vol. 3, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MAY, 1938 No. 5

RED BAITER GOES BERSERK

Assaults A.C.L.U. Director And S.F. News Cameraman

Camera-Shy Stanley Doyle, professional red-baiter and former Communist Party stoolpigeon, went berserk during the course of a demonstration before the Nazi Con- sulate in San Francisco on Saturday, April 23rd, and assaulted Ernest Besig, local director of the Civil Liberties Union, and Carl Bergmark, photographer for the San Francisco NEWS. Doyle and an unidentified companion destroyed motion pictures taken by Besig, but failed in. an attempt to ruin a picture taken by Bergmark showing the destruction of Besig’s films.

Doyle Threatens Violence

The use of unwarranted force by the police in breaking up a similar anti-Nazi demonstration the previous Saturday prompted Besig to attend the instant dem- onstration in order to take pictures of any untoward incidents that might occur. Stan- ley Doyle was also in attendance and Besig -accosted him. Doyle greeted him with a “Hello, Ernest,’’ and stated he wanted to introduce him to a friend. The friend turned out to be a police officer, who was informed that ‘‘This is Besig, who filed that complaint,’ referring to a verified complaint filed with the Police Commission against Officer Ernest Reinke charging the latter slapped a girl while placing her under arrest during the prior -demonstration. (See story on page 38.) Doyle then proceeded to accuse Besig of committing perjury in filing the complaint and threatened to have him prosecuted unless he ordered it withdrawn. “I saw the whole thing,’’ declared Doyle, ‘‘and you weren’t there. We’re going to get you, and one of these days we’re going down to your organization and take it apart to see what makes it tick!’ After similar threats, Besig walked away.

Doyle Is Camera Shy

A few minutes later, Besig, observing Doyle pointing out persons. on the picket line to the police officers, took motion pictures of the group. When camera-shy Doyle suddenly realized he was being photographed he ran after Besig. With right fist clenched, he seized him by the arm and demanded the films. When Besig refused, Doyle seized the camera, extracted the roll of film and turned it over to an unidentified companion who completed the job of destruction. Then Doyle jerked off Besig’s glasses and threatened to punch him, At that moment, Carl Bergmark, San Francisco News cameraman, focused his lens on the scene. As he snapped.a picture, camera-shy Doyle shielded his face with his arm. Forgetting Besig, Doyle turned his attention to Bergmark. He seized him :and his unidentified companion grabbed the camera, but through ignorance failed in his efforts to destroy the plate. While Bergmark struggled with Doyle, another ubiquitous cameraman, this time from the San Francisco Chronicle, snapped a picture. In- cidentally, still another cameraman took two shots which apparently escaped Doyle’s attention.

14 Cops Stand Around

Fourteen policemen stood around but not one attempted to arrest Doyle. The picture taken by the Chronicle photographer shows a police officer standing beside Doyle, with back obligingly turned, while another officer is headed inthe direction of the scuffle. Besig later reclaimed his camera from a police officer who was shouting, ‘““Whose camera is this?”’

Doyle took refuge in the lobby of the Royal Insurance Building, where he apologized very nervously and profusely to the photographers. He offered to buy the boys a drink and sought without success to have their pictures killed. Besig approached him and demanded to know what he intended to do about the films he had destroyed. “Here, I’ll pay for them! What did they cost?” he asked. He dug up $2.50 in silver (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

CAMERA-SHY

Stanley M. Doyle, holding Besig’s motion picture camera and glasses.

IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL DRAWN INTO CALIF. “RED NETWORK”

Another amendment has been tacked on to the $5,100,000 complaint filed by Ivan Francis Cox, erstwhile International Longshoremen Workers’ Union official, who claims he was ousted from his job as the result of a state-wide red plot engaged in by more than five thousand named and unnamed defendants.

It charges that Edward W. Cahill,-Commissioner of Immigration at San Francisco, “Consorts. with, aids and assists alien radicals by advision (sic) and counseling with them,” particularly Harry Bridges. Apparently overlooking the right of Bridges and his attorneys to reveal the names of all witnesses and their testimony, umbrage is also taken at the possibilities of an open hearing on the deportation charges pending against Bridges because all sorts of ills might befall those who testified against him. Finally, states A. L. Crawford, attorney for Cox, “highly placed officials in the said Depart- ment of Labor, of the Immigration and Naturalization Service have consistently and continually revealed and conveyed to the said alien Communist, and defendant, Alfred Renton Bridges, alias Harry Renton Bridges, and to other prominent members of said illegal and subversice Communist Party, confidential affidavits, statements and data for the purpose of enabling said defendant . . . to defeat the deportation proceedings against him, and to subvert the legal processes of the Government of the United States of America.’

