vol. 6, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VI SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MAY, 1941 No. 5

SHOULD STRIKES BE LIMITED?

Present Proposals For “Cooling : Off Periods” Opposed By A.C.L.U.

It is a basic application of the principles of civil liberty that workers have the right to quit their jobs individually or collectively. No man can be compelled by law to continue working for another. The right to strike is a civil liberty. Proposals are gaining headway that the right to strike should be limited in time of national emergency, particularly in defense industries, by establishing “cooling off periods” during which workers may not:strike. The professed object of such proposals is to permit the forces of mediation to operate without serious restriction on the right to - strike.

“Cooling Off Periods’”’ Unfair to Labor Most such proposals proceed, however,’ ‘ on a false assumption. Strikes rarely come without ample previous notice of grievances and demands that are far from secret—and therefore ample time for the existing forces of mediation to operate. Enforced postponement of a strike beyond what in the judgment of the union leaders is the moment of greatest likelihood for its success is unfair to workingmen for two reasons:

(1) it gives the employer vital time within which to prepare to defeat the strikers; :

(2) it tends to promote disintegration ‘of the unity and will of the workingmen. Do Not Promote Early Mediation This unfairness to workingmen is, in our judgment, so serious (particularly in areas where labor is not yet organized or not yet fully organized) as to amount to virtual denial of the right to strike at all. The tendency of “cooling off periods’’, as shown by the experience under several state statutes, is to defer to the last minute allowed by law all attempts at agreement and thus to defeat the very object of promoting early mediation.

Workers do not strike lightly. A strike is a serious matter in loss of wages and pos- sibly jobs. Attention should -be directed rather to curing the grievances which cause strikes than to imposing restrictions on them. Mediation machinery is obviously far better than any form of compulsion, and can operate better without it.

Proposals to put a time limitation on the right to strike are dangerous to the rights of labor. If men can be restrained from striking for thirty days they can be re- strained for six months or a year, or prohibited altogether from striking.

Railway Act No Precedent

It is argued that a successful precedent for such cooling-off periods has been estab- lished in the Railway Mediation Act. But the facts are overlooked that in the railway industry postponement of the right to strike cannot normally be used to give the em- ployer an advantage; that the workers are virtually all included in unions with a long history of collective bargaining; and most important, that the Railway Mediation Act is actually the result of an agreement between the employers and these very unions tna he limitations on the right to strike in the railway industry are paralleled by similar provisions commonly part O1 coilective bargaining agreements in well-organized industries. If collective bargaining were accepted more generally by employ(Continued on Page 2, Col. 1)

A.C.L.U. Asks Asylum

For Jan Valtin

In a letter to Major L. B. Schofield, Director of the Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service of the U. S. Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked for an official hearing on a plea for political asylum for Jan Valtin, author of the current best-seller ‘Out of the Night” if a deportation order is issued against Mr. Valtin as a result of the recent hearings at Ellis Island. The letter, signed by Roger N. Baldwin, director of the Union, stated that “while we recognize that Valtin is deportable under a number of statutes his deportation to Germany is not only impracticable now but would at any time subject him to the penalty of death under German law.”

Valtin’s case comes ‘‘within the category of ‘hardship’ cases in which the Attorney General is granted discretion under the alien registration law,” according to the Union. The A.C.L.U. has always intervened in cases where deportation threatens to result in death or imprisonment as a result of political opinions.

NEW MEMBERS ADDED TO NATIONAL COMMITTEE

New members elected to the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union since the annual meeting in February are: William F. Cochran, philanthropist, of Baltimore, Md.; Dorothy Canfield Fisher, author; William Henry Gallagher, attorney, of Detroit, Mich.; Bishop Francis J. McConnell, of the Methodist Church, New York City; Rt. Rev. Walter Mitchell, Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Arizona, and Felix Morley, president of Haverford College, Haverford, Pa.

cotton

Berkeley School Board Election

The Berkeley City elections of May 6 present important issues of civil liberties be- cause the two incumbent Board of Educa— tion candidates, Frederic Benner and Mrs.

