vol. 3, no. 8

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST, 1938 No. 8

THE STORY OF WESTWOOD

A Report On California’s Latest Vigilante Outrage

Following the recent example of Nevada County, company-led Westwood vigilantes broke a lumber strike on July 13 by driving 800 striking C.I.O. workers and their families from the community. The Civil Liberties Union made an immediate investigation of the situation and took steps to curb the wholesale violations of civil liberties. Follow- ing is a summary of our investigation and activities:

Westwood is a company town of about 3500 persons, owned by the Red River Lumber Company. It is located in the beautiful Lassen National Volcanic Park, more than 300 miles northeast of San Francisco. The unpainted shacks and dusty, unpaved roads give the town a drab and poverty stricken | appearance. The only work for residents is in the mill or pine forests, and in the company controlled stores. At the present time, the company employs between 1200 and 2000 persons.

Two labor unions have sought to organize the workers. One is the Industrial employees’ Union, referred to as the I.E.U., dominated by the company, and the other is the International Woodworkers of America, Local 6-58, a C.L.O. affiliate. The com-pany union won an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board by a vote of about 2 to 1 over the C.I.O. union, but the I.E.U. has not been certified as the bargaining agency for the workers because of the charge that it is company dominated. Since the vigilante action, Secretary Edward Vandeleur of the State Federation of Labor has granted an A. F. of L. charter to the I.E.U., which was installed by Don Cameron, organizer of the Carpenters’ Union.

Wage Cut Brings Strike

Recently, the company announced a 17% per cent reduction in wages. Refusing to accept the cut, the C.I.O. union on July 8 voted a strike. A picket line was. established the following day, Saturday, July 9, and maintained until it was broken on July 18, although the plant suspended operations at noon on July: 11; because most of the workers refused to work at the decreased wages. The ranks of the IE.U. were split and the C.I.0. during the brief strike built its membership from about 500 to approximately 800 persons, more than a majority of those employed at the plant at that time.

Deputized Vigilantism

On July 13, hundreds of vigilantes, armed principally with guns and pick and axe handles, massed inside the mill gates. The sheriff of Lassen County obligingly depu- tized an admitted 700 I.E.U. members and officials of the plant. Drenching the picket line with water from a fire hose, the pickets were finally put to rout when the vigilantes charged their line. This was followed by an attack upon the strikers’ soup kitchen which speedily fell to the vigilantes. After these attacks, the vigilantes visited the homes of strikers and ordered them to leave town immediately. Persons suspected of C.I.O. sympathies were picked up in the streets, stores and even the post office, and tried by a vigilante mob that congregated on the main street of Westwood. If they were found wanting, they were ordered to leave town at once. No one was se- riously injured, but in the hasty departure of the strikers, families became separated and possessions were left behind.

Plant Superintendent Vigilante Chief

The evidence is convincing that the vigilante mob operated under the leadership of officials of the Red River Lumber Company in order to break the strike. The (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

Mother Hubbard

Was in no worse plight than the Civil Liberties Union finds itself right now. The cupboard is bare, and promises to be so until our next general appeal for funds in November. Therefore, any contributions received at this time will be particularly appreciated.

Stanley M. Doyle Disappears

The camera-snatching Stanley Morton Doyle has disappeared. Since a warrant for his arrest was issued, nothing has been seen or heard of Doyle. Our belief is that he suddenly found his previous stamping grounds in Portland, Oregon, more to his liking.

When in a letter to the San Francisco News Doyle charged the School of Social studies with being a “red incubator,” he signed himself as Past National Commander, 40 et 8 of the American Legion. That organization has no such officer. It would have been more correct for him to state that he was Chef de Chemin de Fer of the 40 et 8 in 1926. At the present time, he is reported to be a member in good standing of Voiture 25, Portland, Oregon.

If anyone knows of the present whereabouts of Doyle, we would appreciate receiving the information.