The amendment also insists that William Schneiderman, State Secretary of the Com- munist Party, should have his citizenship revoked “because of fraud, perjury and misrepresentation,” and the Department of Labor and the U.S. Attorney General’s office are taken to task for not initiating proceedings in response to a complaint assert- edly filed against him in 1936.

It should be remembered that this redbaiting rot is all made part of the complaint in a suit to recover damages for loss of a job. None of the 5000 alleged conspirators has been served, while 5000 copies of the complaint have been printed and circulated among “substantial people.” Recently, we are informed, a red-baiter at a Union meeting arose and read part of the complaint in an attack upon an official of his Union named in the complaint.

The purpose of the complaint is clear. Anyone in California suspected of being a red will be listed in this complaint as in Elizabeth Dilling’s infamous “Red Net-. work.” Dignified as a legal document by filing in the San Francisco County Clerk’s office it will be broadcast as the gospel truth to damn anyone it mentions. And, incidentally, it affords a splendid means of shaking down patrioteers and scared businessmen who quiver with fear and appre-. hension at the mention of the wily reds.

Let Freedom Ring

A Visitor

A recent visitor to our office was A. L. Crawford, attorney in the $5,100,000 San Francisco damage suit that charges a vast Communist plot to deprive his client of his job in a labor union. As “Mr. Smith” he purchased a copy of the April “News’’ to read the story we printed there about the suit he filed. Mr. Smith, or rather Mr. Craw- ford, is a member of the American Legion who saw service in France, emerging from that conflict with a cracked spine and other painful injuries. He is a native of California, springing from an unfortunate family situation that compelled him to fight adversity early in life. One of his early jobs was driving a team of mules. From that experience, Mr. Crawford states he learned the lesson that some men, including Communists, are like mules, who do not respond to reason. He made effective use of whips and kicks’ up recalcitrant mules, and advocates such treatment for all “unreasonable” men. Now, to this writer’s mind, Mr. Crawford’s proposal is not only unreasonable but barbarous. Nevertheless, I won’t advocate or resort to force to convince Mr. Crawford or compel him to agree with me.

Flag Case Hearing

The Sacramento flag salute case, pending in the California courts since April 28, 1936, will be heard in the State Supreme Court in Sacramento on May 5. Arguments will be presented by William A. Green, Assistant District Attorney of Sacramento County, appearing on behalf of the Sacramento School Board, appellants, and Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco, A. C. L. U. attorney representing Charlotte Gabrielli, the child who refused to salute the flag because of religious objections. The decision in the present proceedings will be final, unless an appeal is taken to the United States Supreme Court.

Out of Business

Chris E. Maze has closed up his Pittsburg Patrol Service and left the community. Re- cently the A. C. L. U. requested revocation of his State Detective License because of charges that he had ‘‘without provocation, attacked with his club citizens of Pittsburg and members of the steel workers’ union.”’ The scheduled hearing before the State Board of Prison Terms on April 22nd was cancelled when the steel workers declared their purpose had been accomplished with his departure from the community.

Johnson Stalls Mooney Resolution’

The Washington Merry-Go-Round reported on April 23rd that Senator Hiram Johnson has stalled the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of the Senate Resolution memorializing Governor Merriam to pardon Tom Mooney FOUR times by requesting an opportunity to be heard by the Committee and then failing to appear at scheduled meetings. So far, Senator-Johnson has not denied the story. We’re going to give him. a special opportunity to do just that by putting the question to him by letter. We'll let you know the answer.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Right To Distribute Leaflets

(We are reprinting herewith the essential portions of the outstanding U. S. Supreme Court decision in the case of (Lovell v. City of Griffin, Ga., decided March 28, 1938, in which a unanimous court invalidated an ordinance which prohibits the distribution of “literature of any kind’’ without a police permit, on the ground that “it strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship.” 'The Civil Liberties Union appeared in the case as amicus curiae.)