Christine Wilson, are being opposed for re. - election principally on account of their unswerving support of the Bill of Rights. During the past couple of years the American © ‘Legion has conducted a tireless campaign of © vilification and threats against the School Board’s defenders of civil liberties that hasfinally culminated in the nomination of Fitch Robertson and A. K. Sackett ona platform that has asits chief plank the elimination of alleged subversive grouns from the schools.

As usual, the partioteers are not at all ‘discriminating in their selection of ‘sub- The American Legion has: © submitted an ancient list of 184 alleged | includes the. A.C.L.U., the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Garment

(99 versive groups. un-American groups that the International Lady (sic) Workers’ Union and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Unless Mr. Benner and Mrs. Wilson are reelected, we may be sure that the fantastic judgment of the American Legion as to who is subversive will be adopted by the new School Board.

The patrioteers have rallied their forces into a Berkeley School League which is conducting a vigorous campaign for its candidates. It is hoped that those who favor civil liberties in Berkeley will show it by their votes on May 6.

“DUAL ALLEGIANCE” HIT BY SAN FRANCISCO COMMITTEE

Because of confusion resulting when active committee members of the American Civil Liberties Union identify themselves publicly with other civil liberties organizations differing in policies from the A.C.L.U., the Northern California Branch of the Union has adopted the following resolution:

‘‘Confusion is caused by the public identification of persons active in this organization with the directing committees of other organizations engaged in the defense of civil liberties, particularly organizations with a more limited concept of civil liber— ties or those which are the subject of controversy on grounds of alleged political domination. Members of this committee are requested not to identify themselves with — such other organizations without first discussing their proposed public connections with the executive commitiee.”’’

Similar action is under consideration by other local committees affiliated ‘with the — Union.

? Civil Liberties Issue In A.C.L.U. Will Assist In Bridges . Case If Appeal Becomes Necessary

The American Civil Liberties Union has offered its help to the Bridges defense, and, if it becomes necessary, it will assist in taking an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Such legal action, it was stated, would be on two grounds, ‘‘(1) the unrea- sonable character of a law penalizing past membership in any group; and (2), the issue of whether or not past or present membership in the Communist Party or any other organization alone constitutes advocacy of the overthrow of government by force and violence.”

The Union criticized the present hearings as “an oppressive continuation of the orig- inal proceedings which were dismissed,” ‘and as “savoring of persecution.’”’ At the same time, the Union recognized “that the Department of Justice is charged with new duties under recent legislation,” but it “‘seriously questions the wisdom, propriety and justice of any law that permits the harassment of any alien by continual deportation proceedings.”

The Union declared that its interest in the case arises from its opposition ‘‘to the exclusion or deportation of aliens solely on the ground of opinions,” and pointed out that the proceedings against the Westcoast labor leader ‘‘are based solely upon his alleged political opinions and connections.”

Recently, Attorney Charles Katz of Los Angeles sent a 3!4 page protest to the na- tional office of the A.C.L.U. against “advising members of the Union that the pend- ing deportation proceedings against Harry Bridges involves no issueof civil liberties.”

Even though Roger Baldwin informed Mr. Katz that the Union was NOT so advising its members, the protest promptly appeared inthe April 8 issue of the Communist New Masses. The Union tried to find out where Mr. Katz got his erroneous information, but Mr. Katz would not tell.

Then, on April 18, Herb Caen’s column inthe San Francisco Chronicle carried the same erroneous statement. This time the source of the story was given as a letter written by Donald Ogden Stewart, husband of Ella Winter, to a friend in California. “The only explanation we can offer for this peddling of a false story about the A.C.L.U. is that our left-wing brethren are indulging in a campaign to discredit the Union in order to build up their own civil liberties groups that sprang into being following the last change in the party line.

‘Cooling Off Periods’ Opposed By A.C.L.U.

(Continued from Page 1, Col 2) ers, with such provisions in effect, proposals for legislative restraints would largely lose their force.

Unsound Public Policy

The Civil Liberties Union regards the present proposals for limiting the right to strike as unsound public policy in relation to labor’s rights. The objectives they seek to. accomplish can be far better insured by vigorous and fair-minded mediation. Since labor conflicts are not in the public interest, they can best be minimized by conciliation without compulsion. Coercion of labor not only violates civil liberties guaranteed to all persons alike, but takes an ominous step in the direction of totalitarian control.