Injunction Suit Against Hague In Court's Hands

After four weeks of spectacular hearings, with Mayor Frank Hague of Jersey City on the witness stand a large part of the time, the injunction suit brought jointly by the American Civil Liberties Union and the C.I.O. to restrain interference with civil rights in Jersey City was taken under advisement by Federal District Judge William Clark in Newark. After hearing arguments Judge Clark fixed August 1st for filing briefs and announced that he would render his decision the first week in September. He urged the losing side to appeal to the Supreme Court to get “its wise guidance on issues of such great public importance,”’ The case will first go to the Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia.

Morris L. Ernst, counsel for the C.1.0. ana the Civil Liberties Union, contended that the Jersey City authorities had proved the charges against themselves out of their own mouths and urged the issuance of an omnibus injunction. Counsel for Mayor Hague asked that the injunction be denied on the ground that the plaintiff organizations were engaged in a conspiracy ‘‘to take over Jersey City by force and violence and in- vasion.”’ Counsel for Mayor Hague had at the last minute rested their case without calling witnesses on the ground that in their opinion the plaintiffs had not proved — their charges. The action of Judge Clark in deferring a decision was both “unexeee and disappointing” according to the nion.

“WOMEN OF THE PACIFIC” ANTI-LABOR INITIATIVE FAILS TO QUALIFY

The anti-labor initiative sponsored by the “Women of the Pacific’ failed’ to secure the necessary signatures and hence will not find a place on the ballot at the genera? election in November. The proposal required the incorporation of all trades unions, and the filing of financial statements and membership lists. The right to strike was strictly limited, and no person or organization could contribute funds to oe see for the purpose of continuing a strike.

A.C.L.U. ENTERS BRIDGES CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE

The American Civil Liberties Union, through Attorney Lee B. Stanton, is opposing the contempt of court proceedings against Harry Bridges as a “friend of the court.”” Bridges is charged with contempt of court for having sent a telegram to Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins criticizing Judge Reuben Schmidt’s appointment of a receiver for the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union and also for having filed an affidavit with Judge Schmidt setting out his objections to the judge’s action.

Page 2

Court Rules L. A. Handbill Law Violates Freedom Of Press

The Los Angeles city ordinance prohibiting the distribution of handbills ‘“‘along or upon any street, sidewalk or park’ was held to be void and unconstitutional by Municipal Judge William R. McKay on July 21, because it abridges freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In accordance with the decision, Judge McKay liberated three striking members of the Los Angeles Newspaper Guild who had been charged with violating the ordinance in distributing leaflets titled, ‘“‘What’s the Truth About the Hollywood Citizen-News Strike?”

“Liberty of circulating is as essential to freedom of the press,” declared Judge Mc- Kay, ‘‘as liberty of publishing. Indeed without the right of circulation the publi- cation would be of little value. ... We are aware that the first step toward a dictator- ship is invariably an effort to throttle the press, to the ends that the people may be kept in ignorance of vital public matters, and that governmental abuses may be ren- dered exempt from criticism.”’

Judge McKay’s decision follows a similar one made by Judge Joseph L. Call on March 30. is now pending.

UNIQUE CONVICTION FOR USE OF FLAG IN RHODE ISLAND

In Woonsocket, Rhode Island, where the mayor and chief of police have taken the position that all Communist meetings in private halls are illegal, a lower court has just convicted three members of the Communist Party, including Ann Burlak, state secretary for Rhode Island, of violating a statute penalizing the use of the American flag for advertising purposes. The statute intended to prevent misuse of the flag in commercial advertising is common in many states but rarely invoked. The Communist pamphlet which caused the prosecution shows on its front page a reproduction of the well-known cartoon “The Spirit of ’76” in which the flag is shown, and on the back cover an advertisement of a book by Earl Browder “The Democratic Front.’ judge in convicting the defendants without a jury said: “If there had been no advertisement on the pamphlet at all it was still desecration of the American flag because the contents of the pamphlet criticised such people as Chief Justice Hughes of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Former State Senator Sherwood who appeared in the case as counsel amicus curiae expects the conviction to be reversed when it comes up in the fall on appeal in the Superior Court before a jury, The conviction is without precedent in the United States as applied to the use of the flag on political literature. The American Civil Liberties Union has offered its services on the appeal. :

The continued police prohibition of Communist meetings in Woonsocket has resulted in a suit for $2000 damages against a police inspector for false arrest by a local business man, Morris Kominsky, who furnished bail for the three arrested Communists. He was picked up and questioned for more than an hour by the police inspector.