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant, Alma Lovell, was convicted in the recorder’s court of the violation of a city ordinance and was sentenced to imprisonment for fifty days in default of the pay- ment of a fine of $50 .

The ordinance in (liccion is as follows:

‘Section 1. That the practice of distributing, either by hand or otherwise, circu- lars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind, whether said articles are being delivered free, or whether same are being sold, within the limits of the City of Griffin, without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager of the City of Griffin, such practice shall be deemed a nuisance, and punishable as an offense against the City of Griffin.

‘Section 2. The Chief of Police of the City of Griffin and the police force of the City of ‘Griffin are hereby required and directed to suppress the same and to abate any nuisance as is described in the first section of this ordinance.”

Distributed Religious Tracts

The violation, which is not denied, consisted of the distribution without the re- quired permission of a pamphlet and magazine in the nature of religious tracts, setting forth the gospel of the “Kingdom of Jehovah.”’ Appellant did not apply for a permit, as she regarded herself as sent “by Jehovah to do His work’ and that such an application would have been “an act of disobedience to His commandment”...

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. .. It is also well settled that municipal ordinances adopted under state authority constitute state action and are within the prohibition of the amendment. ..

Distribution Of All “Literature’’ Prohibited

The ordinance in its broad sweep prohibits the distribution of ‘‘circulars, hand- books, advertising, or literature of any kind.”’ It manifestly applies to pamphlets, magazines and periodicals. The evidence against appellant was that she distributed a certain pamphlet and a magazine called the “Golden Age.” Whether in actual ad- ministration the ordinance is applied, as apparently it could be, to newspapers, does not appear. The city manager testified that “‘every one applies to me for a license to distribute literature in the City of Griffin.”’ The ordinance is not limited to “‘literature” that is obscene or offensive to public morals or that advocates unlawful conduct. There is no suggestion that the pamphlet and magazine distributed in the instant case were of that character. The ordinance embraces “literature” in the widest sense.

The ordinance is comprehensive with respect to the method of distribution. It covers every sort of circulation “either by hand or otherwise.”’ There is thus no restriction in its application with respect to time or place. It is not limited to ways which might be regarded as inconsistent with the maintenance of public order, or as involving disorderly conduct, the molestation of the inhabitants, or the misuse or littering of the streets. The ordinance prohibits the distribution of literature of any kind at any time, at any place, and in any manner without a permit from the city manager.

Freedom From Previous Restraint

We think that the ordinance is invalid on its face. Whatever the motive which induced its adoption, its character is such that it strikes at the very foundation of the free- dom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship. The struggle for the free- dom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor. It was against that power that John Milton directed his assault by his ““Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing.’’ And the liberty of the press became initially a right to publish ‘Without a license what formerly could be published only with one.”’ While this freedom from previous restraint upon publication cannot be regarded as exhausting the guarantee of liberty, the prevention of that restraint was a leading purpose in the adoption of the constitutional provision. . . Legislation of the type of the ordinance in question would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form.

Free Press Includes Leaflets

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the de- fense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abund- antly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publi- cation which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated...

“Liberty Of Circulating”

The ordinance cannot be saved because it relates to distribution and not to publica- tion. “Liberty of circulating is an essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value.’’ The license tax in Grosjean v. American Press Company was held invalid because of its direct | tendency to restrict circulation.

As the ordinance is void on its face, it was not necessary for appellant to seek a permit under it.

Governor Praised for Veto of ney York “Red” Ban

Commending Governor Herbert H. Lehman for his “‘ringing veto’ of the McNaboeDevaney bill barring Communists from public office, the New York Civil Liberties Committee terms his message “‘a lesson in neglected aspects of fundamental Americanism which the country needs to learn over and over.”’

In a telegram to Governor Lehman, following his veto message, the Committee declared: ‘“‘We regret to note among the supporters of this un-American legislation religious elements whose own minority rights are often at stake but who failed to comprehend the lesson you so effectively teach. Sober common sense even among opponents of radical minorities will accept your interpretation of enduring American principles.”

Disapproving of the bill “in the interest of safeguarding democracy,’ Governor Lehman upheld contentions of the A. C. L. U. and other liberal groups which at3 tacked the measure as “abridging freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.”

