vol. 3, no. 1

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JANUARY, 1938 No. 1

State Supreme Court To Review District Court Of Appeal Decision

The Sacramento School Board intends to appeal the Gabrielli flag salute case to the State Supreme Court. The appeal will be taken from a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal which on November 30 unanimously affirmed a decision by Superior Judge Peter J. Shields reinstating the ten-year-old child to her classes. The petition for the rehearing by the State Supreme Court must be filed not later than January 10.

One of the reasons assigned by the Board for its appeal to the State Supreme Court is the recent action of the United States Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal of 12- year-old Dorothy Leoles who was expelled from Atlanta, Ga., public schools for re- fusing to salute the flag for religious reasons. The Supreme Court merely ruled that no substantial federal question was involved in the ease. It wil! scon have before it for consideration another flag salute case, this time from New Jersey.

The appellate court’s opinion neatly sidestepped the principal issue of liberty of con Science and decided the case on a technicality. The Court held that the School Board, by failing to adhere to the requirements of the School Code that other disciplinary steps be taken to correct a pupil’s misconduct before resort to suspension or expulsion, had acted arbitrarily in depriving the child of her legal right to a public school education. There was no showing by the Board that such corrective measures had been tried before the expulsion occurred.

Technical Decision Meaningless

The technical decision appears to be rather meaningless because the very last paragraph of the opinion states that there is “no question of disobedience or improper conduct on the part of the petitioner; just a simple question of standing mute while other pupils saluted the flag and repeated the pledge of allegiance.” If the child was not guilty of “improper conduct,” it can make no difference what corrective steps were taken by the School Board.

And if the child did nothing wrongful by “standing mute’”’ during the salutation to the flag, this must be because school officials may not interfere with liberty of conscience so long as the acts or omissions’ do not constitute a threat to the peace, safety, health or morals of the community. Yet the court states in another part of its decision that “whether the ceremony of galuting the flag and pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands does tend, or reasonably to infringe upon one’s liberty of conscience, is not necessary for us to decide.”’

While the court’s decision is contradictory and ambiguous, the implication is plain that it will not permit the expulsion of a child who refuses to salute the flag on religious grounds. A much stronger and clearer Opinion was handed down on December 1 in a similar case in a United States District Court in Philadelphia. The court held the religious beliefs of the children involved relieved them of the duty of saluting the flag unless the school board could prove that their refusal was detrimental to the public welfare. Said Judge Albert A. Maris, a Quaker:

“Liberty of conscience means liberty for each individual to decide for himself what tc him is religious. if an individuai sincerely bases his acts on religious grounds, they must be accepted as such and may only be interfered with if it becomes necessary to do so in connection with exercise of the police power . . . To permit public officers to determine whether the views of individuals sincerely held and their acts sincerely un- dertaken on religious grounds are in fact based on convictions religious in character would be to sound the death knell of religious liberty. To such pernicious and alien doctrine this court cannot subscribe.”

The above two court rulings are the first such favorable high court decisions in the three years that the American Civil Liberties Union and Jehovah’s Witnesses have been fighting flag salute dismissals in scores of communities in thirteen states. Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco, A.C.L.U. attorney, has handled the Gabrielli case since its inception and will resist the petition for a rehearing in the State Supreme Court.

(The full opinion in the Gabrielli case is reprinted herewith on page 2.)

ACLU Financial Statement For 1937

The following statement indicates how your money was spent from January 1, 1937, to December 31, 1937: Income On hand, Jan. 1, 1937...$ 431.46 General Receipts ....... 3,273.50 Total Income... 3. $3,704.96 Expenditures Salaries $1,925.00 Printing and Sta... 684.14 Rent 330.00 Postage 2638.89 Tvaveling 2 112.44 Tel and Rel 91.51 Furn. and Equip... 38.55 Miscellaneous 58.05 Total Expenditures ........ $3,503.58 Cash on hand Jan. 1, 1938 $ 201.38

Another Red-Baiting Racket Folds Up

This time it is The United Sons of America that has suffered the fate of its predeces- sors, the American Warriors of the United States, Inc., and the American League Against Communism, latterly known as The National Americanism Foundation. They are gone and quite forgotten.