PARDONS FOR SCOTTSBORO BOYS ” SOUGHT

Commutation by Governor Bibb Graves of Alabama of the one death sentence in the Scottsboro cases, that of Clarence Norris, puts four of the five remaining boys under a virtual life sentence. One boy is serving 20 years for an attack on a deputy sheriff. Petitions for the pardon of all the boys have been filed with the Governor by the Scottsboro Defense Committee in which the Civil Liberties Union is represented. Influential newspapers in Alabama have urged that favorable action be taken.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

An appeal from that decision

The A. C. L. U. Upholds Wagner Act As Civil Liberties Document

Editer’s Note: Following is an editorial criticism of the Union’s policies appearing in the San Francisco ‘Chronicle on July 6, 1938, and an answer thereto by Roger N. Baldwin, national director of the American Civil Liberties. Union:

Silence for Employers

The Civil Liberties Union offers a new puzzle by its praise of the National Labor Relations Board for administration of what the Union regards as ‘‘in substance, a civil liberties document.’’ That document, of -course,.is the Wagner Labor.Act, admittedly a one-side law.’

The Union is devoted to resisting infringements upon free speech. We have had oc- casion to remark that it usually is found most active in the cause of radical spokes- men. More recently, however, it went to the rescue of Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling, an as- -siduous red hunter, who has included many if not all the active Civil Liberties Union members as strands of her “‘red web,’ but who now is accused of slandering the Me- thodist Bishop of Nebraska and Iowa.

Now the Union praises the Labor Act, which can toss an employer into jail if he: tells his “employees what he thinks. The Union is consecrated to a good cause, but, frankly, its. alignments frequently are perplexing: Civil liberties, apparently, do not extend to people who have to meet pay rolls under the Wagner Act.

Roger Baldwin Answers

We note in your issue of July 6th an editorial taking exception to our support of the administration of the National Labor Relations Act, which you describe as a onesided law. The courts have almost unanimously supported the administration of the Act, as well as sustaining it on principle.

‘The law in effect is a civil liberties document because it does no more than guar- antee freedom of workers to organize, free of coercion or restraint by their employers. But you raise a question about employers’ rights under the law, suggesting that they “can be tossed into jail for telling employees what they think.” No employer has been penalized for his freedom of speech, apart. from actual acts of coercion. No employer is likely to be. But the Civil Liberties Union has taken note of the need for clarifying employers’ rights by requesting the National Labor Relations Board to hear an argument for modifying one section of the order in the Ford case. That section taken by itself seems to go beyond a proper restraint of language as a coercive part of conduct.

The Civil Liberties Union concurs with your views that employers, like workers, have their civil liberties too. But we do not . think the National Labor Relations Act as administered endangers them.

NON-SALUTING PARENT HELD FIT GUARDIAN

When Alathea Reynolds’ parents were divorced, the court awarded custody of the 12-year-old child to the father. Subsequently, a Texas court ordered the child placed in a state institution, largely because father and child, as members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, refuse to salute the flag. Restoring Alathea to her father’s custody, the Seventh District Court of Appeals of Texas, recently reversed the lower court’s order and upheld'religious freedom in the following language:

“The flag is emblematic of the justice, greatness, and power of the United States —these, together, guarantee the political liberty of the citizen, but the flag is no less Symbolic of the justice, greatness, and power of our country when they guarantee to the citizen freedom of conscience. Beyond my comprehension are the vagaries of people who claim and accept the protection of their government in order to worship God according to the dictates of their con‘science, but refuse to salute their country’s flag in recognition of such protection. Yet, however reprehensible to us such conduct may be, their constitutional right must be held sacred; when this ceases, religious freedom ceases.

