superior Judge Peter J. Shields, whe now has the case under submission.

The Sacramento UNION reported that “Judge Shields hinted from the bench that the School Board’s case is ‘weak’ because there is no state law nor any school law specifically requiring students to salute the American flag.”

BULLETIN: On May 26, the San Francisco Chronicle published an editorial denouncing compulsory patriotism and praising the A. C. L. U. for bringing its compulsory flag salute test case. ‘‘We have, on occasion, been critical of the A. C. L. U.,”’ _sevs the Chronicle. “This time we are happy to say the Union’s test suit for Charlotte Gabrielli is a good deed.”’

AC. L.U. Aaswors Chronicle's Editorial Attack

(Editor’s Note: ‘The tollowing editorial attack upon the A. C. L. U. appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 29, 1936, under the title “Civil Liberty and the Union.”’ The Union’s answer is also found below).

“Colorado’s ‘bum barricade’ at its State lines has called down on that State the wrath of its neighbors and the condemnation of all who believe in the civil rights of American citizens—with one exception, so far as we know.

No Mention of A.C. L. U.

“We have seen no mention of the American Civil Liberties Union interesting itself in this plain violation of the constitutional civil rights of citizens by the State of Colorado.

“What explains the apparent lack of interest of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado’s high handed barring of poor people trying to enter?

“Can it be because Colorado’s exclusive policy is not directed at radicals, agitators or troublemakers, but only at poor people because they are poor?

Radicals

“Can it be that thé American Civil Liberties Union is not interested in the civil rights of poor people when they are, in penniless and is only interested in the civil rights of poor people when they are, in addition to being penniless, radicals or agitators or connected with some radical or trouble-making movement?

“If memory serves, the American Civil Liberties Union did utter some sort of protest when the Los Angeles police began stopping indigents at the California State line. Yet we do not recall that the Union got overly excited about it. Surely it would not have been difficult for the Union to make a test case out of the clearly unlawful acts of the Los Angeles police. It could have raised funds, hired lawyers and struck a great blow for civil liberty. Instead, as far as our information goes, it has been much more deeply concerned about. the radical agitators convicted and sent to prison from Sacramento.

We Apologize |

“If the American Civil Liberties Union has shown any interest in Colorado’s open and shut invasion of civil liberties we apologize. But we have not seen it mentioned, and usually when the Union takes up the cudgels for anything the country hears about it.

The A.C.L.U. Answers

“Editor The Chronicie—Sir: Your editorial entitled ‘‘Civil Liberties and the Un- ion,’’ in the issue of April 29, condemned the A. C. L. U. in three particulars: 1.. That it has done nothing about the Colorado “bum barricade;”’ 2. That it did not make a test case of Chief Davis’ border blockade, and 3. That it does not defend non-radicals.

Thoroughly Unwarranted

“All three condemnations are thoroughly unwarranted.

“On reading your editorial I immediately wired our New York oftice to determine what action had been taken to oppose the Colorado “‘bum blockade.’’ Roger Baldwin, our national director, responded that “Our Colorado representative, Rev. Edgar M. Wahiberg, 210 West ‘Vhirteenth avenue, Denver, Colo., led delegation to Governor April 24; have not had his report since.”

Chronicle Credits A. C. L. U.

“Your issues of Kebruary 20 and March 18 credit the A. C. L. U. with instituting a test suit in iederal court on behalt of John Langan, a mining man, concerning the Los Angeies “border biockade.”’ Your issue of February 8 notes our previous protest to United States Attorney Henry H. McPike.

Chronicie Uninformed

“We are indeed surprised that the editorial stafi of The Chronicle should be so uninformed of the policy and practice of the A. C. L. U. as to suggest that the union is interested only in the deiense of radicals. The union is prepared to defend the civil liberties of anyone, anywhere.

ERNEST BESIG, Director.

San Francisco, April 29, 1936.”

COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTING (Continued from Page 2, Col. 2) Ship of Almighty God. ” Unlike other religious groups with such scruples, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been quite willing to defend their rights of religious freedom in the courts.

