vol. 5, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. V SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MAY, 1940 No. 5

PARDONS DUE FOR 6 WOBBLIES

Victims of C. S. Law Receive Favorable Recommendations

On April 11th, the Advisory Pardon Board recommended that Governor Olson grant pardons to six victims of the California Criminal Syndicalism Act on whose behalf the A.C.L.U. had submitted pardon applications. The six men, all members of the ““Wobblies’’ or I.W.W. at the time of their conviction, are Wallace I. Fruit, T. O. Kleiberg, Wm. Minton and Howard D. Weltonof San Francisco, and Ivan C. Barnes and Joe Varela, now residing in Portland, Ore. In view of his expressed objections to the criminal syndicalism law, Governor Olson can reasonably be expected to act favorably on the Board’s recommendation. Effect of the pardons will be to restore the men’s political rights.

‘Tn ali, fifteen pardon applications have been submitted to the Board on behaif of victims of the C. S. law. Awaiting action before the Pardon Board are nine cases, five of which will be considered sometime during the next two or three months. One application, that of Oscar Erickson, who was convicted in the Imperial Valley in 1930, was rejected by the Board because he refused to recant his Communist beliefs. Governor Olson, who is not bound by the Board’s recommendation, has been urged to grant the pardon in spite of the Board’s action.

In supporting Erickson’s application the A.C.L.U. has drawn particular attention to the atmosphere of terror and mob hysteria that prevailed at the time he was convicted. Shortly after the trial, the American Legion Commander at El Centro made the statement that “The way to kill the red plague is dynamite it out. That’s what we did in Imperial County. The judge who tried the Communists was a Legionnaire, 50 per cent of the jurors were war veterans. What chance did the Communists have? That’s the way we stamped it out in our county.”

Fruit, Kleiberg, Minton and Varela were arrested and convicted in Los Angeles in 1923 during the vicious round-up of Wobblies under District Attorney Woolwine. No charges of violence were made against the men. They were merely charged with MEMBERSHIP in an organization that was declared to be bad. All served approximately four years in San Quentin.

Welton was arrested and convicted in Oakland in 1921. He served three years in San Quentin. Ivan C. Barnes was arrested in Quincy, Plumas County, along with ten other defendants, all but one of whom were convicted. Barnes served four years in San Quentin under his 1 to 14 years sentence.

Of course, in all of the foregoing cases, the applicants have excellent records. Their only crime was that they belonged to the International Workers of the World.

While more than 100 men who were convicted under the Act are eligible for pardons we have received applications from only fifteen. The A.C.L.U. will be glad to assist any of these men who have not yet applied for their pardons.

STARNES DEPORTATION BILL | VETOED BY PRESIDENT

Concerted opposition by organizations concerned with aliens’ rights led to the recent veto by President Roosevelt of the Starnes bill providing for mandatory deportation of aliens who ‘‘admitted” sabotage or espionage or were guilty of violating minor narcotic regulations. The President held that the bill was ‘‘unnecessary and superfluous.

The Civil Liberties Union joined the Foreign Language Information Service and eleven other organizations in a plea to the President for a veto on the ground that the bill would work unjustified hardship and const an invitation to third degree methods.

PENNSYLVANIA ALIEN REGISTRY ACT BEFORE U. S. SUPREME COURT

Intervention as friend of the court will be sought by the American Civil Liberties Union in a test before the U. S. Supreme Court of the constitutionality of Pennsyl- vania’s alien registration law, which was to go into effect last year. The high court has agreed to review a decision of the U. S. Circuit Court at Scranton last December holding the law a violation of the federal constitution. A brief by the Union figured prominently in the case.

The law, enacted last June, provides that all aliens 18 years or over, with a few exemptions, must register with the State Department of Labor and must carry identi- fication cards. Until its validity is decided, the State Attorney General will not attempt to enforce the law.

Pennsylvania officials maintain that the act was intended simply as a census measure. The Union holds that under the law aliens would have to live under a “passport system” and be compelled to remain “visiting foreigners.”

