vol. 5, no. 3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. V SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MARCH, 1940 No. 3

TEST ANTI-MIGRANT STATUTE

Appeal Conviction of Man Who Brought Relatives Into State

Constitutionality of the California statute forbidding anyone from bringing an in- digent into the State will be tested in a case that is already on its way to the United States Supreme Court. On February 17, Fred F. Edwards of Marysville was convicted of violating the law in the Justice Court «f that city. Judge Mulvaney imposed a six months jail sentence, which he suspended. the case will be heard in the Yuba County Superior Court sometime during the next couple of months. If an unfavorable decision is handed down by that court, an appeal will lie directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Facts Not In Dispute

The facts of the case are not in dispute since 1920, having attended High School in Sutter County. He has a wife and three children and boasts of being a minister without belonging to any particular sect.

The latter part of last December Edwards drove two men to Texas, arriving on December 24. On January 1 he left Texas for Marysville with his wife’s sister and broth- er-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Duncan and their two-year-old boy. The Duncans had been on the W.P.A. in Texas, but managed to pay $20 for gas and oil for the trip to - Marysville. The charge of indigency made against them arises from the fact that they had been on the W.PA. in Texas. For a few weeks after arriving in California, the Duncans received help from the Farm Security Administration, but Mr. Duncan now has a job on a peach ranch.

Controller’s Agent Causes Arrest

The complaint against Edwards was made by J. E. Barton, Special Investigator of the Restitution Department of the Controller’s office in Sacramento. Edwards was released on $1000 bond furnished by two Marysville business men. Learning of the case, the A.C.L.U. offered its assistance to him. Thereafter, A.C.L.U. attorney, Philip Adams of San Francisco appeared for Mr. Edwards, and he and Mr. Wayne M. Collins will handle the appeal.

The law in question is Section 2615 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, which reads as follows: “Every person, firm or corporation, or officer or agent thereof that brings or assists in bringing into the State any indigent person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be an indigent person, is guilty of a mis- demeanor.” The law remained a dead letter after its enactment in May, 1933, until it was resurrected in Tulare and Kings counties last November and December.

Dust-Bowlers Deported

In those counties more than twenty cases arose involving dust-bowlers. In each case, the person who had brought the migrants, generally relatives, into the State, was com- pelled to return them to their former homes, or serve a term in jail.

Action in these instances was so summary Notice of appeal was thereupon filed, and that the A.C.L.U. was unable to secure a test case. Finally, the A.C.L.U. produced two men who had disobeyed the order of the Justice Court to leave Tulare county within 5 days. The court refused to rearrest them upon the request of the A.C. L.U. attorney. After the first of the year, no further cases arose in Tulare and Kings counties, and the Marysville case is the only one that has arisen in California during the present year.

Constitutionality of AntiPicketing Ordinances Before Supreme Court

The question whether peaceful picketing is part of the right of free speech will be decided by the United States Supreme Court in two cases that are now pending before it which will be argued sometime within the next month. One case involves an A. F. of L. picket in Georgia, and the other involves a C.I.0. picket in California.

The immediate question before the court in each of these cases is the constitutionality of anti-picketing ordinances which forbid peaceful picketing. In the California case, | one John Carlson was convicted of violating the Shasta county anti-picketing ordi- nance in the course of a jurisdictional dis| pute. Under the agreed state of facts, it is admitted that Carlson was guilty of nothing more than peaceful picketing.

ERICH REX MAY REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES

During the past month the Department of Labor dismissed the warrant of arrest in the deportation proceedings brought against Erich Rix, uncompromising antiNazi of San Francisco. His deportation to Germany had been sought on the ground, ‘that upon his entry into the United States he concealed the fact that he had been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.

