vol. 4, no. 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. IV SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY, 1939 No. 2

SUPPRESSIVE LEGISLATION

Numerous State Proposals Violate Civil Liberties

‘Records were set at the first session of the State Legislature which has adjourned until March. Almost four thousand bills were introduced, and an unprecedented number affect civil liberties. Exactly how many cannot be told at this time, because the last bill will not be printed until February 4 at the earliest. But from the available printed bills and titles of others listed in the legislative histories, it is apparent that while the majority protect civil rights, an abundant minority should be vigorously opposed. Many of the measures, especially those in aid of civil rights, have been introduced at previous sessions, but a considerable number are responsive to economic and sociai problems that confront the state, nation and world today. Liberals and. reactionaries alike have reflected: their hatred and fear of totalitarian theories of government by proposing suppressive measures that. are typical of the very forms of government they oppose.

Two-Edged Mohsuie For example, a host of eighteen liberal and conservative assemblymen, headed by the liberal Jack Tenney, have fashioned a dangerous two-edged measure, A. B. 150, . designed to prevent the circulation of ideas “creating, or tending to create hatred, violence or hostility against people of this State by reason of their race, color, religion or manner of worship.”’ This is supposed to be an anti-Nazi bill, but under a similar measure in New Jersey, the first victims were members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who distributed tracts attacking the Roman Catholic Church. The A.C.L.U. has: already gone on record against the bill.

Cecil King of Los Angeles, another supporter of civil liberties, has again introduc- ed a so-called “nublic order bill,” which the A.C.L.U. opposed two years ago. (A. B. 1553). It is a loosely drawn measure intended to outlaw private armies, uniformed political groups, or organizations “organized and trained for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object.’”” Somehow or other, we can’t forget that Upton Sinclair’s Epic movement was classed as revolutionary, and the measure in question could readily be used to suppress an organization of that kind.

Foreign Press And Radio

Foreign language radio programs and newspapers are placed under close surveillance by A. B. 826 and A. B. 827 respectively. To protect the government from alien “isms,” a foreign language broadcast “‘shall be rebroadcast in English immediately upon its conclusion,” and foreign language papers would be compelled to carry “‘correct English translations . . . in separate columns immediately adjacent to the foreign language print.” Of course if such dictation is pericinics it follows logically that the press and radio could be completely controlled by the government. Patrioteers Millington and Gannon, and li-haral Jack Tenney, are .coauthors. oe these two bills.

Alien-Baiting

With all the wild agitation carried on by the American Legion, Associated Farmers and others against aliens, it is understandable that rancher Bashore should (Continued on Page 2, Col. 2)

THREE A.C.L.U. COMMITTEEMEN APPOINTED TO PUBLIC POSITIONS

Three members of the National Committee of the A.C.L.U. have recently been ap- pointed to high public positions. President Roosevelt nominated Felix Frankfurter of Harvard University to the United States Supreme Court, while Governor Culbert L.: Olson, in his first: judicial appointment, named John Beardsley to the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Judge Beardsley was Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Southern California branch of the A.C.L.U. for 12 years before accepting a position as Deputy City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles.

George West, who resigned as editorial ater for the cee Francisco News last November, has accepted the post of press contact man for the Trades Agreement Division of the Department of State. He leaves for Washington on February 2nd. His wife, Marie de L. Welch, member of the Executive Committee of the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U., will sue low him in the near future.

HAGUE LOSES AGAIN AND APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT

“Jam the law” Frank Hague, Mayor of Jersey City, on February 6 will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals upholding and extending an injunction restraining him from interfering with the civil liberties of the C.1.0., A.C.L.U. and other groups. The Circuit Court held that Jersey City ordinances restricting public meetings and forbidding distribution of handbills violated the Bill of Rights.

What You Can Do About The Dies and LaFollette Committee Probes

Very extensive pressure is being put on the House of Representatives to continue the Committee on Un-American Activities -headed by Representative Martin Dies of — Texas. That pressure comes chiefly from the “professional patriots,” employers’ associations and those identified with opposition to democracy and the New Deal. The obvious reason for such pressure is the fact that the House Committee, particularly through the bias and prejudice of its chairman, became the spokesman for those forces.