A bill similar to the Pennsylvania law has been introduced in the New Jersey legisla- ture. Two alien registration bills pending in the U.S. Senate are being fought by the Civil Liberties Union.

JE FOR 6 WOBE

Voorhis Registration Bill Opposed By Union As “Dangerous”

The bill recently introduced by Rep. Jerry Voorhis of California, a member of the Dies Committee, to compel registration with the State Department of all organizations having any foreign connections or “‘whose policies are determined in collaboration with a citizen of a foreign state’? was condemned this week by the Board of Directors of the Civil Liberties Union as ‘“‘wholly unnecessary, carelessly drafted, and dangerous to American liberties.” A special committee has been appointed to draft de-| tailed objections to the bill require registration with the Secretary of State of any organization with alien members; all trade unions embracing a member-. ship in Canada; the scores of fraternal, cultural and business associations connected with Latin America; religious organizations of all sorts either with international connections or admitting alien residents to membership. The Roman Catholic Chureh. would, according to the Union, ‘obviously come within the provisions because the Vatican is a government recognized by many countries.”

CLOTURE ON LYNCHING BILL FAVORED BY A.C.LU.

Declaring that ‘free speech” should not be invoked to defeat a decision on the anti- lynching bill now pending in the Senate, the American Civil Liberties Union has come out in favor of invoking cloture, if necessary, to bring the bill to a vote.

The Union revealed its stand in a letter to members of the Senate urging them to bring the bill to a vote “after adequate debate is had.”

““We have long been concerned that the federal government should assume partial responsibility for checking the crime of lynching—the most shameful of all violations of civil rights. We have examined with care the bill pend:ng before the Senate and believe that it represents the minimum responsibility which the federal government should assume... It does not, in our judgment, unfairly interfere with the necessary responsibility assumed by the states.”

A Prospective Court Case

The Socialist Party, San Francisco local, has requested the use of the San Francisco schools for a series of meetings. Heretofore, the School Board has refused such use to political parties, even though our State law provides for it. Excepted from the Board’s ruling, however, have been the Townsend and Ham and Egg groups. If the permit is refused, court action will follow.

The Union points out that as drafted, the pill, under threat of heavy penalties, would =

Page 2

A.C.L.U. Opposes Criminal Libel Charges Against John L. Spivak

The A.C.L.U. recently announced its: intervention in the John L. Spivak criminal - libel suit. Spivak, a well-known journalist, is held on two charges, one in Pennsylvania filed by Edward Sullivan, former Dies Committee investigator, and the other filed in Wichita, Kansas, by Prof. Kurt Sepmeier. Prof. Sepmeier’s charges arise from Mr, Spivak’s reference to him as a “‘Nazi spy.” Dies Investigator Sullivan preferred his charges because he was characterized as a “strikebreaker” in Spivak’s recent book. Spivak is at liberty under the onerous bail of $7000 for both charges.

The’Union entered the case on the ground that it opposes ‘“‘the use of the criminal libel law except in the rare cases where it may. be necessary to sustain its avowed purpose of preventing a breach of the peace... The proper remedy for those who cofsplaint of being libelled by Mr. Spivak’s writings is by a civil suit.”?’ From the Union’s point of view, the use of the criminal libel law to punish a man for his writings on public matters is analogous to the use of sedition and criminal syndicalism laws and “‘de-' serves equal condemnation as a violation of freedom of speech and of the press.’

Extradition Fought

The Spivak case took a unique turn when Kansas law officers appeared before Governor James of Pennsylvania to obtain extradition papers for Spivak’s return, as a fugitive from Kansas justice, although he has not been in Kansas. granted extradition, over the protests of A.C.L.U. attorneys. National: A.C.L.U. Director Roger N. Baldwin characterized the prosecution as “‘preposterous and unique in the history of criminal libel. This proceed| ing would make publishers and distributors person has been libelled. The ramifications are almost limitless.” Furthermore, ‘ appears that” the extraordinary ‘criminal libel charge against Spivak “was brought in order to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Kansas courts for the purpose of serv. ing him in a civil suit for damages by Prof. Sepmeier, who has been suspended from the University of Wichita until the matter is settled. While the Civil Liberties Union ‘has. no interest in a civil suit, it is vigorously opposed to the use of the criminal libel law for any such ulterior purpose.”