(The foregoing is a statement issued by the National Board of Directors of the A.C.L.U. Since it was prepared the House Naval Committee has reported favorably the so-called Vinson Bill which not only establishes a 25-day “cooling off period” in de- fense industries but “freezes” existing closed or open shop arrangements. The bill also forbids a “defense contractor” to employ any person he has “reasonable cause to believe” advocates the violent overthrow of the government or is a member of a Com- munist or Nazi organization.)

On April 25 Governor Culbert L. Olson signed A.B. 271, the Subversive Organization Registration Act. More or less duplicating the federal, Voorhis Act, the law requires the filing of voluminous information with the Secretary of State, including membership and contributor lists, by groups which advocate the violent overthrow of the government, or are subject to foreign control, as defined by the Act.

Orson Welles Target Of Hearst Censorship Campaign

The Hearst papers, aided and abetted by the American Legion and patrioteers gen- erally, are engaged in an asserted campaign “to cleanse the radio air of programs which incite listeners to disloyalty.” That seems like a worthy purpose, but the cam- paign has been limited to a Goebbels-like attack upon Orson Welles and The Free Company which broadcasts plays every Sunday morning.

Screaming headlines and full-page blasts have been directed at “His Honor, the May- or,” concerning freedom of assemblage, written by Orson Welles, which is described as “an outright appeal for the right of a ‘fifth column’ organization to hold anti- American meetings in a public hall of an American city.” Anda play by the famous Paul Green, entitled “A Start in Life,” is alleged to be “‘provocative of race hatred,” because a negro character complains that white people, “They stomp on me; they | - squash me. They take all, and put a fence around the world, and leave us no room.” For some obscure reason, this play is said to show “the hand Orson Welles wields in these broadcasts.”

The unrevealed purpose of this cooked up censorship campaign, if you have not al- ready heard about it, is to smear and discredit Orson Welles, who incurred the dis- pleasure of William Randolph Hearst recently when he wrote and played the lead‘ing part in a movie entitled, Citizen Kane, which is said to depict the life of Hearst. The movie has not yet been released, and the Lord of San Simeon is reported to be : -calism law.

doing everything in his power to prevent its being shown. We have a feeling, however, that this attempted censorship of radio and movies will prove a boomerang to Mr. Hearst by enlarging the audience of not only The Free Company, which ends its broadcasts on May 4, but Citizen Kane, if it is able to make its appearance in spite of Hearst’s frantic campaign of suppression.

U. S. SUPREME COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS IN “OKIE” CASE

Constitutionality of California’s ‘‘AntiOkie law” was finally argued before the U. S. Supreme Court on April 28. A.C.L.U. attorney Samuel Slaff, appearing in the case of Fred F. Edwards, contended that California’s limitation on the right of indigents to travel from state to state denies a citizen one of the privileges and immunities guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, and constitutes an invasion of the Federal government’s power over inter state commerce.

The A.C.L.U.’s position was upheld by Congressman John H. Tolan of Alameda County, who intervened in the case as “ friend of the court.’’ He introduced the Final Report of the ‘Hearings Before the Select Committee to Investigate the Inter- 99 state Migration of Destitute Citizens,” authorized by the 76th Congress. The District Attorney of Yuba County, Joseph L. Heenan, did not argue the case but merely filed a brief which contended that the statute constitutes a valid exercise of the police power.

The case is of particular interest at this time because of the migrations of workers to centers of defense industries. Mr. Slaff argued that present defense efforts might be seriously impaired if states could forbid the free movement of workers.

The A.C.L.U. urged the Governor to veto the bill on the ground that it is ‘‘unneces| sary and suppressive, violating the right of freedom of opinion and menacing the demo- cratic processes which it purports to uphold. The measure is difficult of enforce- ment and will inevitably result in persecutions and the creation of martyrs. Finally, it is bad because it usurps the powers of the Congress.”

: Bill Directed At Opinions The letter signed by Ernest Besig, local director of the Union, declared that “While there may be a valid basis for requiring the information of foreign-controlled groups, ‘ we believe that the Act imposes obligations and duties upon groups advocating the violent overthrow of the government that can— not be supported under our traditional concept of free speech. Obviously, the basis for requiring such groups to register is merely the opinions they hold, and not any actions on their part.