“However much we may disagree with or disapprove their religious beliefs, the failure of appellant, because financially unable, to supply greater comfort and pleasure for his daughter, together with their refusal to salute the flag, do not constitute a Sufficient cause to adjudge the father disqualified and unfitted to have the care, custody and control of his minor daughter.” ee v. Rayborn, 116 S. W. (2nd) Attorney Wayne M. Collins has called this decision to the attention of the California Supreme Court which has had the Sacramento flag salute case under consideration since May 5.

N. J. DECISION HOLDS FREE SPEECH SECONDARY RIGHT; UNION : TO AID APPEAL

The American Civil Liberties Union will participate in an appeal from an “astound- ing decision” of Vice Chancellor Berry of New Jersey holding that free speech “is a qualified constitutional right’? inferior to the “inherent right of acquiring and possessing property.”

Jerry O'Connell Speaks At Money Mass Meeting

‘Congressman Jerry J. O’Connell, fighting Democratic liberal from Montana, is coming to California in August to aid the final. drive for Tom Mooney’s freedom. He will speak at three great mass meetings to be held by Organized Labor forces and progressive organizations throughout California.

On Sunday afternoon, August 14th, at 2 o'clock, Congressman O’Connell will address a rally in the San Francisco Civic Auditorium protesting the twenty-second anniversary of the unjust imprisonment of: Mooney and Billings. The meeting is being sponsored by the San Francisco Bay Area A. F. of L. Committee for the Freedom of Mooney and Billings, and has the full co-operation of the Committee for Industrial Organization and the Railroad Employes’ Committee for the Release of Thomas J. Mooney. Twelve. thousand un- ionists and supporters of Tom Mooney and Warren Billings are expected to pack the Civic Auditorium to voice their protest against this twenty-two year old outrage of justice, and to speed Tom Mooney’s case now pending before the United States Supreme Court to victory.

During the past two years, O’Connell has. made an enviable record as the foremost liberal in Congress. He has been among the leaders of the “Young Turks,” the bloc of liberal Congressmen most active in supporting President Roosevelt. His recent fight against the dictator of Jersey City, “I Am the Law” Hague, has won him nationwide acclaim as a fearless champion of democratic institutions.

O’Connell introduced in Congress the Murray-O’Connell Resolution, memorializing the governor of California to grant Tom Mooney an immediate pardon, and calling on President. Roosevelt to intervene in Mooney’s behalf. Hearings on this resolution were concluded before a subcommittee of the Judiciary shortly before Congress adjourned, after which the Subcommittee re| ported the resolution favorably. Many witnesses were heard, and Congressman Celler, Chairman of the Subcommittee, went on a nation-wide radio broadcast to condemn California authorities for keeping Mooney in prison when his innocence was established beyond doubt.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Court Upholds Peaceful Picketing as Free Speech

Upholding the right of picketing as an expression of free speech, the California District Court of Appeals, Fourth District, recently granted a writ of habeas corpus to a picket who was jailed for contempt of. a court order prohibiting peaceful picketing. On July 22nd the State Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and hence did not. pass.-on whe merits’ of the issue.

The case arose in Bakersfield whos a retail store was picketed. by a.labor union representative to force Sunday closing. The. picket bore signs reading “Unfair,” “Unfair to Organized Labor,” “Unfair to: Organized “There is no. inti-.

“that his action. caused any disturbance or that he did any

Labor, Local No. 193. y mation,” said the court,

thing other than what is known as ‘peaceful picketing.’ ” was involved...