Meanwhile Morris L. Ernst, A.C.L.U. counsel, has wired Governor Payne Ratner of Kansas urging him to withdraw the Pennsylvania extradition proceedings. His: telegram follows: Abuse of Criminal Libel Statute “It is most important that freedom of the | press be protected from abuse of criminal libel statutes which historically are based on the theory that a disturbance of the peace might result from such a libel. To hold an author of the printed word responsible in criminal proceedings in every state where the document circulates, subjects every author, publisher, magazine and newspaper of the land to possible outrageous harrassment. United States Supreme | Court and other courts have realized the absurdity of permitting criminal libel actions in every state where matter circulates.

“In the light of democracy’s desire for nationwide distribution of the printed word, certainly it is imperative that we protect the publisher of a Kansas newspaper, for example, from being indicted in 47 other states, Actions for civil libel are the ordi- nary .democratic.. method... of.. redressing grievances sustained through the printed word and the use of criminal! libel statutes is essentially an implement convenient for expansion by those of a dictator mood.”

A Record

On May 1 the A.C.L.U. attained the highest membership in its 514 year history in this area. Exactly 626 members and contributors are in good standing. That means you have not been counted ifs your membership has expired and you haven’t renewed. |

Governor James as well as the author of a book extraditable ¢ any state in which it has been alleged a‘it NOW

Three cases have arisen in San Francisco during the past month in which police have broken up street meetings. In each case, speakers have been arrested ‘for failure to move on,’’ under an ordinance which provides that, “Whenever the free passage of any street or sidewalk shall be obstructed by a crowd, except on occasion of a public meeting, the persons composing such crowd shall disperse or move on when directed so to do by any police officer.”

From the language of the ordinance, it would seem obvious that orderly street meetings are a right. Any doubt on that ‘question, however, is resolved by the recent Supreme Court decision in the Hague case where the court was emphatic in declaring that the streets may be used for meetings, saying:

“Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, ‘time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights and liberties of citizens.”

Unemployed Meetings

The present cases arise from street meetings held by the Federal Unemployed Council at either O’Farrell and Fillmore streets, or 16th and Mission streets, San Francisco. Both corners have for many years been used for street meetings, particularly by religious groups. —

In the first instance, charges against Louis Masterson were dismissed by Judge Morris on April 4. A few nights later Joel | Lee was arrested, and on April 9 Judge Morris likewise dismissed the charges.

Finally, on April 14, Joel Lee was again ar-rested together with William Tergis. The case against Tergis was dismissed, but Joel

San Francisco Police Break Up Three Street

Vi eeting : Lee was found guilty of ‘failure to move on,” and sentenced to a fine of $5 or five days in jail. Thereafter the case against Lee was continued on the calendar until May 11 at which time it is understood that the charge will either be dismissed or an appeal taken.

Attorney Wayne M.: Collins, who handled all three cases, conferred with Deputy Chief Michael J. Riordan concerning the police practice of breaking up street meetings. The police, it seems, act on the request of merchants who complain that street meetings keep customers out of their stores. It is hoped that as a result of the conference further police interference a street meetings will end.

In the meantime, however, the matter has also been referred ‘to the San Francisco Bar Association Civil Rights Committee, but that body has not taken any action at this date.

Problem Not New

The entire problem is not a new one in San Francisco. From time to time the police have broken up street meetings, sometimes bringing charges against the speakers, and at other times merely detaining them for an hour or two.

A similar case also arose in San Francisive on April 15 involving a picket. Jennie Mat- yas, organizer for the I.L.G.W.U., was arrested “for failure to move on” while she. was picketing the Gantner and Mattern plant on Mission street. When she stepped out of the picket line to persuade a girl not to enter because of the labor dispute, a police officer arrested her when she failed to move on. On the stand, he insisted that ‘pickets have no right to step out of the picket line to talk to anyone. While Judge Theresa Meikle dismissed the charge, she allowed the officer’s erroneous statement to go unchallenged and even added, “Of course, you know that when a police officer tells you to move on you have to do so.”