“Moral turpitude” consisted of violation of the food laws during the inflationary period, by possessing 30 instead of 10 pounds of flour, for which he was fined a little less than 55c; and serving two years in a Concentration Camp for continuing his trade-union activities after Hitler had outlawed genuine labor unions,

HIGH COURT TO GET LOS. ANGELES FREE PRESS CASES

The U. 8S. Supreme Court will shortly be asked to decide whether a newspaper has the right to comment editorially on pending “ases in the courts, it was indicated fol- loveig the recent California Supreme Court rulng upholding three contempt convictions against the Los Angeles Times. The Civil Liberties Union is expected to support the newspaper as amicus curiae, as it did in the lower courts.

The contempt charges against the Times, filed by the Los Angeles Bar Association, arose out of editorials discussing cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court which had not reached a state of ‘‘finality.”” The State Supreme Court dismissed two counts and upheld threé as the basis for conviction.

Apraaring in behalf of the Times as a. friend of the court, Attorney A. L. Wirin, — representing the Southern California branch of the A.C.L.U., contended in oral arguments that freedom of speech and press was at stake.

The majority opinion cited as precedent the recent conviction of Harry Bridges, CIO coast leader, for making public a criticism of a Superior Court decision before sentence was passed. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Phil 8. Gibson said:

“The majority decision in this and the Bridges case has sacrificed a substantial portion of our cherished freedom of speech and press to stamp out an evil which does not exist. We should recognize the growing public suspicion that the courts place their own security above all other considerations.”

The Bridges conviction. will also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

C. S. VICTIMS MUST RECANT SAYS 2 PARDON BOARD

The Advisory Pardon Board has given an unfavorable recommendation on the pardon application of Oscar Adolf Erickson, convicted on criminal syndicalism charges in the Imperial Valley in 1930. “Unless there is a definite recanting,” said Attorney General Earl Warren, “I believe citizenship rights should be denicd.”’ Governor Olson has the power to grant a pardon in spite of the Board’s adverse recommendation, and the matter is now before him.

CHIEF OF POLICE ORDERS GYPSIES RUN OUT OF OAKLAND

Recently the Oakland police ordered two: Gypsy men to leave town or face arrest on’ vagrancy charges. Both men are receiving. assistance from the 8.R.A. The Chief of. Police admitted to the A.C.L.U. that he had' issued an order that no Gypsies are to be: permitted in Oakland. The Union protest-ed and promised to take appropriate action if the order was carried out. Thus far, none of the Gypsies have been run out of Oakland.

Page 2

N.L.R.B. Order Th New Ford Pamphlet Case Protested By A.C.L.U.

Strong objections against the National Labor Relations Board’s recent order re- straining officials of the Foard Motor Company at Somerville, Mass., from interfering with the rights of employees by distributing “statements or propaganda which dis parage or criticize labor organizations,” have been filed by the Civil Liberties Union.

In a letter to the N.L.R.B., Arthur Garfield Hays, A.C.L.U. general counsel, asked permission to file a brief and presént an argument if the case is reopened. The Un- ion has taken the stand, Mr. Hays wrote, that employers’ freedom of speech can be qualified ‘‘only when the utterances are part of a course of interference or coercion” with employees’ right to organize.

“This order seems to be subject to legitimate criticism on the ground we have pre- viously pointed out to the Board, namely, that it does not expressly exempt from cov- erage language which is not coercive. In the instant case, we cannot discover in the record any evidence of discharges, threats of discharge or acts of coercion such as were present in the first case involving the Ford Motor Company. The most overt cts that the record shows were the distribution of pamphlets and circulars advising workers not to join unions, statements by foremen held to be “‘intimidation” and some surveillance over union meetings, apparently to discourage the attendance of employees.

"In the absence of discharges, threats of discharge or other acts of coercion, it seems to us that your Board has construed mere language in print as coercive. The long history of restraints upon free speech ivr the United States has made evidentthe soundness of a public policy which puts no limitations on speech so long as no overt acts, committed or attempted, flow from it. In our judgment, the Ford Motor Company, like all other employers, has the right to express to the public or to its employees its views of unions so long as they are not part of a course of conduct interfering with its workers’ right to organize.”