Very littlé is known of the United Sons. It had headquarters in the Phelan Building, San Francisco, for only a few months. A Moncell R. Bell of San Francisco is reported to have been one of its organizers. Solicitors sought memberships and contributions from the patrioteers and sentimental. pectus declared that it was a non-political, non-sectarian, non-profit (sic) corporation urgaiized under the iaws of the State of California, to be supported by dues, but failed to state the amount of the dues. Among its rather indefinite objects it listed reverence for the flag, urged that “undesir- able aliens should be dealt with according to their merits and that a rigid watchfulness should be enforced over the activities of subversive types of citizens whose aim is the creation of unrest among our people and the destruction of our government by force, or otherwise.”

Editor, Facing Deportation, Cited For Contempt

For refusing to answer questions regarding his birth, nativity and other facts which would strengthen the Department of Labor’s deportation case against him, Marcus Graham, editor of the anarchist publication, “Man,” must stand trial for contempt in the federal court at Los Angeles. The court declined to increase Graham’s bail.

After Federal Judge Leon R. Yankwich had ordered Graham to. answer questions, the editor refused to disclose information to immigration inspectors on the ground that the whole proceeding against him was illegal and unconstitutional. Meanwhile, efforts by Civil Liberties Union attorneys have failed to secure a court order requiring im- migration inspectors who participated in the unlawful search of Graham’s home to produce search warrants.

Graham’s arrest on October 6, 1987, is his fourth by immigration authorities since a warrant was first issued in 1919. In every previous instance, he was released and pro- ceedings were dropped because of inability to establish his birthplace,

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS GEORGIA POLL TAX

Legality of Georgia’s $1 poll tax, a requi site to vote in national elections, has been upheld by. the U. S. Supreme Court. The Civil Liberties Union supported Nolen R. Pee of Fulton County in the fight on the tax.

Page 2

CALIFORNIA FLAG SALUTE DECISION GABRIELLI v. KNICKERBOCKER, et al.

(91 Cal. App. Dec. 575) November 30, 1937.

In consideration of this cause, the respondent will be referred to as “Petitioner,” and the respondents in the trial court will be referred to as “Appellants.”

The cause is before us upon an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of the state of California, In and for the county of Sacramento, in favor of the petitioner, and against the appellants, awarding the petitoner a writ of mandate, as theretofore prayed for. The facts of the case are substantially as follows:

The petitoner and her father were and are American citizens, resident of the Sacramento City School District. Prior to the action complained of the petitioner was a student at Fremont School in said district. Because of religious objections thereto the petitloner refused to conform to a custom imposed by certain of the appellants on all of the students in said school, requiring the students thereof to salute the flag and to pledge allegiance thereto. By reason of such refusal petitioner was suspended and expelled by the appellants. The salute to the flag and the pledge of allegiance we understand to be in the following language: “I hereby pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice to all.”

After the suspension and expulsion of the petitioner an application was filed in the superior court above named, asking for a writ of mandate ordering the petitioner’s readmission to said school. As stated, the writ was granted directing the admission of said petitlonér, according to the terms contained in said writ of mandate.

MEMBERS OF RELIGIOUS SOCIETY

it appears from the record that the petitioner and her father are both members of a certain religious denomination known as and called “Jehovah’s Witnesses’; that the tenets and teachings of said denomination forbid the pledging to, or the taking of the oath of allegiance in any form, to any other power or banner than that of God, and cite for our consideration, among other passages of the Bible, the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and especially, the third verse thereof, which reads: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Reference is then made to the fifth verse where prescribed penalties are to be inflicted. Our attention is also called to the tenth verse of the sixty-second chapter of Isaiah, enjoining the setting up of the banners of God’s salvation.

CONSCIENTIOUS CONVICTIONS PROVED

We need not follow further the allegations of the petition as to the religious convictions of the petitioner, and of the members of the church known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” further than to state that the conscientious convictions of the petitioner appear to have been upheld by the trial court.

In addition, however, to arguing the correctness of the trial court’s conclusion as set forth in the writ of mandate, the petitioner also contends that the action of the appellants was arbitrary, and that no rule or regulation governing the school in question was ever adopted requiring the salutation to the flag and the pledging of allegiance to the republic; that it was only a custom followed in said school, and which custom is not universally followed in the schools of the county of Sacramento.

