vol. 3, no. 11

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. III SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER, 1938 No. 11

KEEP THE UNION ON THE JOB

A.C.L.U. Members and Friends Should Give Now For 1939

Appealing to its members and friends to increase their contributions, no matter how little, the A.C.L.U. has opened its annual drive for funds in Northern California. The goal has been set at $4000, or about $333 a month, for the fiscal year ending November 1, 1939. Small as this budget is, past experience shows that the Union’s 500 sup- porters must be more generous with their donations if it is to be filled.

During the past two years, the Union’s income has fallen below the same budgetary requirements. This year, while the membership has not dropped off from around the 500 figure, the Union is ending the fiscal year with a deficit of about $60, despite the fact that the national office granted a subsidy of $250, while the total expenditures were being kept within $3300. In other words, Northern California contrib uted only a little more than $3000 to maintain the A.C.L.U. in 1938. The Union cannot do business on that limited income, and it is, therefore, imperative that every supporter GIVE A LITTLE MORE FOR ’39.

Budget Plan Saves Annoying Appeals

It should be remembered by the Union’s supporters that the budget plan was introduced to place the Union on a sound financial footing and to eliminate the practice of repeated and annoying appeals to “‘save the Union.” Such appeals are expensive and limit the Union’s effectiveness. It should be free to solve civil liberties issues as they arise without interrupting its activities to raise money to carry on.

Since the budget plan was introduced, the Union has adhered to the policy of NO EMERGENCY APPEALS. It guarantees now, as it has during the past three years, that “If each supporter of the Union will NOW make a generous annual or monthly pledge for 1939, WE WILL PROMISE NOT TO BOTHER HIM FOR FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ANOTHER YEAR.” You can help us to fulfill that promise and put the Union upon a secure basis for 1939 by filling out the enclosed card and returning it to us AT ONCE. Sending now as much of your pledge as is convenient or the entire amount will save us the cost of future billing.

Pledge $15 a Year

In the past the Union has suggested pledges of $1.00 a month, or $12.00 a year. At the same time, it expressed the hope that its friends who were able to exceed that amount should do so in order to compensate for the many subscribers who can afford only the membership dues of $1.00. a year. This year the Union urges previous $12.00 a year subscribers to increase their gifts to $15.00 for 1939 and larger gifts from those who can afford them. In any event, give what you can.

NO OBLIGATION is incurred by your pledge that cannot immediately be withdrawn. The pledge card reads that, “I reserve the right to terminate this pledge whenever I see fit.”

The Budget

Consider the Union’s budget for 1939: LATION 8 es $2,200 Printing and Stationery.......... 750 enh ee es de 330 Poste Ce) 2 ic 270 Telephone and Telegraph...... 150 TVAVelLING (5000 a ae 1 LOO Furniture and Equipment...... 50 - Miscellaneous: 2.222... 150 $4,000

The Union now asks you to do your part in the fight for civil liberties. If you feel that the work of the A.C.L.U. is important and should be supported, won’t you please send a substantial check for 1939 NOW.

NOTE: The appeal is not directed to those who have already made pledges or contributions for the ensuing year. If anyone is in this class, or if he needs money as badly as the A.C.L.U., please ignore the request for funds.

Porterville, Calif. Teacher Charged With Preaching Communism

Grace M. Griffith, English teacher in the Porterville High School, has been asked to resign or designate another subject which she will teach. The request resulted from a petition circulated by the 20-80 Club protesting Miss Griffith’s class room use of two books: Butler’s ‘War is a Racket,’”’ and Archibald MacLeish’s, “‘Land of the Free.” The Club charged that the books contain foul language and preach Communism.

The school authorities have the undoubted right to assign Miss Griffith to teach any subject, so long as the work is of a rank and grade equivalent to that by which her permanent status was acquired, and so long as the assignment is one for which she is qualified. Thus far no proceedings have been initiated leading towards Miss Griffith’s dismissal.

Make A Pledge For °39

THE JOB

Dies Committee Should Investigate Un-American Associated Farmers

Charges. made against the A.C.L.U. by Harper Knowles, San Francisco’s red-baiting Legionnaire, were answered in the following letter to Martin Dies, Chairman of the House Committee to Investigate UnAmerican Activities: :

“Press reports from Washington indicate that the attention of your committee has, during the past two days, been largely taken up with the testimony of Harper Knowles of San Francisco. The only matters on which Harper Knowles is qualified to speak as far as subversive activities are concerned, are the un-American, vigilante activities of the Associated Farmers of which he is State Secretary. Once that subject is explored, the Committee may be led to inquire into the related un-American activities of the Berkeley Nationals, the Richmond Nationals, and vigilantism in Santa Rosa, Salinas, San Jose, Stockton, Yreka, Westwood, Nevada County, Eureka, and other communities.