The N.L.R.B. order, issued January Ee, was aimed at the distribution of a pamphlet entitled “Ford Gives View point on Liabor.” The: Board, in issuing the order, held that freedom of speech was a “qualified and not an absolute right.”

Special Offer!

The A.C.L.U. has available 20 paper bound copies of the new book by Morris L. Ernst and Alexander Lindey entitled, ‘The Censor Marches On’

This is a provocative and often high ly entertaining recital of the Puritans’ .progress and setbacks on the censorship front. Sub-titled “Recent Mile— stones in the Administration of the Ob scenity Law in the United States,” the book surveys the work of the Comstocks in literature, the theatre, the movies, oy art, birth control and nudism. Who the censors are, how they work, their tactics and resources, are discussed at length. The most out standing cases in recent years are presented and analyzed.

Published by Doubleday, Doran, this . 346-page book sells regularly for $2:50. Special price for the paper ‘bound edition to A.C.L.U. members.

Chicago Censorship System Denounced

The system and practice of censorship in Chicago, as applied to motion pictures, is vigorously condemned by the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee in a pamphlet just published entitled, “Stop Chicago’s Censors.”

Dissecting current and recent examples of ‘‘political censorship’ of motion pictures, the pamphlet reveals that in less than three years the city’s Censor Board cut more than 1000 films and banned 43. In five outstanding cases, strong protests by the Com- mittee and other groups were instrumental in lifting the ban. The pamphlet concludes:

“The censorship ordinance fails to provide any exemptions from censorship even in the cases of newsreels and educational films. Nor does the ordinance take cognizance of the practical need for a specially qualified Board to view pictures. Under the ordinance, the Censor Board just happened, and is; the public has no voice in the selec- tion of the members. Another deficiency in the ordinance is its failure to provide an adequate remedy to an applicant who is refused a permit.”

Recommending that the existing censorship be abolished, the Committee suggests that a new ordinance be enacted embodying the following:

‘That the ordinance provide for the review of motion pictures for the sole purpose of determining whether the pictures may be seen by children; that newsreels and educational films be expressly excluded from such review; that the Board consist of five persons whose term of office shall be limited and who shall be selected for their special qualifications based on their training or experience in psychology, education or such other fields as may enable them to fairly and competently perform their duties; that the Board shall be required to make public a complete report of all its actioxi on motion pictures submitted, at least once each calendar year.”

HIGH BAIL PRACTICE IN NEW YORK COURTS PROTESTED

Charging violation of the constitutional guarantee against excessive bail, Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel of the Civil Liberties Union, appeared in Federal Court in Brooklyn, N. Y., in support of appeals by attorneys for seventeen arrested members of the Christian Front, for reduction of bail from $50,000 to a ‘‘more reasonable sum.” While declining to hear Mr. Hays’ arguments, the court announced an appreciable reduction of bail for all of the defendants.

Explaining the Union’s stand, Mr. Hays pointed out that excessive bail is contrary to the Anglo-Saxon principle that, until proven guilty, a defendant should be considered innocent, and therefore permitted to retain his freedom, provided there is adequate assurance that he will be present for trial.

“The character of the offense should not be the chief test for fixing bail,’ asserted Mr. Hays. “Consideration should be given to the probability of the prisoner’s appear- ance for trial and his ability to furnish bail

The Civil Liberties Union is conducting a survey of excessive bail both in New York County and Federal courts. Mr. Hays’ appearance at the Christian Front hearing marks the Union’s first step in contesting “excessive” bail demanded by prosecutors.

N. Y. BILL BARRING DISCRIMINATION IN LABOR UNIONS SUPPORTED —

Approval of a bill designed to combat discrimination in labor unions because of race, color or creed has been urged upon Governor Herbert H. Lehman by the New York City Civil Liberties Committee. The measure passed both houses of the legislature and is now before the Governor for his signature or veto. In a telegram to the Governor, the committee declared its support of the legislation because of its extension of the state Civil Rights Law.