Every effort must be made promptly to bring pressure to bear on members of Congress against the. continuance of that Committee’s work. Telegrams, letters and reso- lutions should be sent at once to the Speaker of the House, Hon. William B. Bank- head; to the majority leader, Sam Rayburn, and the Chairman of the Rules Committee, Adolph J. Sabath, condemning the bias and irresponsibility of the Dies Committee and demanding that its life be not extended. . Communications should be sent to local newspapers with requests for editorial comment.

A genuine investigation into anti-democratic forces in the United States ‘is plainly desirable. Such an investigation has already been made for two years by the Senate Committee on Civil Liberties headed by Senator Robert M. LaFollette. Its work is incompleted and demands continuance. Its appropriation expired last month.

Every effort should be made to continue the work of the Senate Civil Liberties Com- mittee. Telegrams, letters and resolutions to that effect should be addressed at once to Hon. John N. Garner, President of the Senate, to the majority leader, Senator Alben W. Barkley, and to Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Jr. Letters should also be addressed to newspapers in support of the Committee’s work.

Because of objections that the House of Representatives does not participate in a Senate Committee’s work, letters and resolutions might well support the proposal for a joint committee of the House and Senate so that both Houses would have before them recommendations for legislation from — their own members. Such a joint resolution will, we believe, be soon introduced.

Prompt and vigorous action is essential to accomplish the defeat of the “UnAmerican” Dies Committee, and the extension of the appropriation of the Senate Committee. We would appreciate receiving copies of any telegrams, letters or resolutions.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

ties.

Page 2

Billings iss Pardon’

Application.

With the liberation of Tom Mooney, the A.C.L.U.. office has taken down its ‘‘Free- Mooney” sign and is joining in the cam-. paign to “FREE BILLINGS” that has been initiated with the filing of a pardon application. Most people agree that there is no excuse. for keeping Billings in prison now that.Mooney has been released. If one de- “serves a pardon the: other: does, too.:So, the fight for Billings’ pardon is on. —

Here is the record of the Billings case to , dren to salute the flag-on pain of expulsion, ‘even though such act’is contrary to their Senator Nielsen, like As

date: = in Sa steniver: 1916, Warren K. Billings was tried and convicted of murder in. the first degree, for allegedly participating in the bombing of the Preparedness Day Pa- rade on July 22, 1916. He was sentenced to © life imprisonment and sent to Folsom Prison. -

Billings has aprior “conviction. on his’ record. At the age of 19, he was convicted sot carrying explosives on a street car, and sent to prison for two years. Under Cali- fornia law a man serving a second sentence must first get a recommendation from the ; Supreme Court before he can be pardoned by the Governor.

On November 7, 1929, Billings applied for a pardon, but on July 3, 1930, the Supreme Court refused to recommend. his pardon to the Governor. John McDonald, discredited witness against Billings, was suddenly lo‘cated in Baltimore on July 12, 1930, and ‘brought to California to testify. The Su‘preme Court reopened the Billings case, - heard McDonald and other witnesses and examined Billings in prison.

On December 1, 1930, the Supreme. Court for the second time, by a vote of six to one, Justice Langdon dissenting, refused to recommend a pardon for Billings. Following the pardoning of Tom Mooney, Attorney George T. Davis filed a pardon -application for Warren K. Billings with Governor Culbert L. Olson on J anuary. 14, 1939. On January 26, 1939, the State Advisory Pardon Board took the Billings case under submission. mends a pardon, the.case will go to the State Supreme Court. Otherwise, Governor Olson will probably. refer the case to the Supreme Court himself.

Parents: Not Criminals’ If Child Refuses To Salute Flag

' cuthie Nee York Goust of Appeals on.Janu-ary 17, 1939, held that parents are not guilty of: violating the compulsory’ school attendance law if their children refuse to salute the flag on religious grounds and are then sent home by the school authori“The action,” the Court ate “must ‘be against the scholar.”