“Were we of this liberal State to approve this bill today,” said the Governor in his veto message, ‘‘we might readily find tomorrow that we had opened flood gates of oppressive legislation in the nation against religious, racial, labor and other minority groups.”

The late Justice Holmes and Chief Justice Hughes were quoted by the Governor in support of his thesis that a successful democracy must permit minorities to exist free from oppression, and that inroads into their liberties would, in the end, affect the liberties of all of the people.

Brutal Attack By Police Against Anti-Nazi Picket

San Francisco police on Saturday, April 16, violently dispersed a peaceful picket line demonstrating in front of the Nazi Consulate. Nine men and two girls were ar

FLASH!

SAN FRANCISCO, April 28.—The San Francisco Police Commission to: day found Officer Ernest Reinke “Not Guilty” of charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. Despite testimony that Reinke tore a sign from a picket’s back and then slapped her in the face, four or five officers, including Officer Reinke, denied the charges. One of the star performers was Stanley M. Doyle, who described himself as an attorney residing in Oregon. He stated he is temporarily residing somewhere in the 2900 block on Van Ness Avenue and that his present work is making an investigation for a client. Doyle, who on April 23 assaulted Ernest Besig and a News cameraman, testified that Mr. Besig, the complainant in the case, had told him that he arrived at the scene five minutes after the affair ended, and that he Doyle had seen it all, and particularly that Officer Reinke conducted himself in a very commendable manner and used no force upon the girl picket whatever.

rested on charges of disturbing the peace. Ernest Besig, local director of the A. C. L. U., who witnessed the demonstration, subsequently filed a complaint with the San Francisco Police Commission charging Officer Ernest Reinke brutally attacked a girl picket and committed “other acts unbecoming an officer.’ A hearing on the charges is scheduled for April 28. The complaint reads, in part, as follows:

“On the 16th day of April, 1938, shortly after noon, the complainant and Wayne M. Collins, Esq., member of the San Francisco bar, were on their way to lunch when they stopped to observe a group of pickets patrolling in front of the building at 201 San- . some Street. Two policemen were standing at the entrance to the building. Shortly aftérward a patrol car or van drew up on Sansome Street while a radio car parked on Pine Street around the corner from Sansome. The arriving officers, among them Officer Reinke, conferred and then seized and placed in the van the leader of the pickets and such other persons wearing khaki uniforms. Thereafter the officers were instructed to ‘‘Let’s break it up.’’ The remaining pickets were herded and shoved down Sansome Street to California, where they headed towards Battery Street. As one of the pickets, a girl, since identified as Mrs. Marjorie Cawthorn of 1523 Sacramento Street, moved down Sansome Street, Officer Reinke came upon her and violently pulled from her back a sign suspended there by a cord tied around her neck. The girl spun around and as she did so Officer Reinke struck her across the face with his open hand, seized her strenuously by the arm and bundled her into the waiting patrol car.”

PLEDGE

I promise to give the sum of .......... ; per month or .............-.... per year to- ward the support of the American Civil, Liberties .Union, No. Calif. Branch 216 Pine St., San Francisco, and I enclose 6...................-.. as payment on the same. I reserve the right to terminate this pledge whenever I see fit. Name Street City. Date

CALL OUT THE MILITIA!

Page 3 ‘

Federal and state legislation to curb use of the National Guard both in strikes and in support of “arbitrary powers of governors,” is urged by the American Civil Liberties Union in a pamphlet, “Call Out the Militia!’ sent today to its members throughout the country. The proposed legislation will be shortly introduced in Congress, according to the Union.

The pamphlet, a survey of the use of troops in strikes prepared for the Union by Walter Wilson and Albert Deutsch, characterizes the National Guard as ‘‘a constant menace to civil liberties” and calls for the complete abolition of martial law.

Pointing out that efforts to end abuses of the National Guard through resort to the courts have proved futile, the pamphlet favors a federal law to lay down the con- ditions under which the National Guard can be ordered out. Legal definitions are needed, according to the Union, for the National Guard’s powers and duties as well as of the terms “emergency,” “riot,’’ and. “insurrection,” indiscriminately used by governors to justify ordering out the militia. Direct or indirect private subsidies to the National Guard or to individual guardsmen should be prohibited, says the Union.