Issue Not New

This issue has arisen in isolated cases in the past. Thus, in Denver, fifty children of the Jehovite sect (not Jehovah’s Witnesses) were suspended from schools in 1926. The Jehovites refused to go to law about it since they did not recognize ‘earthly courts,” but through negotiations the Union persuaded school officials to allow the children to come to school every day after the flag exercises. The same arrangement was made in Oklahoma, when a Mennonite boy retused the salute. In Delaware, however, the Mennonites were forced to establish a private school for their children.

The only case on record before that, invoiving the Opielouski children at Belcher- town, Mass., where a child was taken from its parents, was at Bellingham, Washington, where Russell Tremaine, aged 9, reiused to commit the “idolatrous act’ of saluting the flag. He was a member of the Elijah Voice Society. In 1925, he was separated from his family, and committed to a detention home for juvenile delinquents, and finally put in the State Children’s Home, where he remained for two years. His family, although not allowed to see him, refused to permit the Union to take the matter to the courts, because of religious convictions. Finally, in 1927, however, the Union was instrumental in securing action by an appeals court, and the boy was promptly returned to his home. The case aroused national interest at the time, according to the A. C. L. U.

The first of these cases began on Oct. 8, 1985, when Carleton Nichols, an eight-year old school boy was suspended from school at Lynn, Mass., for refusing to salute the flag. His reinstatement was sought through a writ of mandamus, the application being argued by James P. Roberts, an attorney retained by the Union, before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in November. A decision is expected some time this month. A Miss Clara Foster, a teacher. member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who has taught for 41 years, was forced to resign from the Lynn schools because she refused to perform the flag exercises. As she was eligible for a pension, no contest was made. Several other children have been suspended in Massachusetts, according to the Union, but only in the Belchertown cases were children ordered committed to an institution.

Feeling High in Pennsylvania

The largest number of suspensions have been reported in Western Pennsylvania. In Washington County, near Pittsburgh, seven children and a school teacher were dropped. Neighboring towns followed suit. In some cases the feeling was extraordinarily bitter and children of Jehovah’s Witnesses were severely beaten by teachers. A test case in Washington County in which a declaratory judgment was sought by attorneys for the Union and Jehovah’s Witnesses was argued in January, but no decision has been reached. The case was unique in that the American Legion appeared through an attorney to defend the right of school officials to suspend the children. While Pennsylvania has no salute law, Charles J. Mariotti, Attorney-General, ruled in October, 1935, that under the school code, authorities must require salutes, and discipline those who refused to take them.

New..Jersey..Appeal..Argued

In New Jersey the constitutionality of the flag salute law was attacked at a recent hearing before the State Commissioner of Education, in the case of Alma and Vivian Hering, aged 6 and 11, by Abraham J. Isserman, Newark attorney for the Union. Grounds have been carefully laid in this suit for an appeal through the state courts to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary.

Two Reinstated in Washington

A satisfactory solution of the question seems to have been worked out in the State of Washington. Four children of the Elliott family of Gray’s Harbor County, were dis- charged on Nov. 19, 1935. A petition was filed to have them adjudged delinquent and separated from their family. However, on February 24, Judge William E. Campbell dismissed the whole proceedings with a decision upholding the right of children to the guarantees of religious freedom. At the present, two of the children have been allowed to return to school without saluting the flag and the other two will soon be re-admitted, according to the Union’s local representative.

Suspension of children of Jehovah’s Witnesses have also been reported in East Liverpool, Ohio; in Montpelier, Vermont and in Florida. In all these cases repre- sentatives of the Union are laying the groundwork for court action.

PLEDGE I promise to give the sum of 6.......... per month or ............-..-.per year toward the support of the American Civil. Liberties .Union, No. Calif. Branch 434 Mills Bldg., San Francisco, and I enclose 5...................-.as payment on the same. I reserve the right to terminate this pledge whenever I see fit.

Name Street....... City... Date..