“There is no truth to Mr. Knowles’ charge that the A.C.L.U. has received confidential information from the Department of Labor concerning activities, nationalities and ante- cedents of aliens accused of violating immigration and naturalization laws. If we want ‘‘confidential information” about a client, naturally we turn to the client himself for that information.

“On the whole, Mr. Knowles’ testimony sounds like the rantings of Herr Goebels or Wilhelm Streicher. That is easily understood. Once every four years someone finds it necessary to raise a red scare in order to win an election in California. This year the Associated Farmers are vitally interested in electing their pal, Philip Bancroft, and in securing the passage of their brain-child, un-American Proposition No. 1. Knowles’ testimony is merely an attempt to dupe the public into supporting the Associated Farm- ers’ program.”’

NEW MOVE CONTEMPLATED IN MOONEY COURT FIGHT

Following the refusal of the U. S. Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari in the Mooney case (Black and Reed dissenting), the Mooney legal forces filed an ap- plication for an original writ of habeas corpus. Another motion will shortly be filed with the court asking it to reconsider its refusal to grant the writ of certiorari, whose purpose is to bring the record of the Mooney habeas corpus proceedings before the court for consideration on the merits.

Page 2

Let Freedom Ring

Olson, Patterson and Downey

: On their civil liberties records our choices in the November election are Olson, Patterson and Downey. Their opponents, Merriam, Franklin and Bancroft, are just as — fine a collection of red-baiters as one can gather. Merriam and Franklin favor Prop- osition No. 1, while Bancroft, the candidate of the vigilante, red-baiting Associated Farmers who sponsored the measure, has refused to commit himself. The Merriam forces smear Olson as a tool of Moscow and lambast him for his efforts in behalf of Tom Mooney, while Franklin denounces Patterson as “the Bridges candidate,” who, as an Assembylman, voted for repeal of the criminal syndicalism law and the use of public schools by all groups.

The Argonaut Sees Red

Says The Argonaut for October 21, ‘“Professor Canning’s bitter fight to force the Commonwealth Club to come out against Proposition No. 1 may well merit the question, ‘Is Stanford turning to the left?’ ”? 221 members of the conservative club joined Prof. Canning in opposing Proposition 1, while 576 voted for it. Maybe the Argonaut ought to inquire whether the Commonwealth Club is turning to the left.

Our Nazi Flag Salute

In Spokane, Washington, the traditional school salute to the flag—-with outstretched arm—has been banned by the County School Superintendent as being ‘“‘too Nazified.” In the future, girls will place the right hand over the heart, while the boys will give the regular military salute.

Lynching No. 3 |

Lynching No. 3 for 1938 took pl Ruston, La., on October 13 when ae liams, 19-year-old Negro, “suspected” of slaying a white man and beating his woman companion, was hanged to a pine tree and his body riddled, with bullets. Fire was set to fagots under the dangling body and a hot poker thrust into Willi i ee illiams’ body several s yom i

Missing

One of our members has offered a reward of ten dollars for information leading to the apprehension of Stanley M. (Larry) Doyle, professional red-baiter, wanted on eee warrant by the San Francisco ice.

The Last Resort

An application will be made. shortly to Chief Justice Waste of the California Supreme Court to allow an appeal in the Sacramento flag salute case to the U. S. Supreme Court. Recent refusal of the State Supreme Court to grant a rehearing on its decision holding that religious objections are no bar to saluting the flag in public schools, leaves no other remedy. Justice Houser alone voted to grant a rehearing.

the National Labor

No Violation of Employers’ Free Speech in Four NLRB Cases"

From time to time charges have been made in the public press and elswhere that Relations Board has violated employers’ rights of free speech in enforcing the Wagner Act. The subcommittee on Civil Rights in Labor RelaHons examined four recent cases and submitted the following report to the Board of Directors of the A.C.L.U, which was adopted unanimously both by the Committee and the Board:

Proceeding Against American Rolling Mill Company of Ohio.