The contention of the appellants is in substance that the salutation to the flag and the pledge of allegiance to the republic is in no sense a religious rite or ceremony; and cite a number of cases which we will mention hereafter in support of such contention. Section IV of article 1 of the declaration of rights, relating to religious freedom reads as follows:

“LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE” GUARANTEED

“The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this state; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness or juror on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.”

The stipulation of facts set forth in the transcript show that the petitioner was in all respects an exemplary pupil; that while the salute was being given to the flag and the pledge of allegiance repeated, she simply stood silently. The only offense attributable to the petitioner, if such it may be called, is and was her failure to join in the salute and the repetition of the pledge of allegiance.

A similar question has been before the courts of Massachusetts, New Jersey and Georgia. The decisions in the above named courts were that the salute to the flag is in no sense a religious rite, and expulsion of pupils who are members of the church of Jehovah’s Witnesses was upheld. In all of these states, however, there appears to have been legislative acts enjoining the salute of the flag and the pledge of allegiance by pupils of public schools.

THE TEST OF “LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE”

The cases relied upon by the appellants are as follows, to-wit: Carleton B. Nicholls v. Mayor and School Committee of -Lynn,:7 N. E. (2d) 577, 110 A. L.. R. 377. This appears to be the leading case on the subject, and the question of the religious or non- ‘religious character of the salute to the flag and the pledge of allegiance considered very fully, and it is there held that the salute to the flag and the pledge of allegiance Ig in no sense a religious rite. THis case, however, does not reach the crucial point mentioned in section IV of article 1 of the declaration of rights, governing religious matters in the state of California, in that it is not a question whether the salute to the flag and the pledge of allegiance is or is not a religious rite, but whether it constitutes an infringement upon the liberty of conscience of the person affected. This statement is likewise true as shown by a consideration of the case of Hering v. State Board of Education, 189 Atl. 629, where the supreme court of New Jersey likewise held the salute to the flag and the pledge of allegiance not to be a religious rite, but made no mention of whether such a ceremony would infringe the liberty of conscience which is granted by section IV of article 1 of our state Con- stitution. :

WON’T DECIDE MAIN ISSUE

In the case of Leoles v. Landers, 192 S. E. 218, the supreme court of Georgia followed the line of reasoning adopted by the supreme court of Massachusetts, holding simply that the salute to the flag and the pledge of allegiance was not a religious rite, but went no further and did not consider the question as to whether such a ceremony would or would not constitute an infringement of one’s liberty of conscience. Those cases relate practically only to professions and form of worship. The profession of one’s religion is, as we understand, to be giving voice to one’s beliefs, the form of worship to that which is outlined or specified in the rules or tenets governing the organiza- tion to which one belongs. Liberty of conscience goes much further, and under our Constitution, so long as it does not interfere with the morals, peace, and the health of the public, it would appear to be controlling. However, whether the ceremony of saluting the flag and pledging allegiance to the republic for which it stands does tend, or reasonably tend to infringe upon one’s tiberty of conscience, is not necessary for us to decide.

Section 1.30 of article IV of the School Code of Cali fornia reads as follows: “Boards of School Trustees and City Boards of Education shall have the power, and it shall be their duty to suspend or expel pupils for misconduct, when other means of correction have failed to bring about proper conduct.” The record before us fails to show any compliance with the proVisions of this section. It does, however, clearly ap- pear that the only action taken by the appellants in this case was that of suspension or expulsion, which clearly indicates that the appellants acted without legal right, and /in the suspension or expulsion of the petitioner exceeded their jurisdictional powers.

DEPRIVED OF VESTED RIGHT

in Piper v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal. 664, 226 Pac. 926, the Supreme Court, in speaking of the right of a pupil to attend a public school of this state as being fundamental, used the following language: “The advantage or benefit thereby vouchsafed to every child of attending a public school is, therefore, one derived and secured to it under the highest sanction of positive law. It is therefore a right—a legal right—as distinctively so as the vested right in property owned as a legal right, and as such it is protected and entitled to be protected by all the guarantees by which other legal rights are protected and secured to the possessor.’’ Preceding the above quotation the court had referred to the statutes and Constitution of this state.