A.C.LU. Offers Aid To St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The Civil Liberties Union has offered its services to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in appealing the decision of Circuit Judge Thomas J. Rowe who fined the paper $2000 ‘and fined and sentenced an editor and cartoonist to jail terms for contempt of court. The convictions were the result of editorial comments and a cartoon in the Post-Dispatch on the dismissal of extortion charges in Judge Rowe’s court recently.

In a telegram. to Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the Post-Dispatch, Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel of the Union, indicated the A.C.L.U. will seek to intervene as amicus curiae in behalf of the newspaper when the convictions are appealed. Mr. Hays’ telegram declared:

“We are not unmindful of the duty which rests upon newspapers in commenting upon judicial proceedings but regard freedom of the press as a right not likely to be taken : away. A policy of restriction may produce a press servile and subservient with conse- quences to our freedom that are incalculable. Only in the most flagrant cases do ‘we feel that the courts should use. their power to punish for contempt. The neces-, sity for judicial restraint is all the greater because the courts are, in contempt pro- ceedings, sitting in judgment on issues affecting themselves.”

Pro nealive Members

Once every year we ask our supporters to send us the names and addresses of pros- pective members. Enclosed with this issue of the ‘‘News” is a form entitled, “WE NEED NEW MEMBERS.” Since we do, may we urge you to return the form to us with your list of prospects.

Anti-Picketing Laws Held Unconstitutional By High Court

The decision of the U. 8S. Supreme Court invalidating antipicketing laws in Cali- fornia and Alabama was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union as of far‘ reaching significance in bulwarking the rights of labor. The A.C.L.U. had filed a brief as friend of the court in support of the C.I.O. test of the Shasta County, Calif., ordinance, the Union contending that peaceful picketing is an appropriate and in © most cases an essential manifestation of freedom of speech and the press.

The Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision, handed down by Justice Murphy in two opinions, declared of the Alabama ordinance: “The safeguarding of these rights to the end that men may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free | government.”

Regarding the California ordinance, which arose from the arrest of a picket after an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a collective bargaining contract, the court said: “The sweeping inexact terms of the ordinance disclose the threat to freedom of speech inherent in its existence.”’

Justice Murphy characterized peaceful picketing as a means of disseminating in-— formation “within that area of free discuss . sion that is guaranteed by the Constitution.” The rights of labor on the picket line must be compared with the property rights and business rights of employers and must be protected as carefully, the court held. The Alabama case was brought by the American Federation of Labor.

Serer ce Brutal Beating Charged To San Francisco Police

Charging that San Francisco Detectives Geo. V. Curtis and O’Shea gave him a brutal beating when he questioned their authority to arrest him at his home without a warrant, E. Vergel de Dios, 108 pound Filipino, a month ago, filed charges against the officers with Mayor Rossi. The complaint was referred to the Chief of Police, but nothing further has been heard about it. Mr. de Dios has been in jail for more than a month because he has been unable to provide a $500 bond or $250 cash bail on a forgery charge placed against him by a man with whom he worked in the insurance business.

Story of Assault

“On the 14th of March, 1940, at about 9:30 o’clock in the morning, I was awakened from bed (having stayed out too late the night before) by two plainclothesmen who abusively entered my room, inquired about my name, and upon my answering in the affirmative, one of them started to search my room, opening the bureau drawers, closets, etc., while the other one started to fire me a barrage of questions. I have tried to answer the plainclothesmen-questioner as best as I could, but when the searching plainclothesman started emptying the contents of the bureau drawers where my clothing and personal effects were kept, I inquired to both of them as to whether they are police officers, and if so, if they will show me their badges of authority to make the search, as stated above. They did not only ignore my request, but they called me the vilest names, and without the slightest provocation they mauled their heavy fists upon my head, neck and ribs, and knocked me to the floor writhing in agonizing pain. They picked me up and while one held my arms and hands from my back, pushing my body forward with his knee, the other one started beating me up again so severely that I lost all my consciousness—all the while he kept asking me if I had any “guns or knives’ in my room.