“In this state,” concludes ive. court, “the right to peacefully picket rests upon the constitutional guaranty of the right. of free speech. We cannot see how the right to peacefully picket, under the guaranty of free speech, could be confined to cases in: which there exists a dispute between an employer and organized labor over hours and conditions of employment, rate of pay, unionization of employees or employment of non-union men and not extend to a dispute between a business man and any citizen or group of citizens who may. differ -with him on a question of business: policy. The guaranty of the right of.free: speech is general and extends to,every class or . A secondary boycott. . group of. citizens. peacefully and properly conducted is legal in California under the constitutional guar-. anty of the right-of free speech. It is now too late for us to question such right. In a republic it is necessary that the rights of. freedom of speech and freedom of the press be zealously guarded by the courts. Those rights form the life stream of liberty. History teaches us.that when those rights are suspended, the right.to possess and enjoy private property rapidly vanishes.’’ (In re Lyons, 94 Cal. a 110 ee ade June 24, 1988.) "

Attorney R. W. arena ison. long ident: fied with the Civil Liberties Union in Bak- ersfield, appeared for the peaucaete

D. C. EMBASSY PICKETING. CASE PROGRESSES .

The case in the courts of the District of Columbia involving the law passed by the last Congress prohibiting picketing: within five hundred feet of a foreign embassy pro- gressed one step further when the: U. S. District Court granted the Union’s petition to review convictions by the police court of pickets from the American League for Peace and Democracy. Argument will be made in the fall by the Union’s Washington counsel in charge of the case.

OPEN FORUM

Editor:—I have received several communications from you of late, and the reason for not answering is financial difficulties. Yesterday some friends took me to the city, and while viewing the (Independence Day) parade, a gentleman who is a member’ of the Civil Liberties Union spoke to me, requesting me to join. But I explained my financial situation and he immediately took out a $1.00 bill and asked me to become a member. So I am forwarding the same tomorrow morning. Myhusband is on the $35.00 a month pension, and I am on S.E.R.A. with a measley $16.00.a month. You know what that means with $15.00 a month rent to pay. I did not get the name of the gentleman who asked: me to join, but he told me he had given $25.00 a short while ago, just to help the cause. -I.am a member of the I.L.D., also the Workers Alliance. Many thanks for the literature in the past.—E. E. J.

Anti-Picketing Initiative Violates Freedom Ot Speech

The Northern California Branch of thre American Civil Liberties Union is strongly opposed to the so-called ‘Labor Initiative’ sponsored by the California Committee for Peace in Employment Relations, which has qualified for a place on the November ballot, on the ground that it violates the fundamental right. of freedom of speech. Such violation arises from its prohibition of peaceful picketing—a form of free speech —in all labor controversies except a few ‘types of disputes where a ‘“‘primary strike” occurs. In the few instances where picketing is allowed, its exercise is hedged around with emasculating rules and regulations that are equally: violative of the constitu- tional guarantees of freedom of speech. In the main, the entire proposal is nothing more than a comprehensive state-wide antipicketing law.

While. failing to call attention to the interference with peaceful picketing, the sponsors, of. the measure have emphasized the prohibition of sit-down strikes and coer- cion in picketing. We feel that the former prohibition comes at a time when the need for such legislation has disappeared, and that the reason for its inclusion in the Act is to confuse the real issue—the prohibition of peaceful picketing.

Likewise there is no necessity for passing legislation to outlaw coercion and intimida- tion in picketing. Statutes already penalize assault and battery, disturbance of the peace and similar offenses involved in what is generally accepted as coercive picketing.

But the purpose of the sponsors is more subtle. They have extended the common mean- ing of the term coercion to make illegal acts of moral suasion which the public and the courts have accepted as perfectly legitimate. What has heretofore been regarded as peaceful picketing would henceforth be outlawed as coercion. Such playing with words will only tend to deceive the unwary voter into thinking that in supporting the measure he is abolishing violent picketing when he is in fact eliminating peaceful picketing. Moreover, the great length of the proposal and its involved nature will make difficult its consideration on the merits.

No one can seriously Govone the Committee’s protestations that the proposal is not anti-labor. The very terms of the Act contradict that assertion, and the added fact that its real sponsors are the anti-labor Associated Farmers would seem to be con- clusive on that point.