Mississippi Bill For ‘White’ And ‘Negro’ Textbooks Condemned

A constitutional test in the courts has been promised by the American Civil Liberties Union in a vigorous protest against a bill just passed by the Mississippi legislature providing separate sets of civics textbooks for white and Negro school children.

In a telegram to Governor Paul B. Johnson, the Union through its general counsel, Arthur Garfield Hays, called for a veto of the bill on the ground that it would set up “segregation of thought.”

The segregation provision is contained in an amendment to a bill providing free text- books. Under the measure, instruction in such principles as voting would be eliminated from texts for Negroes, and the Negroes’ textbooks would be kept in separate warehouses.

The Union’s wire to Governor Johnson declared:

“This bill violates the American concept of equal democratic education and ¢éonstitu- tional guarantees against discrimination. We trust you will not give your approval to a proposal which would add to the existing evil of segregation of schools an equally condemnable segregation of thought. If the bill is enacted into law, we shall be con- strained to test its constitutionality in the courts.”’

Upon receipt of the telegram, Governor Johnson announced that he would not reply to the Union’s ‘“‘threat”’ to test the law. “When the bill is signed, it will meet all constitutional requirements,” the Governor told reporters.

Flag Salute Case To Go To U. S. Supreme Court

The recent decision of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia invalidat- — ing a Minersville, Pa., flag-salute law will be appealed to the U. ’s. Supreme Court by the Minersville School Board, the Civil Liberties Union is informed. The Union, which has aided in the defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses in numerous cases where members of the religious sect have been prosecuted for failure on religious grounds to salute the flag, plans to intervene as friend of the court. A brief amicus curiae was filed by the Union in the Circuit Court appeal.

An Association of Patriotic Societies of Schuylkill County has been formed for the | purpose of giving “moral support’ to the school board in its appeal.

The case involves Lillian and William Gobitis, suspended from school for refusing to salute the flag. Attorneys for the A.C. L.U. believe that the Supreme Court, which has thus far declined to review similar cases, will consider the Minersville appeal, which is the first case of its kind in which the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been upheld in a Circuit Court. The decision is at variance with a Circuit Court decision in Massa- chusetts.

DENVER LEAFLET ORDINANCE HELD INVALID

An indication that the recent Supreme Court ruling outlawing handbill distribution laws based on prevention of street littering, is having a salutary effect on muni- cipalities was reported recently in Denver where the County Court quashed a case against a man arrested for handing out leaflets. The American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado appeared as amicus curiae in behalf of the defendant.

The case involved 70-year-old Leon E. Bohall, an old-age pensioner convicted last October of distributing handbills announcing a Workers Alliance meeting. Charged with violation of a Denver ordinance, Bohall was fined $25. Appealed by his attorney, Samuel D. Menin, with the aid of the Civil Liberties Committee, the conviction was thrown out on a motion to quash. J. Glen Donaldson, Assistant State Attorney General, represented the A.C.L.U. for Bohall in the police court.

Let Freedom Ring

Roger Baldwin Replies

Editor: So many members of the Union have asked my personal attitude toward the resolution adopted by the National Committee and Board of Directors that I venture to make this reply.

The press publicity concerning the resolution adopted by the Union barring from office persons who are not consistent in their support of civil liberty treats the de- cision as a change in policy. It is not. In all the twenty years I have been associated with the Union, we have never elected nor appointed anybody who supported the principles of civil liberties in the United States and denied them elsewhere or who belonged to organizations which qualified the principle or practice of civil liberty.

On that ground we never elected nor appointed any member of the Communist Party to any responsible position in the Union. I always regarded that as sound policy. All that the present resolution means is that that policy is applied to the present personnel of our governing committees and staff.

It is properly asked what is the occasion for doing so-now. The answer is to be found in the entirely new direction of the Communist movement since the Nazi-Soviet pact. This created a situation in our Board of Directors beginning last September which split it into opposed groups. It caused numerous resignations from the Union because of our tolerance of one or more Communists on our board. The issue, dormant before, became one demanding action if the Union was to hold together. We tried to resolve the conflict in the Board privately, by various means of accommodation, all without success. It was only with great reluctance that the majority of the Board came to what was inevitably a public issue, and to severing connections with some of our old friends. If some such decisive action had not been taken, it would have been impossible for me to continue or for the Board to function.