There Was No Knife

“One handed me some water to drink which I asked to quench my dried throat. There was no knife, neither guns found, as I never use them. I have been and still am. a licensed insurance man the last sixteen years. And, a man from the same office where I worked, put up a complaint against me for ‘forgery.’ However, there was no warrant of arrest and neither any search warrant signed by any magistrate shown to me at the time when they gave me that terrible, brutal beating in my hotel room.

“The two plainclothesmen got me dressed up hurriedly and they lifted me, walking the stairway of the hotel to their waiting automobile on the street. Then they booked me.at the City Prison for ‘1000 Vagrancy and violating Sec. 470 of the Penal Code.’ Then, one of the uniformed police officers brought me to the ‘City Prison infirmary’ for treatment and he taped me up for the broken ribs. For nearly three weeks I could not lay in bed and I had to sit up all night in the bed within the City Prison cell. The prison doctors gave me treatments...

Filed Complaint

“In the meantime, I had filed a complaint against the two plainclothesmen who bru- tally beat me up in my hotel room on the 14th of March. I sent the complaint to the office of the Mayor, then it was transmitted to the office of the Chief of Police and lately, the Asst. Dist. Attorney prosecuting the charges against me, mentioned to me in court if I was the party who filed the complaint with the Police Commission against said two detectives... .”’ F. V. de Dios.

The A.C.L.U. is investigating the charges, and has likewise requested the San Fran- cisco Police Commission to conduct an inquiry.

Page 3

A.C.L.U. Represents Bertrand Russell. [n Academic Freedom Case

Osmond K. Fraenkel, A.C.L.U. attorney, has been authorized by Bertrand Russel to represent him in his widely publicized academic freedom case now pending in the New York courts. After Supreme Court Justice John B. McGeehan denied Mr. Fraenkel’s petition to make the educator a party to the proceedings in the taxpayer’s suit against the Board of Education, Mr. Fraenkel filed notice of appeal which was pa by the Appellate Division on April Prior to this action, the Russell case has been confined within the limits of a suit brought by one Jean Kay, taxpayer, to compel the Board of Education to revoke Russell’s $8000 a year appointment to teach mathematics at City College, New York. Spearhead of the attack on the choice of Mr. Russell to fill the post was Protestant Episcopal Bishop Manning and Miss Martha Byrne, registrar of New York County, who declared in a public meeting that Bertrand Russell “should be tarred and feathered and driven out of the country.” The plaintiff’s suit alleged that Mr. Russell’s appoint- ment should be withdrawn because his doctrines are “lecherous, salacious, libidinous, atheistic, irreverent, narrow-minded, bigoted and untruthful,” and because Mr. Russell is not a citizen. Justice McGeehan evidently agreed, for he sustained Mrs. Kay’s charges and voided the appointment largely on the ground of Mr. Russell’s “immoral and salacious attitude toward sex,’’ and condemned it as an attempt by the Board of Education to establish a “chair of indecency.”

La Guardia Abolishes Post Mayor

La Guardia entered the case the following week when he abolished the post to which the appointment had been made. Roger N. Baldwin, national director of the A.C.L.U., immediately issued a statement deploring the Mayor’s action as “more objectionable than the decision of Justice McGeehan” and “particularly unfortunate since the issue is still before the courts, where a final decision is highly desirable to determine law and public policy.”’

In addition to the appeal by Mr. Fraenkel and briefs submitted by the New York.’ Committee of the A.C.L.U., the Board of Higher Education is appealing the McGeehan ruling in its own behalf, despite the advice of Corporation Counsel Chanler not to appeal. The Union has publicly castigated this attitude by declaring that there was “no reason persuasive enough to justify the Corporation Counsel’s attitude when the . issue at stake is whether or not a single judge shall usurp the function of a Board of Education. If such a decision is allowed to stand any taxpayer can bring a suit any time against any teacher in the public school system with the prospect of supplanting our boards of education by judicial fiat. If the sole question were the right of the Board of Education to appoint an alien toa teaching post... that is properly subject to court review. “But Justice McGeehan rested his opinion on the moral fitness of Prof. Bertrand Russell to teach. The Board of Higher Education is in a far better position than any judge to determine that.”