Suggested Legislation

Legislation suggested by the A. C. L. U. provides that: “1. No troops shall be sent on police duty without a written demand on the governor by local enforcement authorities setting forth the necessity for the troops.

“2. If there is any doubt as to the justification for the troops, a prompt and open public hearing should be held by the governor. —

“3. Troops should not be sent unless unlawful acts have been committed and threaten to continue, and when the local public officials are unable to maintain law and order.

“4, After the troops are called out, civil authorities should not be superseded by the military; persons arrested by the military must be turned over to the civil authorities for trial; no court martial should have jurisdiction over civilians.

“5. In the case of strikes, the National Guard may not prohibit any of the peaceful acts of strikers protected by the provisions of the federal or state labor injunction laws.

“6. Members of the National Guard should be prohibited from acting outside their duties as guardsmen in such capacities as strikebreakers, private detectives, privately-paid deputy sheriffs or private guards.

The Union’s Stand

Explaining its stand on the issue, the Union declared:

“The Civil Liberties Union does not, of course, take the position that the use of troops in strikes is never justified. It holds that they should be called out with caution and that their authority should be exercised with restraint. It advocates the practical abolition of martial law, which is wholly unnecessary to maintain law and order. The civil courts should remain, as most state constitutions provide, an author- ity above any military tribunal in dealing with civilians.” .

The record compiled for the Union of the use of troops in disturbances involving workers, farmers and unemployed for the five years 1933-37, inclusive, shows a total of eighty-three instances in which troops were called out in thirty-six states. The pamphlet shows conclusively that employers contribute toward the upkeep of armories, “furnish free barracks, refreshments, music and even dancing partners for men on duty.”

Censorship Station Bans — “Labor On The March”

Station KGGC, San Francisco’s censorship station, which last month banned a speech by A. F. Gaynor, State Chairman of Labor’s Non-Partisan League, scheduled for the regular LABOR ON THE MARCH program, has completed its ex-cathedra— and extra-legal—pronouncements by canceling entirely the program sponsored by the two I. L. W. U. unions on five nights a week from 6:30 to 6:45. The whole history of the contract is one of constant harrassment, intimidation, and outright censorship on the part of the proprietors of the station. From its inception, broadcasts had to be submitted in advance for overzealous inspection; excuses and objections were advanced to bar and emasculate programs, and the provisions of the Federal Communications Act entirely overridden. The banning of LABOR ON THE MARCH following the refusal to let Gaynor and Miss Fredricka Martin, American nurse returned from Spain, on the program is excused by 8S. H. Patterson, manager of KGGC on the ground that “We’re not big enough to fight Big Business and Big Business has too much power back in Washington.” The owners of the station contend (1) that the Newspaper Guild is negotiating for the time, which representatives of the Guild deny; (2) that if they do not heed the pressure of “business” to stop the program, wires will be pulled in Washington to see that KGGC’s license is not renewed. The Federal Communications Commission is established to safeguard the provisions of the Act requiring that radio time shall be available to ALL of the people ALL of the time; that there shall be no censorship; that freedom of speech shall be preserved. But evidently not in San Francisco, where it is henceforth BUSINESS ON THE MARCH WITH KGGC. Please send protests to the Federal Communications Com- mission, Washington, D. C.

An Urgent Appeal — For Help

The case of Albert Van Laeken, who was denied citizenship by U. S. District Judge A. F. St. Sure because of the court’s “‘suspicion” that Van Laeken has “‘a preference for another form of government than our own,” may be appealed, if sufficient funds can be raised to print the transcript of the testimony and the briefs. The Board of | Directors of the Civil Liberties Union in New York City voted to spend up to $112.50 on the case, but a correponding amount must be raised here by May 10. We appeal to all friends of civil liberties to contribute what they can afford to the costs of this worthy suit. The real issue to be decided is whether citizenship may be denied because of the applicant’s economic beliefs.

Propose Jewett Investigation

The Defense Committee of Local No. 49. of the American Federation of Teachers is urging those interested in the maintenance of academic freedom in California schools to write to the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee requesting it to include the case of Victor Jewett in its proposed investigation of civil lhberties in California. Jewett, Kureka social studies teacher, was fired from his job after the 1935 Eureka lumber strike on charges of alleged “unprofessional conduct.”