Some of our friends regard this action as a swing to the “right” or as an evidence of less zeal in defending Communists or labor. That is nonsense. So is the suggestion that the Union is now in no position to defend .—as it always has.

the rights of Communists to public office or to holding a teaching job. All we have done is to say, as we always have said, that an organization devoted to civil liberties should be directed only by consistent supporters of civil liberty.

I do not see how the Union can maintain its moral integrity except on such a basis Present circumstances seem plainly to require us to make that point clear. I can see no reasonable ground for opposition to this slight extension of our traditional policy.—Roger Baldwin.

Liberty of Opinion

Editor: What in the world is this new purge that the National Committee is going in for? Are any Nazis worming their way into our committees? Most unlikely. So then it must be that we must clear our skirts of Communists (and, explicitly, sympathizers with the Soviet Union). That is, we must now all adopt one of the two views about the Soviet Union. If the National Committee wished to state that leaders in.

the ACLU ought to believe in civil liberties, that would be unobjectionable though pointless. But it proceeds positively to define communism as one of the tyrannies it has in mind. What puts Germany and Italy within this definition? The explicit and boastful declarations of their governments. What puts the Soviet Union within it? First, the interpretation given by one group of radicals to confusing events of recent years; but second, and mainly, the continual reiteration of our orthodox press, which is less concerned about liberty than about the profit system. They have howled “dictator Stalin” at us until at least the ACLU duti

Page 3

Membership on A. C. L. U. Boards Closed to Totalitarians

The American Civil Liberties Union has barred from membership on its governing bodies or staff persons affiliated with any political organization which supports “‘to- talitarian dictatorship’? or who publicly sympathize with its principles. The action was taken at the annual meeting of the National Committee in New York on February 5th in a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors and the Committee.

The text of the resolution follows: “While the A.C.L.U. does not make any test of opinion on political or economic questions a condition of membership, and makes no distinction in defending the right to hold and utter any opinions, the personnel of its governing committees and staff is properly subject to the test of consistency in the defense of civil liberties in all aspects and all places.

Consistency Compromised

“That consistency is inevitably compromised by persons who champion civil liberties in the United States and yet who justly or tolerate the denial of civil liberties by dictatorships abroad. Such a dual position in these days, when issues are far sharper and more profound, makes it desirable that the Civil Liberties Union make its position unmistakably clear.

“The Board of Directors and the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union therefore hold it inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing com- mittees of the Union or on its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declara- tions indicates his support of such a principle.

“Within this’ caterer we include organizations in the United States supporting the totalitarian governments of the Soviet Union and of the Fascist and Nazi countries, (such as the Communist Party, the German-American Bund and others); as well as native organizations with obvious antidemocratic objectives or practices.” Fundamental Policy Unchanged In making the resolution public, the Union explained that it does not change the fundamental policy of the Union. The Union has never originally elected to its Board or its National Committee persons ‘‘whose support of civil liberties for everybody without distinction appeared to be qualified’.’ The only member of the Communist Party at present on the Board, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, was one of the original in- corporations of the A.C.L.U. and did not join the Communist Party until fifteen years later.

“Nobody suggests that any person should be excluded from membership in the Union, nor that the Union should be any less zealous in the defense of Communists’ rights. The sole issue raised is one of propriety affecting the governing committees in terms of a consistent attitude in support of the principle of civil liberties.”

The resolution was adopted by a votb of 30 to 10, with 3 not voting, in the National Committee: and 14 to 6, in the board of directors. Opponents of the resolution, in making public the grounds on which they fought the action, held that the sole test for membership on the Union’s governing committees has been loyalty to the American Bill of Rights.