Statement By Russell

In his first official statement on the case, Mr. Russell stated that ‘“My wife and I have both contradicted some of the grosser allegations made against us; but I realize that I cannot hope to contradict them all...I do not wish to be drawn into endless and absurd discussions as to whether I am a good man or a thoroughly evil one. My Opinions on questions of religion and morality are everywhere discussed and often misquoted and misinterpreted ... and my philosophical works should be read by anyone who ‘is interested to discover my philosophical opinions, which are alone relevant to my fitness to teach philosophy. Everyone is entitled to his own opinions and his own conscience, and disagreement should be met with argument and not with intolerant condemnation. My opinions on social questions may be wrong, but they — be are the result of serious thought and a0 earnest desire to promote human welfare. | . Completely invented interviews with me have appeared in some newspapers, and statements which I have never made have been attributed to me and widely circu lated. ...I regret that because of this it is — necessary for me to make a rule of giving no interviews and issuing no statements regarding the legal proceedings in New York except through the American Civil Liberties Union or my attorney, Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel. Any comment said to be by me but not specifically authorized by pee should be taken as pos

PARDON ASKED FOR 12 PERSONS CONVICTED IN MINNEAPOLIS W.P.A. STRIKE

President Roosevelt has been urged by the Civil Liberties Union to extend executive clemency to twelve persons convicted in the recent Minneapolis W.P.A. strike and now serving sentences of ninety days to . eight months.

In a letter to the President the Union pointed out that the Department of Justice had requested the dismissal of indictments against other defendants in the strike ‘“‘con- spiracy.” No distinction should be made between those tried and those against whom indictments were dismissed, the Union declared, maintaining that the subsequent im- prisoning of the twelve was unjustified on grounds of public policy.

According to the A.C.L.U., “these twelve persons were among 165 indicted by the federal grand jury. They have been in prison since February 3rd last. A few days prior, on January 31st, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Mr. O. John Rogge, appeared in court to request the dismissal of the indictments against all the other defendanis. This was done. There is no distinction to be made between those who were tried and those against whom indictments were dismissed.

“In view of that undisputed fact, it seems to us clear that the imprisoning of these people a few days after the dismissal of the indictments is unjustified on grounds of public policy, even though valid in law. The only possible. correction of these obvious injustices is by executive clemency.”

DENIED CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE OF BELIEF IN PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM

An appeal from the denial of citizenship to Archibald R. Allan of Tarzana, Calif., by Federal Judge George Cosgrove has been filed by attorneys for the Southern California branch of the Civil Liberties Union. .

The court refused to grant Allan naturalization on the ground that he believed in a. 7 and urged some of the principles of communism and that he was therefore not “at- tached to the principles of the Constitution nor well disposed to the good order there- of.”” Allan had denied membership in the Communist Party and avowed his. adherence to the Constitution and his belief in changes by orderly means.

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.........Associate Editor Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per copy

A.C.L.U. Elects Prof. E. A. Ross To Head National . Committee

Professor Edward Alsworth Ross of the University of Wisconsin, dean of American sociologists, has been unanimously elected national chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union. He will serve as chairman of the Union’s national committee, advisory to the Board of Directors, headed by Dr. John Haynes Holmes of New York.

Professor Ross and Dr. Holmes together succeed Dr. Harry F. Ward, who held the dual post of chairman of the Board and national chairman until February 4, when he declined to accept renomination after twenty years of service. Professor Ross has been a member of the Union’s National Committee for over a decade. In accepting the chairmanship, Professor Ross said:

“I am glad to accept the chairmanship of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union. I have been with the Union from its beginning and glory in its record. Our Bill of Rights is now one hundred and fifty years old and I know nothing more patriotic and American than the Union’s steady endeavor to see that it is not overridden or trampled upon without the facts being made known to the public.”