In considering picketing questions, we stand on the declaration of our National Board of Directors, that the Union “supports the right to picket in any circumstances, by any method, in any numbers, with the limitations only that such picketing shall not be accompanied by fraud, violence or actual obstruction of streets or highways.” Applying this test, we find the Act to be violative of civil liberties and we urge our members and friends to oppose it.

UNION TO INVESTIGATE CHARGES INVOLVING EMPLOYERS RIGHTS

‘Charges that recent orders of the National Labor Relations Board violate the rights of free speech of employers will be investigated: by the American Civil Liberties Union, Labor Board in reconsidering the order against the Ford Motor Company to clarify a section ordering the company to cease distribution of anti-union literature among its employees.

The Civil Liberties Union holds that “the restriction imposed upon the right of an employer to express himself to his employa8 ees concerning unions is occasioned and - limited by his restriction of the right of the workers to organize.” Restrictions upon utterances to employees should cease, according to the Union, as soon as employers cease coercive measures against the right to organize. The Union holds that “‘prohi- bition of coercive acts to prevent organization of employees does not violate civil liberties.”’ The Union’s position is that the line should be drawn between “expressions of opinion and language which is coercive.”

The recent orders of the Board of which complaint of violations of civil liberty is made concern the alleged participation of the American Rolling Mills in Kentucky in a municipal election to defeat trade union candidates; an order against employers in Maryland and North Carolina to cease distributing anti-union literature; and an or- der affecting the Ford Motor Company at Louis.

FIRST TWO LYNCHINGS OF YEAR 8 IN SOUTH

The first two lynchings of the year took place in the South in less than a week in July. In Rolling Fork, Mississippi a mob shot and burned a Negro blacksmith charged with killing-a white man. In Arabi, Georgia, an elderly Negro charged with killing. a police officer was first shot by a mob and burned while still living.

Senator Wagner, author of the anti-lynching bill in:‘the Senate, wired Attorney General Cummings urging that a prompt investigation be made of both lynchings. The Senator observed that while Congress was in session lynchings stopped for fear of 1937 saw the lowest lynching record in eight years.

which recently asked the

Do Closed Shop Agreements Violate Civil Rights?

When a closed shop contract is signed between a union and an employer all workers in the establishment are thereby obligated to join the union or leave their jobs. Some workers declining to join unions have contested in the courts the right of the em- ployer to exclude them from work for not joining a union.

These workers raise the question of their civil liberties, maintaining that their right not to join a union is quite as valid as the right of workers to join unions. Some of them object to joining a particular union because they regard it as engaged in rack- eteering. Others are opposed to paying high initiation fees and dues charged by some unions. In a few industries workers are excluded from joining unions, such as those discriminating against Negroes.

Union workers sustain the closed shop on the ground that union standards cannot be protected unless all the workers are required to join. They hold that workers who refuse to join are merely trying to gain the benefits of union organization without paying for them. Many employers © oppose the closed shop in order to weaken unions and ultimately to drive them from the industry. The Labor Relations Acts recognize closed shop agreements except in the cases where the unions do not represent a majority of the workers or where they are company-dominated.

The American Civil Liberties Union sees no issue of civil liberty in the claims of non- union workers against a closed shop agree-ment except where they may be excluded from union membership by reason of any arbitrary or unreasonable restriction on membership. In those cases the Union will defend their right to continued employment by recourse to the courts. Where a union engages in racketeering the remedy lies in action within the labor movement itself to clean house or in criminal proceedings against unlawful practices. (Statement adopted by the Board of Directors of the Hass Civil Liberties Union, June 27, 1988.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union News

Published monthly at 216 Pine St., cisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union.

Phone; EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG...Editor PAULINE W. DAVIBS....Associate Editor

Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Yeer. Five Cents per Copy.

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2) plant superintendent led the mob and the sheriff openly co-operated with the vigilantes.

About 250 strikers and their families took refuge in Sacramento where they were placed on State relief, while the remainder were scattered in various communities. A week later, the Sacramento contingent, under State Highway Patrol escort, returned to their homes.