Refugee Camp Motion Pictures oo

The A. C. L. U. has taken fifty feet of 8 millimeter motion pictures of the Refugee Camp for Nevada County vigilante victims established by the S. R. A. in Sacramento. They will be loaned to responsible organizations and individuals, who must provide their own projector. The films present scenes from the daily life of the wounded refugees and their families in the tent city, — and take five minutes for showing.

Page 4.

American Civil Liberties Union News Publistiea monthly at 216 Pine St., San Fran- cisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The “American Civil Liberties Union.

Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG ...... Editor PAULINE W. DAVIES........Associate Editor

Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. Five Cents per copy.

VIGILANTES RULE NEVADA COUNTY

The outbreak of ilaee perrored: in Nevada County has received such wide coyerage in the public press that it needs no recapitulation here. Attorney Herbert Resner. and the Internatinoal Labor Defense have done excellent work in defending the rights of the unfortunate miners and their sympathizers and in exposing the situation to the general public.

At the inception of the trouble, the A. C. L. U. offered its assistance to the miners’ representatives and entered protests with the Attorney General and the Sheriff of Nevada County as indicated by the following press release:

-. The Northern California Amerviban Civil Liberties Union today called upon Attorney General U. S. Webb and Carl Tobiassen, Sheriff of Nevada County, for immediate action in the Murchie Mine Strike. Declaring that anarchy and the reign of terror created by vigilante attacks upon residents and strikers of Grass Valley and Nevada City are transforming the area into ‘‘another bloody Harlan County’ the letter of Ernest Besig, Northern California Director of the Union, charged that ‘‘Law enforcement agents have stood idly by siding with and condoning the acts of the vigilantes. In the face of such chaos and anarchy, the Sheriff has nevertheless declared that the. situation is well in hand, and in the best manner of Mayor Hague of Jersey City, has even stated that there is no room for the CIO in Nevada County. Every shred of civil liberties has been denied the striking miners and their sympathizers.

“This situation demands, the exercise by you of your constitutional powers to sup- plant indifferent law enforcement agents who not only tolerate but abet lawlessness. Despite the Sheriff, it is your duty to make room for the CIO in Nevada County.”

To protect the constitutional rights of all the citizens, the Union urged the Attorney General to send agents and deputies to Nevada County to take over control of law enforcement agencies, and presented a formal demand for prosecution of the known vigilantes, as was undertaken by the Attorney General’s office against the Santa Rosa tar and feather mob in 1936.

The telegram despatched to Sheriff Carl Tobiassen demanded, “Immediate arrest and prosecution of all vigilantes who have participated in the present reign of terror, and protection of the civil rights of all the citizens, including members of the CIO. ‘Contrary to your reported statements, it is your sworn duty to uphold the rights of the CIO and to make room for it in your county.”’

About Stanley Doyle

-. (Continued from Page 1, Col. 2) which he gave to Besig, and proceeded to blame him for his difficulties with the press. He also reiterated his previous threats.

Criminal Action Planned

Besig is planning to file a criminal complaint against Doyle, while representations will be made to the Police Commission. for failure of the police officers to make an arrest.

Camera-shy Doyle will be remembered as one of the attorneys for the Vigilantes in the tar and feather trial prosecutions in Santa Rosa in the fall of 1986. He was compelled to withdraw when the Court learned he was not a member of the California bar. His camera shyness may be attributed to his spying activities, Dickstein Bill Denying Citi- zenship For Political Views Opposed

Progressive members of the House of Representatives were urged by the Civil Liberties Union this week to oppose a bill which would deny citizenship to those who believe in “‘any form of government for the United States contrary to that now existing.”’ The measure (H. R. 9690), introduced by Rep. Samuel Dickstein of New York, has been reported by the Immigration Committee and is now on the House calendar. —

Contending that the bill, although apparently harmless, was “fraught with many dangers” because of its general language, the Union pointed out that personal pre- judices of naturalization examiners and judges would subject the bill to varying in- terpretations.

In a letter to 61 Congressmen, the Union said:

“What is, for instance, the ‘form of government of the United States’? Does it in- clude the assumed powers of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress uncon- stitutional? Does it preclude advocating amendments which would alter the form of government, or the advocacy of such proposals as a war referendum or the President’s bill? Might it not be used against advocacy of the public ownership and operation of industry, or the licensing of interstate industries?