The reason for our examination of this proceeding was the inclusion in a Labor Board complaint of a charge that the employer was guilty of an unfair labor practice because of participation in a municipal election for the purpose of defeating candi- dates favorable to unions. On June 27 the trial examiner struck this allegation from the complaint on motion of the Labor Board counsel.

IL Proceeding Against Ford Motor Company, St. Louis Division.

The reason for our examination of this proceeding was the charge in the public press indicating that the Labor Board has acted in this case in precisely the same way it had acted in the Detroit Ford case prevlously considered by our Board of Directors. The facts are (a) that the Labor Board has not yet rendered any decision or order in this case, (b) the proceeding has not progressed beyond the stage of an examiner’s. intermediate report, (c) that the recommendations for board action contained in this examiner’s intermediate report do not advise (as in the Detroit Ford case) that the Board order the Ford Motor Company to cease and desist from future distribution of anti-union literature, but only that the company be ordered to cease and desist from interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization. In the opinion of your Committee it is inadvisable to pass upon the propriety of hypothetical action by the Labor Board.

oe Ill.

The Muskin Shoe Company Case, Decided July 5.

It will be recalled that the A.C.L.U. action in the Detroit Ford case was directly caused by the specific provision in the order there made that the company cease and desist from “circulating, distributing or otherwise disseminating among its employees statements or propaganda disparaging or criticizing labor organizations.” The order in the Muskin case contains no such provision. It follows the exact language of the National Labor Relations Act by ordering the employer to cease and desist from in- terfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization. The actual text of the Board’s order thus provides no basis for the criticism that it constitutes a possible invasion of any right of free speech by for- bidding future distribution of anti-union propaganda.

It is true that in the decision of the Board, as distinguished from its order, there is ref' erence to the distribution of anti-union literature by the employer within the plant. The Board’s findings of fact disclosed the following course of conduct by the em- ployer. The Union began to organize the employees in April, 19387, and in the ensuing four month period foremen and other supervisory officials questioned employees about their union activities, warned them “to keep out of this union business’’ or they would lose their jobs, told them that the C.L.O. with which the union was affiliated, was composed of “murderers” and “gangsters,” and spied upon meetings of the (Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

MENCKEN FINDS THE A.C.L.U. NOT GUILTY

The libel suit instituted by the A.C.L.U. against the AMERICAN MERCURY and Harold Lord Varney, author of an attack on the Union entitled “Liberalism a la Moscow” which appeared in the magazine, was withdrawn last month. Iin lieu of pursuing court action, the Union accepted publication of an appraisal of the Union by Henry L. Mencken, former editor, and a letter in comment signed by sixteen of the A.C.L.U.’s Board of Directors, both of them included in the October issue of the MERGURY.

Mr. Mencken’s estimate is that “all o the allegations of fact made by Mr. Varney” in characterizing the Union as the dupe of Communists, were not given ‘‘adequate support by the record.’”’ He agrees, however, with Mr. Varney in charging that ' participation of officers of the Union in partisan controversy “is incompatible with an appearance of complete impartiality, and that it inevitably throws doubts upon the impartiality of the Union itself.’’ Nevertheless, he concludes “I close with a reiteration of my confidence in the public usefulness of the Union and in the honest desire of its officers to serve it faithfully . .. the public services of the Union in the Mooney case, and the Scopes case, to name only a salient few, surely need no defense by me. It has done more than any other agency, whether official or non-official, to preserve the common liberties of the citizens of this country.”

The letter from the A.C.L.U. Board of Directors following Mr. Mencken’s article answers Varney’s repeated contention that its efforts are mostly devoted to the rights of labor and of radicals by again pointing out that these are precisely the rights most frequently attacked and, consequently must of necessity constitute a numerical major- ity of the cases undertaken by the Union. | But, it also emphasizes, the Union has never > failed to speak up “quite as vigorously” when the occasion arose, “for the rights of those not associated with the labor or radical movements... A large part of our work has not concerned the ‘Left’ at all. It has dealt with freedom in our schools and col- leges, with religious liberty, with censorship of the radio, press, books, and movies.” The Board holds that the Union should be judged by this record, rather than by the personal views or associations of any of its officers, and contends that the record fails to reveal an instance where it has failed to meet any important issue of civil liberty, regardless of whom it concerned. Further, it declares that the Union’s fairness cannot somehow be compromised by any inferred opinions of its officers, since the policy and — final decisions of the A.C.L.U. are controlled by its Board of Directors and National Committee.