PROCEDURE MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY FOLLOWED

It is almost needless to say that where one has been deprived of a property right, or as stated in the above quotation, a vested right, it ig necessary for the one who makes the deprivation to follow the procedure substantially, and to show that such proced- ure has been substantially followed.

While the rules and regulations of the district are to be liberally construed, when it comes to the deprivation of a constitutional right it must be shown that the legal procedure in making the deprivation has been substantially followed. In the case at bar there

“No Improper Conduct”

Charlotte Gabrielli

is no showing whatever that the section of the School Code which we have quoted has been either strictly, or even substantially followed, or that any attempt was, or has been made to substantially follow the same.

That the right to attend a public school is fundamental we may further cite, 23 Cal. Jur., page 141, section 104, where it is said: “But the right to be admitted to a public school is a valuable right which may be enforced in an appropriate proceeding. It is a privilege granted by the State Constitution, and is a legal right as much as a vested right in rpoperty.”

EXPULSION ARBITRARY

Not having followed the procedure set forth in section IV of article 1 of the School Code, it follows that ~ the suspension and expulsion of the petitioner was arbitrary and unwarranted. While, as we have stated, it is within the province of school trustees to promulgate all reasonable rules and regulations for the government of schools under their charge, those rules, regulations and acts must be reasonable and not ar bitrary.

In 24 Ruling Case Law, page 575, paragraph 24, it is stated that the courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by school trustees, and that the presumption is always in favor of the reasonableness and propriety of a rule and regulation duly made. The reasonableness of regulations is a question of law for the courts. THis rule is affirmed in 56 C. J., page 853, section 1091. See, also, the case of C. C. McLeod v. Estate of Mississippi, etc., 122 So. 737, 63 A. L. R. 1161. Note to Jones v. Day, 18 A. L. R. 649.

NO LIMIT TO EXPULSION

In addition to section 1.30 of article IV of the School Code we may cite section 1.35, which reads: “No pupil shall be suspended from school for more than two consecutive weeks.” There appears to be no limit to the order of suspension or expulsion in the case at bar.

By reason of the mandatory provisions of section 1.30, supra, it is unnecessary for us to review the sections of the School Code relative to the powers of boards of directors in punishing pupils for infractions of the rules adopted, nor is it necessary for us to consider what constitutes compliance with section 5.544 of the same code relative to instruction bejng given calculated to inculcate a spirit of loyalty to the government of the United States, and a willingness to uphold all that the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Californja represent.

NO QUESTION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT

The record before us presents no question of.morality; no question of peace; no question of health; no “question of disobedience or improper conduct on the part of the petitioner; just a simple question of standing mute while other pupils saluted the flag and repeated the pledge of allegiance. This obviates any necessity for a further consideration of the questions involved or a reference to the rather exhaustive and learned briefs submitted by counsel.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We concur: PLUMMER, J. PULLEN, P. J. THOMPSON, J.

EPISCOPAL MINISTER DENIED CITIZENSHIP FOR REFUSAL TO BEAR ARMS

Once again the courts have denied citizenship to an applicant who refuses to bear arms whenever called upon to do so. The latest victim is Rev. Theodore Bell of St. John’s Chapel, Del Monte.

This Episcopalian minister is not a pacifist. He is willing to defend his adopted country if the war is truly a defensive one, but he insists that the determination of that question is for his own conscience. He does not feel that the righteousness of a war should be determined by Congress, but by the individual. —

In recent years the United States Supreme Court has twice handed down 5-4 decisions denying citizenship to persons who refused to fight under all circumstances. In the Bland case, a nurse was willing to defend this country ‘as far as my conscience as a Christian will allow.” In the famous McIntosh case, as Justice Sutherland put it, “he would have to believe that the war was morally justified before he would take up arms in it to give it his moral support.”

The U. 8. District Court at Jacksonville has just denied citizenship to 72-year-old Louise Maria Hoffman of Lowell, Fla., because she declared she was unwilling to bear arms in defense of her country but would be willing to perform noncombatant service.

In Chicago the Circuit Court of Appeals has just denied citizenship to Abraham Warkentin because of refusal to bear arms. The case is headed for the United States Supreme Court.