“In these hysterical times it seems to be ‘forgotten that the principle of free thought is ‘not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought we hate.’ Even those doctrines which we hate and believe to be fraught with death are entitled to be uttered, unless there is a clear and present danger. Certainly the handful of Bund members, and the 13,586 Communist votes out of 3,300,000 cast at the last State election constitute no clear and present danger excusing the suppressive action taken by A. B. 271.

“It has been our experience that alllaws = aimed at opinion and belief are notoriously difficult of enforcement, and wherever the attempt is made to enforce them, grossly unfair. Prejudice inevitably plays a large part in such proceedings, as you may well recall with reference to the criminal syndi

Groups Do Not Dare To Register —

“But we do not see how any group would dare to register under the measure. Lists of members and contributors would inevitably be publicized and we could not only look for serious economic consequences to these heretics, but persecution by vigilantes as well. This bill, if it can be enforced, will enable our patrioteers to engage in a mag- nificent witch hunt.

“Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Pennsylvania alien registration law case,:it must ‘also be obvious that the legislature is invading a field which is reserved to the federal government. The Voorhis Act, for better or worse, is still the law, although untested, and it does all the things covered by the Tenney bill. Particularly, it covers a field affect-. ing international relations which the state has no power to invade. A.B. 271 is unconstitutional on that ground alone.”

Olson Vetoes One Bill

Vetoed by Governor Olson on April 23 was A.B. 102, making it a felony for any person to hold any public office, “who, while either a citizen or resident of the United States, has by any oath bound himself to maintain or further the military, political activities or policies, or to obey the orders or directions, of any foreign government or of any official, society or association therein.”’ :

Pending before the Assembly, as we go to press, is A.B. 56, by Jack Tenney, requiring the dismissal of any State employee who refuses to answer any questions of a legis- lative committee. The retroactive features ore bill were recently eliminated in com- mittee.

Also-before the Assembly is A.B. 58 (also — (Continued on Page 4, Col. 3)

Berl cchocl Faces Three. Non-Saluting Children

Appealing from the sentence of three New Hampshire school children to the state reformatory last December after they had been expelled from public school for refusal to salute the flag, the American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a brief in| the state supreme court at Nashua, N. H. After their expulsion from school, a complaint of delinquency was issued against Roland, Loraine and Loretta Lefebvre, whose parents are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were sentenced to the State Industrial School until they each reached the age of 21. Appeal was taken after the superior court refused to suspend the sentence.

In filing its brief as friend of the court the Union explained that “the case raises the new question as to whether children, after they have been expelled from school by. the authorities, can then be sentenced as delinquents or habitual truants, and treated as criminals because of their nonattendance at school.”’ The brief contends that the statute under which conviction was obtained violates the provision of New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights that no one “shall be hurt, molested or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to his conscience,” and that the state law ‘“‘was not intended to apply to minors in the situa- tion of the Lefebvre children.’’ The Union’s brief was signed jointly by Winthrop Wad- leigh of Concord, N. H.; Arthur Garfield Hays, the Union’s general counsel, and Franklin 8. Pollak of New York City.

INFLUENCING A CHILD NOT TO : SALUTE BECOMES A CRIME

Requesting a hearing before the Rhode Island Assembly’s committee on education recently, the American Civil Liberties Union voiced opposition to a bill aimed at Jehovah’s Witnesses which would make it an offense to influence a school pupil not to salute the flag. The Union informed the committee that Rhode Island was the first state to consider legislation of this kind and that “‘it is grotesque that of all states Rhode Island, the cradle of religious liberty, should entertain a proposal to make any - religious belief a crime.” The Union based its opposition on the following points:

1. “There is no necessity for such a measure since school authorities have the right to exclude children who refuse to salute the flag and under the law they must be given equivalent instruction. It is not the concern of the state to go further.

2. “The result of such legislation would be to make criminals of all members of a religious sect which bases its opposition to flag saluting on Biblical grounds.

3. “Such legislation is probably uncon stitutional.”