A PAT ON THE BACK

Editor: Times have been too numerous to mention when particular articles in your paper have aroused me to a renewed appreciation of the work you are doing. They manage to answer questions and settle doubts just when those questions and uncertainties are rife and troublesome; their timeliness is therefore an education and fortification.

Two articles that come to mind at the moment as of particular significance are those on Fingerprinting and Proposition No. 1. As to the first, it has not only helped me personally, but has made it possible for me in my work to instruct the hundreds of boys and girls coming under my jurisdiction in the merits of your argument. Regarding the anti-picketing proposition, I am taking it upon myself to address local orzeae on the reasons for voting ‘‘no.”’

Statistics

The A.C.L.U. director made a dozen speeches against Proposition No. 1 during October.

Circulation this issue A.C.L.U.-News, 4500 copies. : c Right Against Self In- crimination Is Upheld In the Graham Case

Conviction of Marcus Graham, anarchist, for contempt of court, was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on October 27.

Since 1919 the government has sought unsuccessfully to deport Graham because of his political opinions. They have failed in this because Graham’s birthplace is not known and Graham won’t tell.

On October 6, 1937, Graham was seized for the fourth time by immigration officers. He was requested to answer various questions, some of which were incriminating in nature, but he wound up by answering none. Federal Judge Yankwich then gave him six months for refusing to talk.

The Circuit Court has now ruled that, “The fact that deportation proceedings are civil in their nature does not prevent the privilege against self incrimination from being raised by a witness called upon to testify therein.”? And, in so far as the sentence requires the “‘witness to make answers to questions where the answer would tend to incriminate him under a federal statute, the order denies a constitutional right and is erroneous.”

Since the Fifth Amendment referred to applies merely to the federal government and not to state governments, its protection does not extend to questions that might incriminate Graham under California law. The case has, therefore, been remanded to the lower court with instructions to weed out the bad questions and to give Graham an opportunity to answer. If he still refuses to talk, he may be adjudged in contempt.

Throughout the proceedings, Graham has been represented by Lee B. Stanton and A. L. Wirin, A.C.L.U. attorneys in Southern California.

DISMISSAL OF MASS. TEACHER PROTESTED

Holding that teachers are entitled to the same freedom of expression and participa- tion in public affairs as other citizens, the American Civil Liberties Union has called upon the Medfield (Mass.) School Committee to reinstate Miss Christina Alach, local teacher ousted for taking -part in a demonstration at Boston protesting the Munich four-power settlement.

A telegram to the Superintendent of Schools signed by E. C. Lindeman, chairman and Ellen K. Donohue, secretary of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Civil Liberties Union, declared: .

“The dismissal of Christina Alach for participating in a protest rally is inde- fensible even if the charges are true. Outside of class rooms, teachers should enjoy the same freedom of expression and participation in public affairs as other citizens and professional groups. We strongly urge you to reinstate Miss Alach in the interest of academic freedom.”

GEORGE ARMS, I.L.W.U. SECRETARY CHARGED WITH AIDING REDS

Aftermath of the Ivan Francis Cox expose of how he was duped into filing the $9,100,000 red-baiting suit by Stanley M. Doyle, Harper Knowles and A. L. Crawford, is the linking of George H. Arms, Secretary-Treasurer of the Longshoremen’s Union, Local 1-10, with the Doyle red-baiting faction and the $5,100,000 suit. Following refusal of Arms to accept the union’s demand for his resignation, formal charges were preferred against him and he will be tried by a committee of 15 members of the union on November 6. Upon request of the union’s executive committee, Ernest Besig recently appeared before it to testify concerning the manner in which the Cox affidavit was procured.

Road hae

The argument one hears most frequently in support of Proposition No. 1 is that it “will bring peace and order into employment relations,” by prohibiting mass picketing, hot cargo, secondary boycotts, coercion of “free citizens to join unions,” and “interference with the free use of the highways and wharves.” Is the argument sound? Will Proposition No. 1 bring “‘labor The fp peace?”

At the outset, we may as well recognize that rightly or wrongly the general public is “fed up” with labor disputes and is blaming labor for them. “Something ought to be done about it;” they declare, ‘‘that’s why we’re going to vote for Proposition No. 1.” Yes, something ought to be done about every problem, but let us not’ take the first thing that comes along, at least, not without examining the remedy to determine whether it will work. If it won’t work, let’s reject it.