A.C. L. U. RECEIVES HONORABLE MENTION IN RED-BAITING PUBLICITY STUNT

The outstanding red-baiting publicity stunt of 1937 took place December 9 when Ivan Francis Cox, erstwhile minister and ousted Secretary-Treasurer of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, No. 1-10, filed a $5,100,000 damage suit against the Thirteenth District of the Communist Party, 15 named defendants, including the movie actor, Frederic March, 2500 John Does and 2500 Jane Does. None of the defendants have been served with copies of the. 54-page complaint. Nevertheless, Ed Vandeleur, Secretary of the State Federation of Labor, himself an outstanding red-baiter, and Hugh Gallagher, connected with one of the steamship lines, are proud possessors of the complaint although they are not themselves defendants.

The complaint charges that the defendants have carried on a gigantic conspiracy to commit felonious acts, and that among other things they conspired to defame the character of Cox, causing him to lose his job as Secretary-Treasurer of his Union. An obscure attorney, A. L. Crawford of 369 Pine St., San Francisco, represents Mr. Cox.

Mr. Crawford recently made a bid for notoriety when he attached his name to a resolution printed in the red-baiting News Letter and Wasp of November 26. He was listed as Secretary of the hitherto unknown Union of California Citizens which demanded that Beatrice Kincaid, San Francisco Communist, be relieved of her duties as program chairman of the Emerson Unit of the P.T.A. in San Francisco.

The American Civil Liberties Union received the folloing honorable mention in Mr. Cox’s complaint:

“That for a long time prior to the said November 16th, 19338, the friends of the Soviet Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, the International Labor Defense, and “a large number of supporting radical groups, aided and assisted by mass pressure in bringing the diplomatic recognition of the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, by the use of petitions, public meetings of protest and demand, radio speeches, and the utilization of press stories in the leading daily papers of this Nation; and by reason of this mass pressure, and relying on the solemn covenant and pledge of the Commissar of People’s Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the President of the United States accorded to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, official diplomatic recognition.”

The appeal of Steve Hanus in his denial of citizenship on the ground that he is a member of the International Workers’ Order, fraternal organization charged with being “‘Communistic,’’ has been dismissed by the U. S. District Court of Appeals in Cleveland on technical grounds. The court. held that it could not review the case in the absence of a record containing the alleged errors upon which the motion for a new trial was based. Attorneys for the Cleveland committee of the Civil Liberties Union and the I.W.O. represented Hanus. Present at the trial were members of the American Legion and red-baiting organizations which inspired immigration authorities to deny naturalization to Hanus.

A petition for naturalization in behalf of Dominik Stevko, likewise denied citizenship because of his membership in the I.W.O., is being prepared in the U.S. District Court at Cleveland. Gerald D. Reilly, Solicitor of. the Department of Labor, recently stated to the A.C.L.U. that membership in the I. W.O. is not a bar to naturalization. This statement will be offered in behalf of Stevko’s new application.

False Free Press Issue Raised In N.it

No real issue of freedom of the press is involved in the National Labor Relations Board’s subpoenas of the editors of “Mill and Factory” and the St. Mary’s (Pa.) “Press,” is the conclusion of the American Civil Liberties Union, based on a comprehensive legal memorandum prepared by the Union’s attorneys. In a letter sent to J. Warren Madden, chairman of the N.L.R.B., and signed by ten members of the Union’s Board of Directors, the A.C.L.U. contended that the Board is “entirely justified in determining whether an employer has purchased publications used among his employees to say what he has no right under the law to say himself.”

“A careful review of the facts,” the Union’s letter declared, ‘“makes it clear that neither of these cases involve any attempt to interfere with publication or to intimi- date publishers or editors. In the opinion of our attorneys, in both cases the testimony of an editor was sought as evidence relevant to the inquiry as to whether an employer was engaged in a course of conduct unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act. The courts have uniformly held that to require such testimony from an editor with regard to his knowledge of the unlawful acts of another is not to interfere with the freedom of the press. The Civil Liberties Union has supported this historic interpretation.

“Intimidation and interference with collective bargaining is not protected by the guarantees of freedom of speech and the press. If they were, the National Labor Re- lations Act would be wholly ineffective.”’