An investigating committee composed of Ernest Besig, director of the A.C.L.U., Lou Goldblatt, organizer for the C.I.0O., J. Vernon Burke, State Secretary of Labor’s Non- Partisan League, and John Biggerstaff and Roy Grant, two of the refugees, visited Westwood on July 16 under the protection of the State Highway Patrol. The roads entering Westwood were still guarded by armed deputies and in the town itself many sheriff’s badges were in evidence.

Mob Jeers Investigating Committee

Following a meeting with Ted Walker, Vice-President and General Manager of the plant, the delegation was met by a hooting, jeering mob of about 150 people, who voiced threats against the two strikers in the delegation. Thereafter, throughout their presence in Lassen County, the delegation was followed by as many as thirty automobiles filled with vigilantes.

Upon being interviewed, Sheriff Olin Johnson denied that law and order had broken down but he would give no assurances that the returning refugees would be protected. One of the errands performed by the delegation was to return a three-year old child left with friends in Westwood to its parents in Sacramento. Leaving Lassen -County, the State Highway Patrol blocked the road in order to end pursuit of the delegation by vigilante automobiles.

Appeals to State and Federal Agencies

Appeals to various state and federal agencies for action against the vigilantes have thus far proved fruitless. At the time the incident occurred, the Union dispatched telegrams to President Roosevelt and exPresident Hoover urging them to use their influence. for the safe return of the refugees. Governor Merriam was requested to extend relief'and protection, while a demand was made on Sheriff Olin Johnson that he uphold the law. Attorney General U. 8S. Webb was requested to investigate and prosecute the lawless vigilantes in accordance with his constitutional powers, while the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee was urged to make an immediate investigation of vigilantism in California. The LaFollette Committee responded that it was giving serious consideration to our request and was furnished with additional details. The National Labor Relations Board dispatched an investigator from San Francisco, who declared that, “there is an organized vigilantism here, probably even more deep rooted than ever.’’

Demands for Federal Action Pressed

The national office of the Civil Liberties Union brought pressure upon Washington for federal action as did the national headquarters of the C.1.O. The Department of Justice referred complaints to United States District Attorney Frank Hennessy in San Francisco. That official declared he would ask superiors to dispatch a “GMan” to Westwood. A delegation that visited the United States Attorney, including Ernest Besig of the Civil Liberties Union, based its demands for federal prosecutions on three grounds. It charged (1) that a conspiracy existed to violate the civil rights of C.I.0. workers in Westwood which

‘Should The A. C. L. U Defend The Civil Liberties Of Ford?

Note: The A.C.L.U.-News welcomes the comments of its readers on the following or any other issue:

Editor.—As a subscriber to your monthly paper and a true supporter of civil liber- ties, I am sorry to see you wasting time coming to the support of civil liberties for the Ford Company. Ford deserves free speech as much as anyone else, but he is, I believe, well able to hire lawyers to protect his rights.

An old age pension group that devoted long columns in its paper to demanding old age pensions for millionaires would be a public laughing stock. I am afraid that the A.C.L.U., by similar tactics, deserves public ridicule, and I know that it makes itself the laughing stock of many liberals. Have the rights of the poor to civil liberties become so well established that after attending to all of their cases your staff has plenty of time and money left over to attend to the cases of those who already have a large staff of well paid lawyers? Your action doubtless represents an attempt to prove that you are not a “red” organization, but its effects will be, I fear, chiefly to cool the allegiance of liberals without attracting any membership or donations from the conservatives. .

If quoted at all, this letter is not to be quoted in part, but entire. But it is written chiefly to convey the opinion of one of your supporters about your tactics, not for publication. Peveril Meigs ord.

The Editor Replies

The issue raised by your letter is whether the A.C.L.U. should defend the civil liber- ties of those who are financially able to rights of Henry Ford are involved, but in some other matters it has been the rights of John Strachey, or it might be John L. Lewis. In other words affluence is sometimes discovered among individuals and groups with varying economic and political beliefs.