A. C. L. U. APPEARS IN CASE TESTING CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNIST BALLOT BAN

The Southern California branch of the A.C.L.U. has been granted leave to appear as “a friend of the court’ in a Los Angeles case, Mingay vs. Peek, testing the constitu- tionality of California’s 1940 law barring

the Communist Party from the ballot. The Union is represented by its counsel, A. L. Wirin, whose application to the court declared, ‘‘In the interests of the preservation of the American Constitutional right of freedom of expression, and not out of concern for the rights of the Communist Party as such, the A.C.L.U. desires to appear herein as a friend of the court in order to aid the court in arriving at judgment preservative of the Bill of Rights and consistent with constitutional guarantees.”’

The case is scheduled for argument on demurrers in the Department of the Superior Court before Judge Frank G. Swing on. May 5.

Page 3

‘Should ‘Anonymous Literature Be Made Unlawful?

The national Board of Directors of the A.C.L.U. recently considered proposals aimed at forcing the disclosure of publishers of anonymous printed material. By a very close vote that followed a lively discussion, the Board decided to oppose such legislation, except where propaganda is published by or in the interest of foreign governments or principals.

The debate in the Board brought out three conflicting views: (1) that we should oppose all such legislation as violating what is regarded as the right to be anonymous; (2) that we should support all such legislation on the ground that nobody has a right to inflict anonymous material on the public; (3) that we should take no action, on the ground that a requirement for disclosing identity does not involve an issue of civil liberty.

In California during the past forty years we have had a statute making it a misdemeanor for any person to disseminate any literature that is “designed or intended to injure or defeat any candidate for nomination or election to any public office by reflecting upon his personal character or political action, unless there appears upon such circular... either the name of the chairman and secretary or the names of two officers at least of the political or other organization issuing the same, or the name and residence, with the street and number thereof, if any, of some voter of this state, and responsible therefor ... Several months ago a member of Labor’s NonPartisan League in San Mateo county was acquitted on a charge of violating this law. It is the only prosecution under the Jaw that has ever come to our attention. On the other hand, numerous violations occur at the time of every election.

We submit the Board’s statement of policy on this entire matter in the hope that it will result in expressions of opinion from our readers.

Numerous bills to disclose the sources of printed matter are before Congress, state legislatures or city councils. They are all based on the theory that anonymity is op- posed to the public interest. It is alleged that under its cloak anti-democratic forces and those attacking race and religion are enabled more easily to operate. It is pointed out that a vast anonymous anti-Semitic literature is being distributed; and in the po- litical campaign of 1940, according to the Senate Committee investigating campaign expenditures, about one-third of the total literature was anonymous.

Protection for Minorities

On first. view it would appear that no civil rights are involved in a requirement to print the name and address of the publisher of literature. But it must be remembered that historically some of the most significant movements in favor of liberty were anonymous. In parts of the United States dominated by political. machines or. industrial interests it would be almost suicidal for a minority to expose itself by taking responsibility for publications in opposition to such powerful forces.

It is the view of the American Civil Liberties Union that despite the manifest evils of anonymous literature the cure does not lie in the compulsions of law to disclose the names and addresses of publishers. Such laws could be circumvented by creating dummies behind which the real publishers would operate. Only complete information ‘as to financial backing etc. could overcome that. But it would be impracticable to re- quire—as in the case of periodicals enjoying second-class mailing privileges—the in- sertion in all printed: matter of the complete ownership or the financial backers. In the judgment of the Union it is better to suffer the dangers ofa flood of anonymous propaganda than to strike at the rights of minorities freely to publish their sentiments without naming their sources. In the long run the facts and arguments presented will be weighed on their merits. Counter-propaganda will check the evils. Interested parties will expose the sources.

Foreign Propaganda Should Be Disclosed

The Union does not hold, however, that these considerations apply to literature published in the United States by agents of foreign principals, whether governmental or private. These agencies‘may properly be subject to special regulation. All agents in the United States of foreign principals (except commercial concerns) are required to register with th Secretary of State. The American Civil Liberties Union saw no in- vasion of civil rights in that law. There is no invasion of civil rights in requiring names and addresses on all printed matter published here by foreign agents. As public policy it can be defended on the ground of identifying foreign propaganda affecting American opinion. The Union also takes the position on similar grounds that the gov— ernment may properly exclude from the United States foreign propaganda not bearing the names and addresses of : Frese sible publishers.