The two cases invoived the subpoena of Hartley W. Barclay, editor of the magazine “Mill and Factory,” directing him to produce material used in preparing an article on the Board’s Weirton Steel Company hearings, and of Harry T. O’Brien, editor of the St. Mary’s (Pa.) ‘‘Press,”’ in the Board’s hearings on the Stackpole Carbon Company.

False Issue

“A long experience with the issue of freedom of the press,’ says the letter, ‘‘has led us to be wary whenever it is raised, for it has been misused to obscure resistance to labor regulation by publishers, to oppose the organization of editorial employees, and to assert the privilege of keeping from public scrutiny the sources of information of news articles even when demanded by a competent public body. If such false is

AN OLD STORY —

The job we dislike most of all in this struggle for civil liberties is the begging that If we had a choice in the matter, you may be sure we’d content ourselves with an unobtrusive, by your leave, announcement, that by scrimping and saving we could get along for so much-during the next year. And that would must be done to carry on.

be all! Yes, it would be all!

o the Union.

To the 166 faithful who have thus far responded with pledges and contributions for 1938 we express our gratitude and apologize for intruding another plea for funds. We’ve got to do it, because we’re still far from realizing our-goal—of raising the $4,000 budget for 1938.

We have 334 more members scattered about Northern California still unheard from. upon whom we are counting to raise the balance of our small budget. Now that the holiday demands have subsided, won’t you please respond without further delay?

Pledge cards and return envelopes again accompany the bulletin. If possible, won't you please pledge $1.00-a-month. In any event, send what you can. And, if you can’t afford anything, please let us know; we’ll be-glad to keep you on our mailing list. REQUIRES A HAPPY ENDING

MAKE A PLEDGE FOR '38

It would be the end of the Union, too.

found that people must be reminded repeatedly about their annual contributions

8b. Cases

Issues of freedom of the press are not sharply distinguished from the real issue, genuine freedom of the press cannot be successfully defended when it is at stake.

“The Union has opposed these misconceptions of freedom of the press and has confined its defense to our historic tradition. That tradition demands that all publications should be free from prior restraint; that the use of the mails and other publicly controlled means of distribution be accorded on equal terms without discrimination based upon political or economic views.”

The Union’s letter was signed by Dr. Harry F. Ward, chairman; Arthur Garfield Hays, Morris L. Ernst, Nathan Greene, Roger N. Baldwin, Raymond L. Wise, Elmer Rice, John Haynes Holmes, Osmond K. Fraenkel and William L. Nunn. The memorandum on the two N.L.R.B. cases was prepared by Nathan Greene of New York, coauthor with Prof. Felix Frankfurter of the standard work on labor injunctions.

CHARGES AGAINST NAZI CONSULATE PICKETS DISMISSED

Following a reversal of their convictions on charges of “failing to move on,”’ after picketing the Nazi consulate in San Francisco in January, 1937, criminal complaints against nine persons, who had each been sentenced to 25 days in jail, were dismissed on December 28. The appellate court reversed the convictions because the trial judge indicated sentences would be lenient if the jury brought in a “Guilty” verdict. Thereupon, the jury, having previously failed to agree, reached a verdict of “Guilty.”

ACTION PROMISED IN WARNICK CASE "IF FILE CAN BE FOUND

The Jack Warnick deportation case pending for almost two and one-half years may finally be concluded, if the Commissioner of Immigration can find the file. Recently we appealed to the newly appointed Commissioner, James L. Houghteling, for action in the case only to learn that the file “has been mislaid somewhere among the 20,000 active cases which we have under consideration.” We have been assured that “prompt attention will be given to this matter as soon as the papers come to hand.”’

Because we’ve

Page 3

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union News Published monthly at 216 Pine St., San Francisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union. Phone; EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. Editor PAULINE W. DAVIBSG.............. Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per Copy.

C.C.C. Fingerprinting Opposed As “Move Toward Regimentation”

Characterizing the fingerprinting of all enrollees in the Civilian Conservation Camps as “an indefensible and possibly dangerous practice,” the American Civil Liberties Union has attacked the policy as a “move toward regimentation.”’