Judge Lehman, concurring in the decision, contended that the child’s religious beliefs should be respected and that she should be excused from saluting the flag. Said Judge Lehman:

“The salute of the flag is a gesture of -love and respect—fine when there is real love and respect back of the gesture. The flag is dishonored by a salute by a child in reluctant and terrified obedience to a command of secular authority which. clashes with the dictates of conscience.. The. flag ‘cherished by all our hearts’ should not. be soiled by the tears of a little child. -The Constitution does not permit, and the Legis- lature never intended, that the flag should be so coiled and dishonored.

CONVICTION OF FRENCH CONSULATE PICKETS TO BE APPEALED

John Newton Thurber, State Secretary of the Socialist Party, and Jack Cope, local organizer of the Socialist Workers Party, --were recently convicted for picketing the - French Consulate in San Francisco on November 30, 1938. They received suspended sentences from which an appeal will be taken to the Appellate Department.

-tuents to see’ red.

trial’: Accident If. the Board recom| of California.

Suppressive Legislation

(Continued fears Page 1, Col. 2). introduce A. B. 2682, compelling all aliens to register. Legionnaire Millington has carried the alien-baiting one step further by proposing A. B. 848, the Alien Labor Permit Law, making it unlawful “for anyone to employ any alien. . an alien labor permit.’ And, of course, such aliens must be fingerprinted.

But so would every operator of an auto| mobile in California, if. Messrs. Millington and Gannon have their way under A. B. And, those same patrioteer twins have hibits consideration of political, economic = and religious beliefs of. applicants — for z 820. introduced A. B. 343 to require little chilreligious beliefs. semblyman Gannon a Sacramentan, has inpaduted a similar bill i in the Senate, (S. B. : 310).

Another L. A. Border Patrol

The dust bowl] refugees and outside labor agitators have not been ignored. Frederick Houser of Alhambra has revived a border patrol bill (A. B. 1356) under which “All paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice are hereby prohibited from entering the State of California.” ‘All persons-entering this State by boat, airplane or any other method,” would have to have their pockets and records inspected, and would “be restrained from entering this State if the person so authorized reasonably deter. ‘mines that he is a pauper, vagabond or fugitive from justice.”’ And, if violation of the law he is guilty of a misdemeanor and “shall be summarily depert‘ed from this State.”

The troubled labor field is always a fertile field for repressive measures. ‘Thus, Freshman Green of San Francisco has pre' sented a measure (A. B.°750) that should cause his Jewish, labor and Chinese constiIt prohibits boycotts of anything unless such product is “disapproved by the safety orders of the: IndusCommission.”

words, ‘any combination of persons’ ’ could not lawfully “boycott or refuse to. use” Nazi, Japanese or Italian goods, not to mention labor boycotts carried on by pickets or otherwise.

You can secure copies of any or all of these or other bills by writing to the Legis- lative Bill Room, Capitol, Sacramento, Calif. indicating the bills you desire. And, as a citizen you may express your opinion on | these proposals. by. addressing your As| semblyman and Senator, appearing at the committee hearings in Sacramento, or writing to the chairman of the committee to which the particular bill has been assigned.

HAROLD POMEROY NAMED SECRETARY OF VIGILANTE “ASSOCIATED FARMERS

Harold Pomeroy, former State Relief Administrator, has been named executive sec- retary of the vigilante Associated Farmers Civil libertarians will remember Pomeroy for his “gag order” in‘ 1937 prohibiting S.R.A. -employees from any form of legislative activities on their own time. In 1938 he was particularly “hard boiled” in his treatment of Nevada County ‘and Westwood vigilante victims who were driven from their homes. And it has been charged repeatedly that he cooperated with — employers and the Associated Farmers in using the §.R.A. to break strikes. Under the circumstances, it would seem that Mr. — Pomeroy is peculiarly fitted for his new job. Mr. Pomeroy’s predecessor in the Associated Farmers was Harper Knowles, onetime local head of the Subversive Activities Commission of the American Legion, and ‘more recently a noisy witness before the Dies Committee. Upon his return from Washington, Mr. Knowles. had joined Col. Henry R. Sanborn, Salinas in.a mountain hideaway back of Los Altos. Agents of the LaFollette Committee in their quest for evidence for an investigation of the red-baiting Farmers, finally caught up with Knowles late in December after a movie-thriller chase down Geary. boulevard and served him with a subpoena. Mr. Pomeroy, undoubtedly, is equipped to take up right where Mr. Knowles left off.