Three Bills Opposed

In the light of this statement of policy the Civil Liberties Union is opposed to the following bills pending in Congress:

Senate Bill 772 by Senator Raymond E. Willis, and H.R. 2262 by Rep. George W. Gillie. Referred to Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. The bill provides that all periodicals sent through the mails (not enjoying second-class mail privileges) shall contain approximately the same information as that required of periodicals enjoying second-class privileges.

Senate Bill 989 by Senator Guy M. Gillette. Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections. The bill requires that all literature issued in political campaigns for federal officers must show the names and addresses of the publishers. It further | makes unlawful the publication of matter in such a campaign tending to incite to ar. son, murder, riot or racial hatred, Senate Bill 990 by Senator Guy M. Gillette. Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections. The bill provides that publi cations designed to influence any federal election and which arouse hatred of any group on the ground of race or religion © shall carry the names and addresses of the publishers.

One Bill Supported

The Union supports the following bill: Senate Bill 313 by Senator Alexander Wiley. Referred to the Committee on Post. Offices and Post Roads. The bill provides that any publication by or for any agent ofa foreign principal must carry on the first page in legible English characters the name of the agent as registered with the Secre-. tary of State—with penalty for non-compliance.

75 Jehovah's Witnesses Charged With Criminal Syndicalism

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked its counsel in Indianapolis to inter— vene in behalf of seventy-five men, women | and children, members of Jehovah’s Wit- nesses, who were jailed and charged with criminal syndicalism in Connersville, Ind., recently, following the second outbreak of mob violence against the religious group in that town. The Union took action immediately on receiving a report of the arrests, urging prompt investigation by the U. S. Department of Justice. Gov. Henry F. Schricker was asked to take measures to ‘restrain local authorities from further vio| lation of civil rights and Garfield Rodgers, county prosecutor was urged to apprehend those responsible for the alleged mob violence against the Witnesses.

The Union pointed out in its telegram to Rodgers that ‘‘the second such incident in recent. months makes action imperative in. view of U. S. Supreme Court decisions up- holding the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

The Union is cooperating with attorneys for Jehovah’s Witnesses in appealing the conviction of two women, one seventy years old and the other nearly sixty, each sen- tenced to ten years in prison in Connersville last September on charges of “riotous conspiracy” for refusal to salute the flag.

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union-News

' Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, San Francisco, 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.

Parade Statute Upheld By U.S. Supreme Court

New Hampshire’s parade statute, prohibiting a parade or procession upon a public street without first securing a license, has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The law was challenged asa violation of civil liberties by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Sixty-eight members of the organization, in groups of 15 to 20 persons, marched in single file along the sidewalks of a community carrying signs reading, “Religion is a Snare and a Racket,” and on the reverse, “Serve God and Christ the King.” They had no parade permit, and their arrest and conviction followed.

In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Hughes, it was stated, ‘““The author- ity of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and conven- ience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as incon- sistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good or- der upon which they ultimately depend.

. As regulation of the use of the streets for parades and processions is a traditional exercise of control by local government, the question in a particular case is whether that control is exerted so as not to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly and the opportunities for the communica+ tion of thought and the discussion of public questions immemoriably associated with: resort to public places.”

The statute in question set a maximum tt cense fee of $300, which was construed as Yequiring “a reasonable fixing of the amount of the fee.” Of this fee, the court said, . we perceive no constitutional ground for denying to local governments that flexibility of adjustment of fees which in the light of varying conditions would tend to conserve rather than impair the liberty sought.

The court’s decision was handed down on March 31, 1941, in the case of Willis Cox, Walter Chaplinsky, John Konides et al. vs. State of New SBOP:

‘HEARING ON RIGHT TO COUNSEL TURNED DOWN BY U. 8. SUPREME COURT

The U. S. Supreme Court last month refused to review the case of Frank Connor, Folsom convict, who claims he was denied the right to counsel when tried on criminal charges in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Previously, the California Supreme Court refused a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Connor had ‘‘intelligently and competently” waived his right.