More than 300,000 enrollees in the 1,604 C.C.C. camps were ordered fingerprinted, the records to be filed in the Department of Justice. In a letter to Director Robert Fechner of the C.C.C. signed by Roger N. Baldwin, A.C.L.U. director, the Union declared:

“We cannot conceive of any practical use for this indefensible and possibly dangerous practice, except to help Mr. J. Edgar Hoover build up his universal catalogue. If ever there was a move toward regimentation, this is it.’’

The Union’s objection to universal fingerprinting is based chiefly on the fact that “the whole population would be subject to police surveillance. Any citizen would be liable to questioning by the police at any time. No democratic country in the world has ever submitted to such a procedure. It serves no useful purpose except to build up a practice which may afford a basis for compulsory regulation. It is easy to forsee, with the tendencies of police departments to regard strikers and radicals as criminals, how the extension of fingerprinting in minor cases may be used to blacklist organizers and ‘agitators.’ Every effort should be made to restrict fingerprinting to its legitimate uses—namely, in the cases of persons convicted of crimes whose records the police may properly keep; and those whose fingerprints are an essential means of identification in occupations licensed by public authorities.”’

In reply to the Union’s letter, Mr. Fechner declared:

“For many years, I have been a firm believer in the desirability of having everyone in America fingerprinted. I hold this view and publicly expressed myself on it during the many years that I actively served as vice-president of the International As- sociation of Machinists, and have seen so many cases of catastrophe where individuals could not be identified that from this angle alone, I feel that fingerprinting would be a desirable national policy. From the very beginning of this organization we undertook to fingerprint C.C.C. enrollees. This was done solely as a protection for the enrollees. Because I believe that it is desirable for the enrollee himself to be fingerprinted, I directed that each camp commander be required to fingerprint the enrollees in his company. So far as I know, no enrollee has objected or refused.”

LIBERAL GROUPS CHANGE NAMES

Two liberal groups have recently changed their names. In the future, the American League Against War and Fascism will be known as the American League For Peace and Freedom, while the National Committee for the Defense of Political Prisoners will be the National Committee for People’s Rights.

REALLY, MISS TERRY!

Among our recent souvenirs is this one from Miss Agnes Terry, Assistant to the Dean of the University of California Medical School: ‘Please remove my name from your mailing list—and stop sending me your paper which I consider about the silliest thing in print. Your request for financial support is too ridiculous for comment.”

Continue Fight To Free Ferrero and Sallitto

Vincent Ferrero and Domenick Sallitto have lived in the United States 31 and 16 years respectively. On April 11, 1934, these two men were arrested by Immigration inspectors in Oakland and subsequently ordered deported to Fascist Italy on charges of being anarchists.

Their offense was that they rented office space in their Oakland restaurant to Marcus Graham, editor of the Anarchist magazine ‘““Man,”’ who is also undergoing persecution at the hands of the Immigration authorities at the present time. Additional evidence against Sallitto is to the effect that he acted as chairman of an Anarchist meeting in San Francisco, to-wit: A three-cornered debate on the subject of the Reichstag Fire in Germany. At this debate the speakers were representatives of the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the editor of ‘‘Man.”’

Extended court action in both cases proving unavailing Ferrero was ordered to sur- render at Ellis Island, November 26, and be shipped to Fascist Italy the follow morning on the S. 8. “Vulcania.”” The Commissioner of Immigration, James L. Houghteling, could see no objection to deporting Ferrero, an anti-Fascist, to Italy, because ‘‘this alien has not been in Italy for 31 years, (and) has therefore taken no part in current po- litical affairs and has no enemies in the country of his birth. Therefore I can see no objection to his deportation to Italy.”

At the last moment, however, Representative Emanuel Celler of Brooklyn, N. Y., in- troduced in the House of Representatives a private bill in behalf of Ferrero. This bill, during its pendency, stays-all deportation proceedings and, if ultimately enacted, will allow Ferrero to remain in the United States.

The thousands of protests that were directed to the Labor Department from every part of the country against the threatened deportation of Domenick Sallitto resulted in the Department granting a reopening of the case in order to allow attorneys to introduce new evidence.