Suppresses Labor

. Proposition No. 1 will not bring industrial peace because its suppresses labor. Despite the denials of its sponsors, No. 1 does limit the right of labor to organize, strike and peaecefully picket. A denial of those rights sounds the death knell of trade , unionism. Suppression of labor in this fashion can’t bring peace; it can only bring war.

The evidence is incontrovertible that Labor’s fundamental rights are violated. It is accomplished in a very tricky way. Buried in the proposal are new and strange defini- tions of coercion and intimidation. Every fair and reasonable thing that a labor or- ganization or its members and agents may do to make organizing and collective bar- gaining effective is declared to be coercion and intimidation. Coercion is no longer co- --ercion alone; it now includes almost every kind of peaceful persuasion that labor may employ to better its conditions.

Right to Organize Outlawed

Once the peaceful concept of ‘‘coercion’”’ is established it is easy to invade Labor’s fundamental liberties with a great show of righteousness. Under Section 12 it is unlaw- ful for any employee or representative of a labor union “to intimidate or coerce any other person .. . to join or refrain from joining, or to remain, or cease to remain,.a member of any particular labor organization.” If this meant only that workers could not be forced into joining labor unions (in the usual violent meaning of the term) everyone could agree with it. But because “coercion”? means peaceful persuasion, the right to organize is practically outlawed.

Right to Strike Limited

The same is true of the right to strike. Section 12 makes it unlawful for any em- ployee or representative of a labor union to Peace is NOT SITION No. I

Page 3

‘to intimidate or coerce any other person . .. to strike or participate in any strike of employees against an employer.” The only exception is provided under the definition of the term “coercion” itself. Threat of a ‘‘orimary strike’ (limited to a dispute over — wages, hours or physical conditions of the place of employment) is expressly excepted as “coercion.” Consequently, any attempt to persuade anyone to participate in anything but a ‘“‘primary strike’ is unlawful. And, don’t forget that a strike resulting from a dispute over “recognition of the union” is not a primary strike.

Most Picketing Eliminated

Yes, mass picketing is prohibited by Proposition No. 1, but so is picketing arising over disputes involving recognition of a union, firing men because they are active in union affairs, firing competent employees in order to replace them with ‘Jearners” at wages under those authorized by the minimum wage laws, etc. An emasculated type of picketing is permitted in so-called primary strikes. Why is the same type of picketing not permitted in the foregoing cases? Can it be said that picketing in a wage dispute is more peaceful than picketing over recognition of the Union, or cases of discriminatory discharges, Isn’t the real reason behind limitation of picketing to “primary strikes,’’ the fact that most disputes aren’t in this class?

We don’t need any new laws “to prevent the free use of the highways and wharves.” The laws of the State of California and of the cities and counties adequately protect the users of wharves and highways.

Suppresses Freedom of Speech

And, do you want secondary boycotts prohibited as provided for by Proposition No. 1? Any person is prohibited from using any opprobius or derogatory epithets, words or language to induce or influence any person from withholding his patronage from | a place of business, or from doing many other things. Ridiculous as it seems, under this broad provision you would be a criminal if you asked your neighbor not to pat© ronize a certain store because they employed child labor. Perhaps this broad power to suppress freedom of speech would not generally be used, but we know many benighted communities in California where oppressive laws are enforced.

It is clear that Proposition No. 1 is not fair regulation and will not bring peace. Because it infringes the fundamental rights of labor, it is suppressive and can lead only to war. As Justice Brandeis has said, “repression breeds hate, and hate menaces stable government.”

There is undoubtedly a road to industrial peace, but it is certainly NOT Proposition No. 1. We earnestly urge our friends to vote NO on November 8.

FIRST IOWA SYNDICALISM TRIAL SET FOR THIS MONTH

The case of William Sentner, first of four defendants to be tried on charges of violat- ‘ing the Iowa criminal syndicalism law, will be heard this month. The county attorney has obtained a change of venue, which will bring the case to Montezuma, Iowa. Sentner, international vice-president of the Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union (CIO), and four other members of the union, were arrested as an outgrowth of their activities in the Maytag strike at Newton in July. One of the defendants pleaded guilty and secured a bench parole “during good behavior.’ The remaining defendants are preparing their defense. The Iowa committee of the A.C.L.U. is cooperating with counsel for the defendants.

This is the first time that a criminal syndicalism statute has been used against the leaders of a labor organization not affiliated with a political party.