-unless the alien has if he did enter in ‘In other. “co-ordinator,” ACLU, State. Legislative Program

Following is the A.C.L.U. legislative program as introduced in the California Legislature:

1. A. B. 375 (Richie) Repeals criminal syndicalism act;

2. A. B. 844 (Richie) Riminates camual , syndicalism as a cause for dismissal of -school teachers;

3. A. B. 262 (Tenney and Gilbert) Proteaching positions;

4. A.B. 845 (Richie and Tenney) Amends -Civie Center Act to permit all groups to use school houses without. discrimination.

5. A. B. 1316. (Richie) Repeals teachers — loyalty oaths. |

6. A. B. 241. (Tenney) Declares it tes be lawful to distribute economic, political. and religious handbills.

7..A. B. 104-5 (Rosenthal) Outlaws anti. picketing ordinances;

8. A. B. 2630 (Hawkins) Declares municipalities liable for personal injury suffered by mob or vigilante victims.

9. A. B. 1107-8. (Richie) Reduces the number of signatures to qualify aMIBOEILY, parties for places on the ballot;

10. A. B. 246 (Tenney Excuses radio bréadcasting: stations from liability. for ‘slander committed by lessees of time;

.11.A. B. 1024 (Miller) Provides ae . trial in cases of indirect contempt of court;

12. A. B. 1728 (Pelletier) and A. B. 2476 (Hawkins). Broaden application of. Civil — Rights Law. and. ‘punish .violations thereof;

-13. Amends. vagrancy act. \(Mumbert of = bill not yet determined ).

14. Constitutional amendment excusing : religious objectors from R.O.T.C. at U. C. Will be introduced at the second session in ee March.

Drive for Civil Liberties

-Bills In Congress Launched

Reififortement of civil liberties oy Congressional legislation, to mark the 150th - . anniversary this year of the submission of the Bill of. Rights, will be sought by the — American Civil Liberties Union in a special campaign during the current session of Congress.

Enlisting the support of members of Con — gress of all political parties, the Union will sponsor or support a variety of bills covering pressing issues. The measures will deal principally. with radio censorship, lynching, asylum for political refugees, use of state militia in strikes, and the prohibition of — | private military training.

‘Among the measures to be backed by the. Union are:

Ke Bills providing for greater freedom on the air by requiring all radio stations to set aside time for public issues, to treat. controversial issues on equal terms and to free stations from responsibility for libel or slander on public time.

2, A. bill to: prevent the misuse of the National Guard in strikes.

.. 3..Re-establishment of the traditional American right. of: political asylum for a limited. number of bona fide Political and religious refugees.

4. The anti-lynching bill, providing for federal: prosecution: of state officials who fail to. apprehend lynchers.and for recovery of damages by the victim’s family.

5. A bill to prevent formation of private military forces.

6. A.bill to abolish the present Post Office Department censorship of the mails, to be replaced: by: juries in federal courts.

Also urged on members of Congress are bills providing civil government for American Samoa’ and the island of Guam, and — a.resolution: for a congressional investigation to determine the future status of Puerto — Rico. The Union will also support the rec— -ommendations to be made by the Senate Civil Liberties Committee.

Can Liberties Bronce. Flood Legislature

an addition to ie fourteen measures. con stituting the A.C.L.U. State. legislative program, outlined elsewhere in this issue, ‘many other civil liberties measures have been introduced. The summary that follows is by no means complete because all the printed pills are not yet available. .Even so, the number and scope of the proposals is im pressive.

Paul Richie has introduced A. B. 1325 which empowers the Governor: to appoint -a special: representative to prosecute violators of civil liberties where the District . Attorney and Attorney General have not acted. This bill is directed at vigilante eases such. as Westwood and Nevada County in which the law enforcement. AZ encies have shown little interest.

Patrioteer Chester Gannon has introduced a bill (A. B..1436) prohibiting arm-— ed groups that at first reading would not “seem to tread upon eivil liberties as does the es order bill” of Assemblyman King.

*AntiLynching Bill

Equal protection of the jaws: for negroes has received wide consideration in a number of bills. A. B. 2477 by Hawkins would establish ‘‘a commission on race relations.”