DR. HARRY F. WARD SPEAKS IN SAN FRANCISCO, JAN. 19

Dr. Harry F. Ward, National Chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union, will ad- dress a public meeting at Eagles’ Hall, 273 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, on Wed- nesday evening, January 19. He will discuss America’s relation to the present Sino- Japanese crisis.

The meeting is under the auspices of the American League for Peace and Freedom, of which Dr. Ward is National Chairman. His present nationwide tour, however, is under the auspices of the Methodist Federation for Social Service, of which he is Secretary. He will be in the bay region from January 19 to the 21st, inclusive.

Dr. Ward is Professor of Christian Ethics at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He is the author of numerous books, including “In Place of Profit,” “Our ee Morality,” and “Which Way Reigion.”’

Dr. Harry F. Ward

CIVIL LIBERTIES MEETING PLANNED FOR BATTLE OF JERSEY CITY

Continuing its siege of Jersey City, where Mayor Frank (I am the Law) Hague has been turning away CIO onslaughts against his anti-union policies, the American Civil Liberties Union is pushing plans for a free speech meeting within or near the city’s boundaries to be addressed by members of Congress and leading liberals.

Irked by Secretary Harold L. Ickes’ denunciation of Mayor Hague’s repressive tac- tics at the A.C.L.U.’s annual meeting, the. Jersey City ‘‘dictator’’ launched an attack upon the Union and its director, Roger Baldwin, pasting a ““Red”’ label on both. In a telegram to Mayor Hague replying to the charges, Mr. Baldwin said: :

“You should have learned from our defense of civil rights against your lawless power that the A.C.L.U. is just as com‘munistic as the Bill of Rights and no more.

If the Constitution is communist, so are we. My personal views are identical with the Union’s policy. You quote as authority Mrs. Dillings’ ‘The Red Network.’ If you ex- amine that discredited work, you will discover among the ‘Reds’ the wife of the Pres- ident to whose party you belong, Senator Borah, Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Monsignor John A. Ryan and many others whose inclusion damns the work on its face. We are undertaking the rather large order of teaching you that Americanism is not Com- munism.”’

A letter to Mayor Hague by Arthur Garfield Hays, Union counsel, pointed out that the A.C.L.U. defended Communists “fat a time when they badly needed it. Under our constitution, men have civil rights whatever their views. We have even insisted upon the rights of Communists to hold meetings in Jersey City, and our position has been upheld by the courts.. The Communist © bogey has long passed. Today we are called upon chiefly to defend the rights of workers who belong to all political parties, chiefly to your own.”

A barrage against Mayor Hague’s record in public office, particularly his corruption and misrule, was broadcast by Roger Baldwin early this week over station WEVD in New York. Mr. Baldwin charged that Boss Hague “has usurped in his own person the authority of law and separated Jersey City from the United States.”

PEACEFUL PICKETING FOR ORGANIZING PURPOSES UPHELD IN S. F.

Peaceful picketing has withstood another attack in San Francisco. Unsuccessful in passing an anti-picketing ordinance, employers resorted to the courts to enjoin pick- eting for organizing purposes.

Thirty-two automobile salesmen, employees of the Howard Automobile Co., sought to prevent picketing by the Retail Automobile Salesmen’s Union, Local No. 1067. Local newspapers insisted that the issue in the case was freedom to work. They pointed out that there was no strike, and the employees did not want to join the Union.

Superior Judge Maurice T. Dooling, declining to follow a notorious contrary de- cision of Superior Judge Emmet H. “‘Injunction” Wilson of Los Angeles, held that peaceful picketing is an exercise of the liberty of speech guaranteed under the State Constitution, and that “the appeal for public support involved in peaceful picketing is not an actionable tort (wrongful act), even though the picketing union represents no employees of the picketed business and there is no dispute between the picketed em- ployer and his employees.”

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS STRINGENT AMENDMENTS TO ANTIPICKETING ORDINANCE

The City Council of Los Angeles on December 29, by a vote of 8 to 6, amended its anti-picketing ordinance specifying rules for picketing. Only strikers may picket, and then only one at each entrance, and another for every fifty feet of building frontage. No signs may be carried except one 20 by 80 inches bearing a handle and stating merely the existence of a strike and the reasons therefor.