The Minority’s Argument

“The resolution,” said the minority group, “sets up a sort of loyalty oath for officers and involves the Union in issues properly outside its field. Especially to be deplored is the A.C.L.U.’s passing judgment on the governments of foreign countries. This leads us into an endless argument over the exact meaning of the word ‘totalitarian’ and to what countries the resolution should apply. The move to pass this resolution is directly due to the hysteria which has been aroused by recent international events. There is and has been no . public clamour to purge the A.C. L.U. ‘Board.”’

Ail the officers of the: Union, icant the 2 chairman, were reelected. Dr. Harry ff. Ward, the Union’s chairman for twenty years, had asked that his name be not considered this year. Dr. John Haynes Holmes was elected to his place.

The Union re-elected to the board of directors the following members whose terms expired this year: Carl Carmer, Richard 8, Childs, Walter Frank, Nathan Greene, Flo- rina Lasker, Eliot Pratt, Roger William Riis and William B. Spofford.

Seventeen members of the National Committee whose terms expired were reelected.

fully goes along. Suppose I should entertain stubborn doubts about whether the Soviet Union is indeed atyranny? It is not enough that I have not been willing to submit myself to CP guidance in all my thinking. No, for “sympathizers” are on the blacklist, too. No use to cite Harry F. Ward who claims to know that the Soviet system is not a dictatorship, for our National Committee has decided for us that it is. When next I find myself able to attend a Board meeting, must I at the door first swear that Stalin is a dictator?

The Catholic Church has often been hard on liberties. Are we going to put Catholics off our committees? Of course not —nobody happens to be putting the heat on Catholics just now. But a few years hence it might put us in right with current prejudices if we excluded Jews—of course so that we might the more effectively protect them! No, it is no use. We can’t become popular with the manufacturers of American prejudice, even if we enlarge our name to ACLUFPEARC (American Civil Liberties Union in Favor of Private Enterprise and Against Russian Communism).

I wish our local committee might make itself heard in New York, not in favor of any foreign government, but against the handing down of an official interpretation about who is a dictator and who is not. I’d like to see them rub their-eyes as they discover that the ACLU itself wants some liberty of opinion.—Eldred C. Vanderlaan.

Holmes Elected Chairman Of A.C.L.U. Board of Directors

Dr. John Haynes Holmes was unanimously elected chairman of the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union at a meeting of the Board in New York on February 19. Selection of a National Chairman by the Board and the National Committee of the Union, is under consideration.

As vice-president of the Board, the Union’s unanimous choices were Walter Frank and Richard S. Childs.

Dr. Holmes, pastor of the Community Church, has been a member of the Board of the ACLU, since its founding in 1920, and vice-chairman for the past half-dozen years. Mr. Frank, a well-known New York attorney, has long served on the Union’s Board. Mr. Childs, executive vice-president of the Lederle Laboratories; Inc., and former president of the City Club of New York, has been a member of the Union’s Board since 1937.

MRS. ROOSEVELT TO ADDRESS CHICAGO COMMITTEE

Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt will speak on ‘Civil Liberties” under the auspices of the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee on March 14, 1940, at the Civic Opera House in Chicago.

Page 4

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

: Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG Editor | PAULINE: W. DAVIES = 2388 Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

UNIV. OF WISCONSIN HANDBILL BAN REVOKED

A regulation banning distribution of handbills on the campus of the University of Wisconsin has been repealed by the Board of Regents. The regulation was adopted in an attempt to eliminate the “littering nuisance.” The A.C.L.U. urged revocation of ‘the rule on the ground that it deprived students of an opportunity of self-expression, and ran counter to the U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating the Milwaukee leaflet ordinance.

' SMITH “OMNIBUS GAG” BILL AGAIN 5 BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE

With the Smith gag bill (H. R. 5138) recommended to the Senate J udiciary Com. mittee for further study and possible re» drafting, the American Civil Liberties Un- ion has forwarded to members of the committee a pamphlet outlining the chief argu- ments against various provisions of the bill striking at civil liberties.