Hawkins has also introduced a State anti' lynching bill (A. B. 1165). Two bills, also by Hawkins, of race, color or religion in the employment of persons upon public works and on pub| lic utilities respectively.

‘Two amendments have been proposed to the Civic Center Act. One bill by Tenney (A. B. 1211) would allow all groups to use civic centers without discrimination upon the filing of an affidavit, if requested, that ’guch group does not advocate. the violent. overthrow of the government, nor will permit such advocacy at its meeting. Another bill concerning the civic center act by Evans, A. B. 1947, has not yet been printed. The title of another measure, A. B. 2456 by Garland relates ‘‘to the use of. public schoolrooms and public school auditoriums by candidates for public office at certain times.

AntPicLeting Ordinances: Outlawed Besides the Rosenthal bill outlawing anti-. picketing ordinances, mentionéd elsewhere, Messrs. Tenney, King and Hawkins have introduced .similar measures. numbered A. B. 240, 1552 and 2475 respectively.

The California Highway Patrol is prohibited from engaging in labor disputes by similar measures, A. B. 482 and A. B. 1256. Special deputies, so often lawless thugs, are prohibited from receiving ‘private compensation by A. B. 172. Assemblyman Richie would require deputies to reside in:

vvvvv the county at least six months preceding : the appointment. Finally, A.B. 1788 regulates the acquiring of tear gas and is, no doubt, directed against private agencies supplying public officers with. supplies to be used against picket lines.

Jack Tenney has proposed A. B. 243 extending the writ of error coram nobis which would.-minimize the chances of another Mooney-Billings case.

A. B. 258 by Tenney extends the punishment for unlawful searches and seizures, while A. B. 274 and A. B. 1557 prohibits the installation of dictagraphs.

STUDENTS SWEAR BY HER

Editor:—Enclosed find $1.00 for my dues . to the American Civil Liberties Union... As a University student I cannot afford to send more but when I get out I shall try to contribute more.

May I especially sompliment you on 1 your defense of Miss Griffiths, for she is one of the finest teachers and grandest persons I ever have known. Porterville’s treatment of her-has been horrible but typical of small town intolerance where the privileged few rule the schools as well as the local government. Most of her students will swear by her.—W.

Wagner: Act” by the California legislature.

A. B. 31 and A. B. 1257, would prohibit discrimination on account |

Please tell me where, in the

coe Labor. Page S— ‘Shall The “AGL. U. Sponsor Te «Little Wagner | Act” Fe or ‘Calif?

The. Northern California Branch ar the A.C.L.U. has been confronted with the problem whether it should lend its support to the passage of a “Little Since the A.C.L.U. limits its activities strictly to civil lib--erties issues (and not to economics or politics), our -immediate. question is whether such. legislation presents a civil liberties issue.

== The following letters discuss the question and offer different answers. We invite our readers to “present their own views on the subject.

‘... The Wagner Act and the state acts modeled on it are devices primarily. for pro- tecting the right of workers to organize free from coercion by employers. That right is plainly. basic in our constitutional guaran-tees.

Collective bargaining is an extension of that right requiring employers to recog- nize the representatives chosen by workers. It goes no further than to require confer- ences after it is determined who constitute the free chosen representatives of the work- ers. If this provision were not included, the . right to organize free from coercion would mean little, for the employer could ignore such representatives and’deal with a company union or a group representing a minority of the employees. In so doing, the employer would be effectively denying the right to organize on the democratic. basis.

The whole object of the law is to extend the democratic process to industry by main- taining the right of free association and to guarantee it by requiring the employer to recognize representatives so chosen.

“Of course we do not invade the province of industrial relations beyond the point of association free from coercion and the selection of bargaining agents free from coer- | cion.—-R.-B.”’

. You say that “the right of workers to organize free from coercion by employis “plainly basic in our constitutional Constitution or elsewhere, it is made plain.

That’s what I want to see—and can’t yet.

“Again, you say that “the whole object of the law is to extend the democratic process to industry by maintaining the right of free association, etc.”” Are we pledged to support and further industrial democracy? I had assumed that our constitutional liber- ties were essentially civil and. political.