Discussing issues of civil liberty, Professor Ross said: —

“As we expand government in order to ‘save ourselves from the clutches of the money-strong, freedom of speech and of assemblage should more than ever be jealously upheld.

‘Even those contending that ‘social revolution to overthrow capitalism is inevitable’ should be left unmolested and their party should have its place on the official ballot. Free institutions will take far more harm from muzzling them than from letting them have their say. For American post-war -experience has abundantly shown that a legal ban on ‘subversive’ doctrine does not work as intended. It is used not so much by honest patriots to hamper the propagation of revolutionary ideas as by unprincipled schemers to persecute the more trenchant critics of the class that is in the saddle.

“A society as broad-based as ours is, needs not go in terror of ‘leftist’ utterances provided they express honest convictions. It can without risk permit anyone to discuss a public question before whatever audience he has been able to get together. The proportion of enlightened has become so large that there is no menace whatever to public order in the voicing of the most Utopian ideas. The public utterance of malicious falsehoods or direct incitements to break the law or ‘overthrow’ the constituted authorities is, of course, another thing.”

Professor Ross has taught at Cornell, Indiana University, Stanford University, Harvard, the University of Chicago and the University of Wisconsin. He has been president of the American Sociological Society, and is the author of 26 books; his most recent book, “New Age Sociology,’ was published last month.

Professor Ross will serve on the A.C.L.U. as chairman of a committee with the fol- lowing officers: Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons of California, Miss Mary E. Woolley, former president of Mt. Holyoke College, and Dean Lloyd K. Garrison, of the University of Wisconsin Law School, vice-chairman; B. W. Huebsch, treasurer; Roger N. Baldwin, director; Lucille B. Milner, secretary; Arthur Garfield Hays and Morris L.Ernst, counsel; and Rev. John Haynes Holmes, chairman of the board of directors.

Berkeley A.C. L. U. Supporters Establish Local Unit

At a meeting of the Berkeley supporters of the A.C.L.U. held on April 15, a Berkeley Unit of the Northern California Branch was established, “for the purpose of coop- erating with the Northern California Committee and its Director on civil liberties is- sues arising in Berkeley.” Ten persons were nominated for membership on an executive committee of five, empowered to select its own Chairman, to serve for a period of one year in directing the activities of the Berkeley Unit. No regular meetings have been provided for, but it is understood that the Committee may call the membership together whenever the need arises.

The names of eight of the ten nominees who were willing and able to serve on the Committee were submitted to our Berkeley supporters for a postcard vote. They were: Allen C. Blaisdell, Director of International House, James R. Caldwell, Professor of English at U. C.; Sam Eagle, chemist; Alexander M. Kidd, Professor of Law at U. C.; Clarence R. Stone, educator and textbook writer; Kathleen D. Tolman and Kent Yarnell, W.P.A. research worker.

Why the Unit Was Started

The reason for the organization of the local unit appears in the recent violations of civil liberties that have occurred in Berkeley and on the campus. The City Council by a close vote has refused to allow Communists to meet in the City Auditorium, while the Board of Education has refused to adopt a resolution barring Communists from meeting in the schools. Because of the latter action, however, patriotic organizations have carried on a campaign against the school board. Similarly, certain agencies that have allowed their buildings to be used as meeting places without discrimination have suffered attack. On the campus, a student was disciplined for distributing a few leaflets in violation of a rule of the Board of Regents. Under these circumstances, the time seemed to be propitious to organize a Berkeley Unit of our 169 local supporters in order to help solve local problems and generally to activize the work.