The bill, which passed the House last July, provides for punishing incitements to disaffection in the Army and Navy, punishing advocacies of the overthrow of the gov- ernment by force and violence, deportation of aliens who have at any time belonged to organizations in which membership is a deportable offense, and for fingerprinting of all incoming aliens.

’ The Union holds that various provisions of the measure are unconstitutional, wholly unnecessary in practice and would become instruments of oppression against unpopujar minorities and organized labor.

HAMMOND, IND., PROPOSED BAN ON : STEINBECK NOVELS DEFEATED

After a long-winded public hearing, a special citizens committee designated by the Hammond, Ind., City Council to consider the fate of John Steinbeck’s novels, “The Grapes of Wrath” and “Of Mice and Men,” has voted three to two not to destroy the volumes in the city library. Among opponents of the proposed ban attending the hearings were representatives of the Chicago and Lake County Civil Liberties. Com- mittees.

The City Council voted five to four to accept the citizens committee’s report, but advised taxpayers to address to the courts any charges of violation of the city’s law barring obscene literature. Self-appointed . guardians of the city’s morals have con- tended that the Steinbeck novels are “profane”’ and repulsive.”

The city library, which formerly had close to a thousand requests for the books from adult borrowers, now has a waiting list of 2,965.

PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATION’ STAND ON INDEPENDENCE APPLAUDED

Expressing ‘‘whole-hearted endorsement” of the stand taken by President Manuel L. Quezon of the Philippines in reaffirming the Island’s compact with the United States for independence in 1940, the Civil Liberties Union declared it would combat in the United States ‘any movement or attempts to compromise the pledge made to the Philippines.”

In a, letter to President Quezon the Unjon said:

“While we have been concerned during the American control of the Islands only with the. issue of civil rights which it aroused, it is fundamental to our position that no people should be held against their will in political union with the United States. The right of a people to determine its own political status, while not specifically within our charter of civil liberties, is implied in our whole philosophy and outlook.”

Detroit Indictments For Spanish War Enlistments Dismissed

In response to nationwide protests from liberal organizations, including the Civil Liberties Union, Attorney General Robert H. Jackson has ordered dismissal of recent indictments against 16 persons arrested in Detroit on charges of enlisting Americans in the Spanish Loyalist army two years ago. Roger N. Baldwin, Union director, in a letter to the Attorney General, had termed the indictments ‘“‘preposterous” and ‘‘dis- honest.”’

In his statement announcing dismissal of the indictments, Mr. Jackson revealed that the raids had been ordered by former Attorney General Murphy before his elevation to the Supreme Court bench.

‘“Even-handed and impartial justice,” said Mr. Jackson, “would not localize prosecutions of this character to Detroit nor confine them to only one side of the Span- ish war nor even to the Spanish war itself. Unless we are to proceed with all cases arising during 1936-1938, it would be manifestly unjust to single out these Detroit defendants.

“I can see no good to come from reviving in America at this late date the animosities of the Spanish conflict so long as the struggle has ended... . Since these acts were not prosecuted when they were new or current, it seems inappropriate to begin prosecu- tion for activities so long known to the government.”

In protesting to the Attorney General, Mr. Baldwin, who had just returned from Detroit, pointed out that the Department of Justice proceeded as if the men were dangerous criminals. The raids were made in the dead of night and the men held in exorbitant bail.

“The indictment is dishonest,” wrote Mr. Baldwin. “It is an attempt essentially to punish a political minority for its views under cover of technical violations of law. Most of the defendants are Communists. Discrimination is evident in singling out friends of Loyalist Spain when no action is taken against enlistments for Finland or the French Foreign Legion. None was ever taken against the open recruiting in years past for the Irish Republic. The whole proceeding suggests that the Department of Justice gave in to pressure from the enemies of Republican Spain.”