RIDGEWOOD, N. J., PICKET FEE ORDINANCE SHELVED

After concerted protest by labor and lib-. eral groups, and submission of a legal mem- orandum by the New Jersey Civil Liberties Committee and of Labor’s Non-Partisan League opposing the proposed ordinance, the Ridgewood, N. J., City Council has decided not to enact in its present form a law requiring $50 for every placard used’ on the streets of the town. The Council has let it be known that it is seeking a “model ordinance”’ which would not infringe upon civil rights.

VOTE “NO” On Proposition No.1

etc. Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union News Published 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.

Appeal Taken In Strachey Case

Pending an appeal from the court decision denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, John Strachey, English social theorist and writer, was released from Ellis Island under $500 bond on October 25. In ordering Strachey’s release, Federal Judge Conger stipulated that he was to deliver no lectures in this country while he was out on bond.

Strachey had left London on October 5 to make a lecture tour in the United States with a proper visa granted by the American Consulate. Two days later, while he was still in mid-ocean, the Consulate cancelled the visa because, according to the Immigration Board, it had ‘“confidential”’ information that Strachey was a member of the British Communist Party and had contributed articles to Communist periodicals. Mr. Strachey has denied the first alle| gation, and asserted that he contributes to Conservative as well as to Communist periodicals.

Upon the writer’s arrival in New York, he was held at Ellis Island for seeking ad- mission to the United States without a visa. The A.C.L.U. immediately protested his de- tention and the unprecedented manner of the revocation of his visa without a hearing. An appeal to the Board of Review of the Immigration Service resulted in their upholding the action of the State Department and issuing an order for Mr. Strachey’s return to England. In applying for the writ of habeas corpus, Arthur Garfield Hayes, the Union’s counsel, had held that the American Consul General had no power to revoke the visa once it had issued, and, further, that the President has no power to authorize consular officers to issue visas.

Hearst Sought Expulsion in 1935

John Strachey was the victim of deportation proceedings on the allegation that he was a communist in 1935, when the Labor Department arrested and held him for deportation after a bitter Hearst press campaign for his expulsion. The technical charge against him at that time was that he had made false statements to gain admission to the United States, and that he was in reality a member of the proscribed classes in that he believed in the overthrow of government by force and violence. Strachey at that time stated “I am not a member of the Communist Party, and therefore I have no right to speak for that Party, but... I can speak for myself and declare again that I do not believe in or favor force and violence ... I believe that the undeniable fact that an ever growing use of force and violence hangs over the world today, is a nightmare to me and to all decent people.”

Immigration officials did not put the question to him as toswhether or not he was a communist, but some of the questions asked on this prior occasion at the American Cosulate at London and his answers were as follows:

“Are you an idiot?” “No.” “Imbecile?”’ “No.” “Feebleminded?” ‘Well, I guess not.” “Epileptic?” ‘No.” ‘Previously insane?” “Well, I went to the United States once.” “Constitutional psychopathic inferiority?” Puzzled denial. “Chronic alcoholic?” “No. ‘Pauper?” “No.” ‘Professional beggar?” ‘‘No, just a lecturer.”

Admissable Under American Law

Harking back to the 1985 deportation proceedings, the A.C.L.U. in a statement on the current case noted, “Mr. Strachey

No Violation of Employers’ Free Speech Rights In Four NLRB Cases

(Continued from Page 2, Col. 2)

union. On the afternoon of July 29 the company closed the plant and the plant superintendent announced to the employees that a “Citizens Committee’’ was holding a meeting in the town armory for the company’s employees and that the employees had permission to leave the plant and attend the meeting. At this meeting a local banker told the employees that he “‘didn’t want to see any trouble in the town,”’ and another speaker told them that the union organizers were ‘“‘Communists, Reds’ and “eveything he could think of” and that they should “‘ward them off.’”’ On July 30 the company permitted to be distributed in the plant during working hours a pamphlet entitled ‘Communists’ Iron Grip on the C.1.0.,”’ published by the Constitutional Education League, Inc. The contents of this pamphlet consisted in the main of quotations from a speech by Representative Hoffman. It called upon ‘‘loyal citizens” to “‘do something about the C.I.0O. challenge,”’ included a picture of a Communist leader with a caption indicating his influence on John L. Lewis, and contained lurid illustrations implying that the C.I.O. follows a policy of interfering with the mail, of shooting policemen who do their duty, and of calling strikes without reason. On the very day of the distribution of this pamphlet by two employees on company time and in the plant, the company discharged the president of the union and a member of its organizing committee, and both discharges were caused by the union activities of these employees.