‘“Membership in organizations would be made a test of citizenship or the cancella-. tion of citizenship once acquired. Members would be held responsible for all literature issued by-an organization. The bill would put every judge in naturalization courts in the’ position of having to determine what organizations advocate a change in the ‘form of government,’ Minority political parties and even CIO unions might be so regarded in the minds of some judges.”

The Union holds that the present law, in denying citizenship to persons who disbe- lieve in organized government or who advocate overthrow of government by force and violence, is wholly sufficient.

DRASTIC ANTI-PICKETING ORDINANCE PROPOSED FOR LOS ANGELES

Despite Mayor Shaw’s veto in January of an anti-picketing ordinance, previously passed by the City Council, because it was “confusing, unenforceable or unconstitu‘tional,’’ Southern Californians, Inc., a business men’s organization, has sponsored an initiative petition for a city ordinance to regulate picketing. Terms of the proposed measure are even more drastic than those of the vetoed ordinance. It would limit pickets to bona fide employees of the business involved, allow only one picket at each entrance to the place of business, and require them to be stationed at least 25 feet apart.

L. A. HANDBILL LAW INVALID; O’TOOL UPHOLDS S. F. ORDINANCE

‘Los Angeles’ anti-handbill ordinance was ruled invalid on March 30 by Judge Joseph Call in the case of two persons held for distribution of leaflets during Mrs. F. D. Roosevelt’s recent speech at the L. A. Shrine Auditorium. Taking judicial notice of Chief Justice Hughes’ ruling in the Griffin, Ga., pamphlet distribution appeal brought before the U. S. Supreme Court by the A. C. L. U., Judge Call dismissed the charges, and, in effect, ruled out the ordinance. The opinion Judge Call cited stated, in part, ‘‘Liberty-of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets.” The City Attorney has appealed the ruling.

In San Francisco, City Attorney John J. O’Toole declared the Supreme Court decision would not affect the local ordinance because “Our ordinance merely prevents distribution of. handbills and. pampilet from littering up the streets.”

Labor Unions Threatened By Initiative Measure

On April 14 two representatives of a group calling itself the ‘‘Women of the Pacific’ and claiming a membership of 5000 in Southern California, filed a proposed initiative petition with the Attorney General’s office to,appear on the November ballot regulating labor organizations. The women identified themselves as Mrs. Edwin Selvin, wife of the editor of the Seattle Business Chronicle, who said the organization had 50,000 members in the state of Washington, and Mrs. J. R. French, wife of a Los Angeles physician. The Attorney General issued a 100-word title on April 26, thereby permitting circulation of petitions which require more than 186,000 valid signature.

The proponents of the measure, who claim they are not against labor unions, are leaders in the so-called Housewives’ Crusade of Los Angeles, sponsored by Harry Chandler, owner of the Times. According to their literature, ‘“‘All persons who desire to keep the rackets out of Southern California, and to perpetuate Los Angeles as the outstanding open shop city in the United States, are invited to aid us with both moral and financial support.”

The proposed measure would not only perpetuate Los Angeles as an open shop city, but would virtually drive labor unions out of the state. It requires the incorporation of all trades unions, the filing of financial statements and membership lists: The right to strike is strictly limited by the following provision:

“No Labor Organization shall call, conduct or participate in, any strike except for the purpose of enforcing against the employer or employers of some of its members the demands or rights of such > members with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or working conditions; and no members or member of such Labor Organization whose rights are not directly and immediately involved, or who is not directly and im- mediately concerned in such demands, shall be called on such a strike or required to participate therein.”

In cases where strikes are permitted, all demands must first be ratified by the Union at an election at which the boss is represented on the balloting committee; and from two to six months must elapse before conditions precedent to a strike can be satisfied. Once a strike is called, no person or organization may contribute funds to be used for continuing the strike. Heavy fines and jail terms are provided for violations of the act.

H-E-A-R FREDERICK J. LIBBY

Executive Secretary, National Council for Prevention of War, Washington, D. C.

“AMERICA IN THE WAR CRISIS”

Millinery Workers Hall

1067 Market St., near 7th St. SAN FRANCISCO |

Sunday, May 15, and p.m.

Auspices: Keep America Out of War Committee.