How do we get over into the industrial field? I recognize that you limit your po- sition to tion’? of employers should be hindered both by the government and by the workers— aren’t you? Where is it said that either employees or employers must be free from coercion as they make and carry out plans for the “furthering of their property in- terests?.

“So far as I can ane aint from reading the judicial decisions on the Wagner Act they ‘seem, vaguely, to be on your side, but it seems to me imperative that the A.C.L.U. substitute clearness for vagueness. That’s why I press the issue. I seem to find that, for many of us, the meaning of the defense of civil liberties comes very near to an im- pulse to protect the oppressed, whatever the form of oppression. And that, of course, won't do. add—extending civil liberties, within some definable limits. And I feel that your letter does not define those limits.—A. M.”

“Pp, S.—lIsn’t it very clearly stated in the “Wagner Act that its purpose is to protect ‘the free flow of commerce’ rather than the ‘civil liberties’ of workers? What have we to do with that?—A. M.”

. The Wagner Act creates new rights Previously, the employer, who was engaged in interstate commerce, could fire an employee if he joined a Union, spoke ‘to an organizer, accepted Union leaflets,

etc.. Some workers could enjoy their civil liberties only at the price of losing their jobs. Of course, such acts by the employer did not violate any civil liberties in the “association free from coercion” — in that field and exclude its other aspects. ‘ But you are willing that the “free associaWe are not working for indus| ‘trial democracy, as members of the A.C.L.U. We are defending and—I am willing to constitutional ‘sense.

At. any, rate, . ie Wagner Labor Act came along and. outlawed such interference on the part of the employer as unfair labor practices. But in doing so, we would emphasize again, the — statute did not prohibit any acts that were — in violation.of the Bill of Rights. The Congress merely exercised its Dome under the commerce clause.

“The Bill of Rights | is directed against ‘interference or omissions by the govern- ment. It does not guarantee an economic equality which will enable equal enjoyment of the rights that are granted. If Mr. X has — the money, he may circulate his ideas by renting auditoriums, publishing books, etc., leasing time over the radio and owning a newspaper. That is an economic question and does not come within the scope of’the Bill of Rights and the Civil Liberties Union.

“The Wagner Labor Act grants freedom of association. to employees, and thereby enables workers to bargain’ collectively without suffering a possible loss of their - jobs. The statute is a limitation on the employer, not .on the government. It in-- creases Labor’s » bargaining power and thereby enables it to enjoy a greater measure of civil liberties. —

“T believe that the above. neuen is well recognized by the National-Labor Re-. lations Board. On December 29, 1938, J. Warren Madden, Chairman of the Board, stated, in part, as follows before the Amer16an Political Science Association: :

“This new liberty has a significance comparable to the ancient liberties which — achieved recognition in time to be written into the Bill of Rights of our Constitutions.

TA liberty to emerge from a condition of — and dependence — upon the will of another, to a status of hav ing one’s chosen representative received economic helplessness,

‘as an equal at the bargaining conference table must be recognized as fundamental. — ‘Indeed, the constitutional liberties of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, could not, in their aspects most important to working people, be enjoyed until this new lib- erty was created. These constitutional | guarantees, operate only to prevent in- fringement by governments, and leave individuals and corporations free to prevent the exercise of these rights.

“If a workman became interested in ane: union and spoke to his fellow worker urging him to join, and was discharged for — ‘agitating’ he wondered what the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech was worth, when the exercise of the constitutional guarantee of freedom. of speech could cost him his living. If a union organizer stood on the street at the gate of an industrial plant to distribute leaflets containing arguments for joining the union, and the workers refused to accept. and read the arguments because they knew — they were being watched and that anyone who took a leaflet. would be discharged, he wondered what the guaranty of freedom of the press really guaranteed. Likewise, if — spies were set upon union meetings to report what employees were there so that | they might be penalized, there was no freedom.of assembly in any true sense, in spite of the words of the constitution.

“The constitutions in their time forbade the infringements which then constituted a social evil, and limited their restrictions to governments, because: governments .were the offenders. Surely-there is no more reason why, private enterprises should be privileged to prevent freedom of speech and effective publication and assembly than ‘why the government itself should be so privileged. And the employers drastic | penalty of discharge is a much more potent preventive than the penalties which ae government would impose.