Resolution Adopted

Our Berkeley supporters not only organized their Unit, but adopted a resolution proposed by Mr. C. R. Stone concerning the use of school houses as meeting places. Un- der the Civic Center Act, passed by the State Legislature, school boards are not per- mitted to allow groups which advocate the violent overthrow of the government to use. the schools as meeting places. In each case, then, a board must determine whether a group does the forbidden thing. If hearings are conducted to determine the issue, a pub- lic controversy results which leads nowhere. One side says the applicant does advocate the violent overthrow of the government, while the other side says they don’t. Accordingly, it was proposed that a uniform application form be adopted by the Berkeley Board, to supplant the two forms now in use (one used solely by suspect groups). All applicants would be required to sign an affidavit that the organization does not advocate the violent overthrow of the government. If that affidavit were given, the group would receive the use of the school meeting place without further question by the Board.

After the passage of this proposal by the Berkeley Unit, concurred in by the Northern California Committee, it was presented to the Board of Education by Mr. C. R. Stone. Mr. Stone also submitted a petition in support of the proposal bearing the signatures of more than one hundred Berkeley residents. ‘

U. C. LEAFLET CASE RESULTS IN “WARNING” FOR STUDENT

Setting aside an order of the Dean of Men placing Robin Taber on “full censure’’ for distributing handbills on the U. C. campus, President Sproul recently referred the case to the Men’s Judicial Committee. On April 3 that body, while finding Taber guilty of violating the anti-handbill rule, recommended that he be ‘warned.’ A minority of the Committee held that since Taber merely “gave (the leaflets) to editors and writers in the Daily Californian offices, to several strangers, to fellow members of the A.S.U. whom he saw, and to one or two strangers who so requested,” while intending to distribute at Sather Gate and other entrances to the campus, his acts did not constitute the “‘distribution” contemplated by the rule of the Regents.

Behind the Times

San Jose apparently hasn’t caught up with the U. S. Supreme Court’s November decision in the leaflet cases. In any event, five members of Jehovah’s Witnesses were recently arrested for distributing that organization’s literature. They were accused of “selling books and magazines without a license.” We have sent City Attorney Archer Bowden a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision, suggesting that the case ought to be dismissed because the court has ruled that licenses cannot be required for the distribution of literature. The matter is scheduled for a court hearing on May 7.

Right To Be Represented By Counsel

A.C.L.U. Attorney Wayne M. Collins is representing Frank S. Connor in the State Supreme Court in a case based on the constitutional right to be represented by counsel in a criminal proceeding. Connor was convicted on four robbery counts in Los Angeles in 1932 and was sent to Folsom prison. On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus he contends that he was denied the right to counsel. While there is some controversy as to what is the correct transcript of the proceedings, the State’s own record shows ‘that at the trial, after the State’s first ae ness had testified on direct examination, Connor asked the court, ‘“‘Where’s my at. torney?’’ For the balance of the trial he protested that he needed an attorney but the court refused to give him one on the ground that his right had been waived ata previous hearing.

Cases in the Courts

Four A.C.L.U. cases are now pending in the courts, including the Connor case just mentioned. In the San Jose citizenship case involving the denial of naturalization be- cause the alien had subscribed to a Communist Croatian paper more than seven | years ago, Wayne M. Collins has just filed the alien’s brief in the District Court of Ap- peal. Mr. Collins also prepared the brief in the Marysville “indigent case,’’ arising from the conviction of Fred F. Edwards for bringing indigent relatives into the State from Texas. That case, which is being handled jointly by Mr. Collins and Philip Adams, is under submission to Superior Judge Steele. The last brief is due to be filed on May 10.

Our final legal matter involves the citizenship application of Esteban Aguirre, the pro-Loyalist. The matter will be submitted to Judge Louderback as soon as he returns to San Francisco.

Communistic Literature

In San Francisco on Saturday evening, April 6, Noble Williams, a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was arrested while distributing copies of his group’s magazine “Consolation” at Market and Taylor streets. He was booked as a “‘$1000 Vag’”’ and released on $100 cash bail. Although Officer Michael Daly made the arrest, Officer Duboce signed the complaint and appeared at the hearing the following Monday morning. He testified that Williams was arrested because it was believed he was selling ‘‘communistic literature.” After reading the magazine, however, he had reached the conclusion that it was really religious literature, so he was content to have the vagrancy charge dismissed. But since when, Officer Duboce, is it illegal to distribute ‘“‘communistic literature?”’