It is apparent that the subject of condemnation by the Labor Board in this case was the employer’s entire course of conduct. The pamphlet distribution cannot be isolated; it was part and parcel of a series of clearly unlawful anti-union acts and dis- criminatory discharges. In the judgment of your committee, the Labor Board in the Muskin case has held that employer-distribution of anti-union literature upon company time and within the plant may be so colored by the whole factual setting of employer-coercion that it may properly be considered coercive and that it, together with other clearly unlawful anti-union activity, may support the conclusion that the employer has unlawfully coerced his employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.

The Mock-Judson-Voehringer Company Case, Decided July 7.

Your sub-committee -has examined the decision and order in this case. The order is precisely the same as the order in the Muskin case and consequently, free from criticism on the score that it seeks by specific order to prevent future distribution of anti-union literature. The only possible contention in this case is, as in the Muskin case, that the Board erred in giving weight | to the employer’s distribution of anti-union propaganda when it concluded that the employer’s course of anti-union conduct was unlawful under the Act. Our opinion here is the same as in the Muskin case. The employer engaged in physical molestation of union organizers. His foremen and straw bosses persistently made anti-union statements to the employees. The superintendent directly advised men to quit the union. One employee was discharged for union activity. In all these ways there was indisputable interference with the men’s rights of self- organization. The distribution on company time and in the company plant of a pamphlet viciously attacking the C.I.O. was only part and parcel of this entire course of conduct which the Labor Board denominated unlawful.

Conclusion

The only cases upon which your sub-committee is passing at this time are the Muskin Shoe case and the Mock-Judson-Voehringer case.

In neither of these cases was there an order preventing future distribution of anti- union literature. In both cases the order followed the precise text of the National Labor Relations Act in forbidding the employer to interfere with employee’s right to self-organization.

In both cases employer-distribution of vicious anti-union literature during working hours and inside the plant was taken into account by the Board (together with many other facts showing plainly unlawful employer-coercion) in reaching the conclusion that the literature itself was intended to be and was coercive and that the employer had by his entire course of conduct interfered with his men’s right of self-organization. Your sub-committee is of the opinion that in neither of these cases may the employer properly claim that any right of free speech has been invaded.

LaFOLLETTE COMMITTE SCRUTINIZES “CIVIL LIBERTIES VIOLATIONS é IN CALIFORNIA

Twelve investigators of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee have opened headquarters in the old San Francisco Mint. Robert Wohlforth, Secretary of the Committee, will join the investigators within the next few days. Records of the Asso- ciated Farmers are already under subpoena . and various organizations have volunteered information of violations of civil liberties in Northern California. Committee hearings may take place the latter part of this month.

is entirely admissible under American law. Nothing in the prior deportation hearings in 1935 established the charges that his ideas fall within the prohibitions of the Immigration Act. Since he left in 1935 with an explicit statement by the Department of Labor that the withdrawal of the proceedings against him was without prejudice to a new application for admission, Mr. Strachey is obviously entitled to a hearing. The action of the State Department in cancelling his visa without such a hearing is an indefensible method of dealing with the situation. The Civil Liberties Union will use every available resort to get for him a full and fair hearing.”

A.C.L.U. HONOR ROLL IN DIES WITCH HUNT

Seven A.C.L.U. Committee members made the Dies Committee Honor Roll as reds or dupes of reds through the testi. mony of Harper Knowles, Legion red-baiter. Col. Charles Erskine Scott Wood qualified because he was one of the sponsors of the Western Writers’ Congress. Prof. Harold Chapman Brown was named as a radical member of the Stanford faculty, and Messrs. Geo. T. Davis, Ernest Besig, .M. C. Symonds, Wayne Collins, and James J. Cronin were listed as members of the National Lawyers Guild, allegedly linked with the Communist Party. Collins and Cronin have never belonged to the Guild.

WISCONSIN CASE TO DEFINE LIMITS OF GRIFFIN LEAFLET DECISION

In a move to plug the hole in the Lovell v. Griffin decision of the U. S. Supreme Court last spring which indicated that an anti-leaflet ordinance against street littering might be sustained, the American Civil Liberties Union is preparing to test the issue in a case coming shortly before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Vote “NO” on Proposition No. 1