The Civil Liberties Union is non-partisan. It defends individuals and groups, not in support of what they have said, but in defense of their right. to say it. Essentially, then, the Union exists to defend principles. Free speech and free press are among those principles. And, in the Ford case, it is the principle of free speech which the Union is defending and its corollary, Mr. Ford’s right to that civil liberty.

The A.C.L.U. has always believed that the abelties of none are secure if the liberties of any may be violated. In accordance with that belief, the Union defends Mr. Ford, Tom Mooney, Mr. Hearst, the Scottsboro Boys, or any other individuals or groups whose civil rights. have been infringed or denied.

It is, of course, a truism that the rights of the poor are far more frequently violated than the rights of the economic royalists. That is why most of our money is spent on them. If, however, the rights of even the rich can be invaded with impunity, how much more easily may the liberties of the. poor and powerless be encroached upon if the organizations existing to defend civil rights remain silent while those rights are destroyed. Doubtless, Mr. Ford needs no help to finance his defense; but the principle at stake requires constant defense.

Of course, in such cases, we do not render active service. for those well able to pay for lawyers. Naturally, they never ‘call upon us for service. Editor.

defend themselves. In the instant case, the

ANTI-HAGUE RABBI OUSTED IN JERSEY CITY

The status quo prevails in Jersey City following the conclusion of the proceedings in the federal court for an injunction to restrain city officials from violating civil rights. A decision will not be handed down until the first week in September. Mean- while the Hague machine has added to its victims the congregation of Rabhi Benjamin Plotkin, outspoken critic, who have been ousted from the Jewish Community Center whose board is headed by a Hague appointee. Long threatened with exclusion, the Center officials acted suddenly to lock out the congregation, which now has no place of worship. None can be obtained in the city.

Pressure on the Department of Justice and on the Senate Civil Liberties Committee is being continued to get federal investigations of violations of civil rights on a broader scale than those covered by the court proceedings.

constituted a breach of the federal civil rights statute, similar to the situation in Harlan County, Ky.; (2) that there was evidence showing a conspiracy to prevent C. I. O. workers from testifying before a scheduled hearing of the National Labor Relations Board, and (3) assault and battery had been committed on federal property when C.I.O. workers were removed from the Westwood post office.

Webb Does Nothing

A delegation also visited Attorney-General U. S. Webb to demand an investigation and prosecution of the vigilantes, but after a two-hour conference he refused to take any action “at this time.” In other words, despite the fact that criminal acts have been committed neither the District Attorney nor the Attorney General want to prosecute.

The A.C.L.U. will continue to exercise what pressure it can to bring about federal and state prosecutions.

CATHOLICS BOYCOTT PRO-LOYALIST FILM

Censorship of motion pictures has not made much progress in California. Recent efforts of the K. of C. and other Catholic organizations to have the pro-Loyalist picture ‘“‘Blockade’”’ banned have proved abortive. Instead, church leaders are now agi- tating for a boycott. We note the following item in the Saint Monica’s Church (San Francisco) bulletin for July 17, 1938:

“Blockade” is a propaganda film. Do not patronize second-run theatres that will show this picture, which glorifies the cause in Spain which has persecuted the Christian people. No Catholic with a drop of red blood in his veins should ever lower himself by entering the portals of any United Artists showhouse, either this year or in the years te come.

Hear Congressman JERRY O'CONNELL Recently Renominated in a Smashing Victory in Montana. At the Big MOONEY BILLINGS Mass Rally

Other Speakers : Jack Shelley, G. F. Irvine, Harry Bridges, Jenny Matyas, Geo. T.. Davis, Ellis E. Patterson, Wm. Moseley Jones, Sheridan Downey, Herbert Resner, J. Meron Burke, Chairman.

SUNDAY, 2 P. M. AUGUST 14 CIVIC AUDITORIUM Auspices: Combined Forces of Organized Labor