“The purpose of the Act, then, was to create and protect a fundamental liberty. Tt selected the administrative process, (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

‘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.

Shall The A.C.L.U. Sponsor A “Little Wagner Act?”

(Continued from Page 8, Col. 3) rather than that of the criminal trial, as the means of enforcement. . . .—E. B.”’

“The argument in your letter of January 17th seems to us a very narrow interpretation of civil liberties. We have never confined our interpretation to restraints on governmental action, nor has the Supreme Court, although the burden of the cases lies in that direction. Even a casual perusal of our reports indicates how far we have gone beyond that to protest freedom of speech, press and assembly from invasion by private forces. There seems to us no difference between calling in the police for the protection of a street meeting from opponents and from calling in the federal government for the protection of the rights of workers from coercion and violence by employers. We should regard that as elementary... —

“Our intervention in behalf of academic freedom, in private schools as well as pub- lic, is another case in point. I do not think that the police power of government, which is involved in the National Labor Relations Act, raises the question of any “‘economic and political means.” We draw the line right there, leaving to political parties and economic groups the struggle to elect persons favorable to those ends—R. B.”’

“I have been reading a little in the Supreme Court decisions and also the argu. ments of counsel about the Wagner Act. I think they clear up the vagueness I felt about the ‘right’ of collective bargaining. “Evidently workers have a ‘right’ to organize and to bargain collectively in the same sense that the employer has a right to hire and fire or an individual worker to take a job or to leave it. These are not rights in the same sense as ‘free speech,’ or free press,’ etc. They are property rights which contlict with one another in the economic struggle. For example, no man has a right to take a job if no employer will give him one. Now the government in the Wagner Act, for the sake of preventing interference with the free flow of commerce, undertakes to take part in the struggle, to bolster up labor in its bargaining. But both motive and method puts it outside the field of the A.C.L.U. We are not concerned, directly, with the free flow of commerce, nor are we concerned to make labor more effective in its collective bargaining. It’s a good game, but it isn’t ours. “TI can see nothing but confusion and disaster for us as an organization if we seem to place freedom of religion, press, and assemblage side by side with such “rights” as bargaining, striking, firing, hiring, boycotting, etc.—A. M.”

A.C.L.U. WINS STRACHEY APPEAL

On January 23 the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding an appeal taken by Arthur Garfield Hays, counsel for the A.C.L.U., ruled that John Strachey had been improperly barred from entering this country. Strachey’s visa had been revoked on October 7, 1938 without a hearing while he was en route to the United States. The Government’s action was based on “confidential” information that he was a member of the British Communist Party and had contributed articles to Communist periodicals. Strachey will now be given a hearing on his admissibility.

* “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

A.C.L.U. Affidavits Filed With Dies Committee Deny Communist Link

Affidavits denying any connection, either directly or indirectly, between the Civil Liberties Union and the Communist Party have been forwarded by the Union to Rep. Martin Dies, chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, in response to an invitation by the Committee to answer charges by various witnesses.

The affidavits, one signed in his own behalf by Roger N. Baldwin, Union director, and another signed in behalf of the Union’s Board of Directors by Dr. John Haynes Holmes, B. W. Huebsch, and Mr. Baldwin, were submitted at the suggestion of Robert E. Stripling, secretary of the Dies Committee,.for incorporation in the official record. The Committee’s invitation was in response to a letter by Arthur Garfield Hays, Union counsel, to Rep. William B. Bankhead, Speaker of the House, in which the Union assailed the methods of the Dies Committee as a “‘public scandal” and called for an end to its “unsavory career.”’ Last August, Mr. Hays’ telegram to Mr. Dies requesting to be heard by the Committee was met with a mere acknowledgment.

Making it clear that it does not believe that submission of an affidavit is a satis- factory method of meeting the issues involved, the Union points out that the limited time available and the mass of unindexed testimony makes it impossible to offer more than a “brief statement.” The 9-page affidavit declares in part: “The American Civil Liberties Union has never been a front or part of a united front for the Communist Party.