DENVER MOVIE CENSORSHIP LAW TO BE FOUGHT IN STATE COURT

An appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court from the recent decision of County Judge C. E. Kettering ruling that Denver has a right to ban movies that tend to incite race hatred, will probably be taken by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The case involves the conviction of Robert E. Allen, former motion picture theatre op- erator, who was fined $1,400 and sentenced to 120 days in jail for showing “The Birth of a Nation” last April. Carl L. Whitehead, Denver attorney for the A.C.L.U., argued in behalf of Allen that the ordinance was unconstitutional and violated the rights of free speech and free press.

In his decision, Judge Kettering said: “If a municipality or a legislature has a right to say in advance and determine by a censor whether a lewd painting shall be exhibited or a lewd book published, by the same token, it may say whether or not a motion picture shall be shown.”

CHICAGO CENSORS ORDER MUTILATION OF “CHILDREN’S HOUR” |

The practice of the Chicago Censor Board of previewing plays and threatening a ban if cuts are not made has been vigorously protested by the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee as the censors ordered thirty cuts in Lillian Hellman’s “Children’s Hour” —enough to kill the play—after a preview showing. ; ‘ 2

The Chicago committee has launched a campaign for establishment of a civil liberties unit in the office of the State Attorney General.

DEMPSEY DEPORTATION BILL OPPOSED AT HEARINGS

As hearings on the Dempsey deportation bill (H. R. 3806) opened before the Senate Immigration Committee in Washington, the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations prepared to launch a smashing attack on the measure. Scheduled to appear against the bill in behalf of the Union was Reuben Oppenheimer, Baltimore attorney, author of the Wickersham Commission report on the deportation of aliens.

Others prepared to oppose the bill were Edward J. Shaughnessy, of the Department of Labor; Monsignor John A. Ryan, National Catholic Welfare Conference; Cloyd Laporte, Association of the Bar of New York City; and representatives of the Foreign Language Information Service, and other organizations concerned with the welfare of aliens.

The bill, introduced by Representative Dempsey of New Mexico, a member of the Dies Committee, passed the House “by unanimous consent” in March, 1939, without roll call or debate. It seeks to exclude and deport aliens who advocate “the making of any changes in the American form of government.”’

The Union opposes the bill on the ground that it would virtually bar aliens from hold- ing any opinion about our government. — “Any foreign visitor with recorded views critical of the American form of government could be barred, however distinguished. Even the advocacy of a constitutional amendment would make an alien deport| able: The bill would open up vast opportunities for malicious reports of aliens’ views, leading to deportation proceedings.”

Protest Bill Discriminating — Against Aliens In Housing —

Maintaining that the exclusion of non- citizens from low-rent housing projects is ae discriminatory, renders an unnecessary hardship upon refugees and visitors, and may render the act unconstitutional, the American Civil Liberties Union has registered opposition to a provision in the pending Independent Offices Appropriations bill (H. R. 7922) dealing with the U. S. Housing Act.

In a letter to Senator Carter Glass, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Commit- tee, Arthur Garfield Hays, Union general counsel, expressed concern with the preser- vation of civil rights for aliens in the present emergency. The letter declared:

“This provision is discriminatory and as such may well render the act unconstitu- tional. That it is discriminatory is clearly shown by the fact that there is no relation between the object of the legislation and the discrimination. The object of the legis- lation is to encourage public housing projects. Aliens who pay taxes and are subject to all the laws to which citizens are subject, should not be denied the benefits of social legislation. :

“May we also point out that under the proposed act no family of citizens may occupy a low-rent housing apartment if the | family harbors an alien refugee; in many cases such a refugee is in this country as a visitor, is legally prevented from seeking employment and must live with a citizen’s family. Unnecessary hardships inflicted upon visitors and those seeking asylum in this country run counter to our democratic traditions.”

LOS ANGELES THREATENED WITH A BOARD OF CENSORS

In response to a request of the police commission, the Los Angeles City Council | recently voted to ask the city attorney’s office to prepare an ordinance which would designate the police commissioners as a ‘board of censors over motion pictures and theatres. A public hearing on the proposed ordinance will be held shortly. The South- ern California branch of the Civil Liberties i is prepared to give the bill a stiff ight.