“The American Civil Liberties Union has no direct or indirect connection with any political movement.

“The American Civil Liberties Union has no connection with any other organization except when co-operating on some particular issue or case involving a question of civil liberties.”

Asserting that it believes in the safeguarding of constitutional rights ‘“regard- less of the opinions or character of the persons affected,” the Union shows that it has come to the defense of the Ford Motor Company, Silver Shirts, Catholics, Jews and Nazis as well as Communists, ‘when it believed that their right to free speech was — infringed upon.” Cases involving Communists never occupied one-quarter of the total number of cases handled. In recent years, © the proportion of cases involving Commun- ists has dropped sharply to an insignificant few cases.”

The affidavit also points out that the Union has on many occasions “taken a position opposed to that of the Communist Party with respect to civil liberties.” This has arisen particularly on the right of Nazis to hold meetings.

The most telling point of the affivadit is a citation from Federal Judge William Clark’s ruling in the Jersey City civil rights case in which Mayor Hague had brought charges of communism against the Union. Judge Clark found that the Union was “established for the purpose of taking such measures as it deems lawful and essential for the enforcement” of constitutional rights.

“We submit,” says the Union, “‘that this judicial finding is entitled to more weight than the statements of witnesses who were not subjected to cross-examination or lim- ited by the accepted rules of evidence and whose bias or motive could not be ex- plored.”

A supplementary affidavit submitted by Roger N. Baldwin, director of the Union, answers attempts before the Dies Committee to connect him with the Communist Party.

Implied Radio Censorship

By F. C. C. Attacked By Union

Registering “earnest objection” to any statement by a member of the Federal Com- munications Commission which may “‘exercise duress” on radio stations, the Civil Lib- erties Union has urged the F. C. C. to advise stations that no action will be taken on the basis of the recent pronouncement of Frank R. McNinch, F. C. C. chairman, threatening stations which “‘used radio as an instrument of racial and religious perse- cution.

“Such pronouncements are wholly contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed in the provision of law prohibiting to the Commission any power of. censorship over utterances on the air,” said the Union, in a letter to members of the F. C. C.

A number of stations, according to the Union, have turned down speeches which might have been disapproved by the F.C. C.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

The case of WMCA in New York is cited, the president of the station quoted as saying that Mr. McNinch’s statement had been the chief cause for discontinuance of Father Coughlin’s talks last November and for cutting off the air Judge F. J. Rutherford, Jehovah’s Witnesses leader who attacked Roman Catholics.

In his speech Mr. McNinch had declared : “Should there ever be an attempt here by anyone to so debase radio as to use it as an instrument of racial or religious persecu- tion, the Communications Commission would employ every resource it has to prevent any such shocking offense.” The Union’s letter to the F. C. C. held that “many stations have been restrained in dealing with Father Coughlin, Judge Rutherford and other speakers by the program.

WPA FINGERPRINTING OR. DERS ATTACKED BY UNION

Announcing that it will promptly take into the courts any case of disciplinary action or dismissal due to refusal of WPA employees to be fingerprinted, the Civil Liberties Union has sharply assailed the practice in a letter to Works Progress Administrator F. C. Harrington. The Union urged Mr. Harrington to notify local WPA heads that the fingerprinting requirement is “purely voluntary.”

A number of WPA projects, according to the Union, are requiring employees to be fingerprinted on the ground that they are either dealing with children or have custody of property and that fingerprints are therefore desirable to detect any criminals who may have entered the service.

“This reason seems to us wholly specious,”’ the Union’s letter declared. “Public school teachers dealing constantly with children are not fingerprinted nor are many public employees with control of property. In New York State particularly this is ob- jectionable in the face of a state law forbidding fingerprinting as a condition of employment.

“We are advising WPA employees who consult us that no such fingerprinting order can be enforced under the law against the objections of any employees challenging it, and that we will take into the courts at once any case of disciplinary action or dismissal. due to refusal to be fingerprinted.

“We urge very earnestly upon you an order making it clear to all WPA heads throughout the country that any such requirement is purely voluntary, and that no action will be taken against any employees who refuse to comply. This is in accordance with what we regard as sound law and desirable public policy.”

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”