QUOTATION MARKS

“It is worthwhile to consider whether, instead of relying on our own experience, we have not, since 1917, been going on ideas taken from Continental Europe, seeking a coerced outward unity, and importing a censorship which belongs to and has grown out of the exigencies of a very different type of government from ours. The prob= lem is to find some adjustment between the war powers of the government under the Constitution and th constitutional guarantee of free speech and a free press. Military efficiency in a democracy is not endangered by the things that threaten it under an autocracy.’’ — Roscoe Pound,. former dean of the Harvard School of Law, author, and former member of the supreme. | bench of Nebraska.

A Review Of Recent United States Supreme Court Decisions On Picketing case Mr. Justice Reed rejected altogether the idea that past violence permits banning future peaceful picketing. The remedy he said: “lies in. the maintenance of order, not — The Supreme Court in Thornhill = Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940) and Carlson v. California, 310 U. S. 106 (1940), Justice McReynolds alone dissenting, held void statutes banning all picketing in so far as they are directed to peaceful picketing. Mr. Justice Murphy said:

“In the circumstances of our times the dissemination. of information concerning the facts of a labor dispute must be regarded as within that area of free discussion that is guaranteed by the Constitution.”’

He concluded that the place of employment is an appropriate one for the exercise of these rights. But he left open the right of the state to punish threats or violence or the effects of mass picketing.

Two Recent Cases

The Court has recently applied these rules to injunctions issued by state courts. In A. F. of L. v. Swing, decided. February 10, 1941, it reversed an injunction against picketing where the state court had rested its decision on the ground that no. members of the defendant union were employed by the plaintiff (the Chief Justice and Justice Roberts dissenting.)

In Milk Wagon Drivers Union vs. Meadowmoor Dairies Milk, Inc., decided at the same time, the majority reached a different conclusion, on the ground that the strike had been accompanied by considerable violence. Justices Black, Douglas and. Reed dissented. In both of these cases Justice Frankfurter wrote for the majority.

All of the justices apparently agreed that the protection of peaceful picketing . as and phase of free speech extends to invasion by injunction as well as by, statute. oe The Majority Opinions = SMe Justice Frankfurter, for the majority, differentiated between the two cases solely on the issue of violence. In the Swing ease there had been no trial—merely an injunction based on affidavits which both asserted and denied violence. Said the majority: “A state cannot exclude workingmen from peacefully exercising the right of free communication by drawing the circle of economic competition between efployers and workers so small as to contain only an employer and those directly employed by him.”’

But in-the Meadowmoor case there had been a trial, and a finding by the master that violence endangered peaceful picketing—rejected by the trial court but accepted on appeal. This, thought the majority, was quite different from .a statute, since it affected only a particular case. An ‘improper attempt to enforce the injunction could again be tested, either because the coercive effect of the past violence had ceased or because too broad a meaning was given to the restraints. ;

Mr. Justice Frankfurter refused to weigh the evidence as to violence because the state court finding was not a ‘palpable evasion of constitutional guaranty.” And he suggested that the remedy was to induce the people of Illinois to withdraw the use of injunctions in labor controversies by. “the democratic process.” He believed that ‘just because these industrial conflicts raise anxious difficulties’, the Supreme Court should not intrude “‘into the realm of policymaking.”

The Dissents

The dissent in the Swing case rested largely on technical considerations which left Mr. Justice Roberts (with whom the Chief Justice agreed) in doubt whether the state court based its decision on the nonexistence of a labor dispute, the falsity of the signs or violence. It held that if there was violence an injunction against picketing was permissible, without considering the extent or character of the violence.

On the other hand in the Meadowmoor * in the denial of free speech.’? And he pointed out that there had been no finding that. violence was “planned or encouraged by the union”

Mr. Justice “Black in his dissent in the same case (concurred in by Mr. Justice Douglas), while agreeing with the general position stated by Mr. Justice Reed, elab- orated the facts. He pointed out (1) that the injunction prevented-the discussion of matters of public concern, (2) that the state court had granted its injunction not in the belief that violence would accompany picketing in the future because it had in the past, but in the belief that the strikers had no right in any way to interfere with the business of milk distribution. © He believed the majority had opened up “new possibilities for invasion of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment” because of the vagueness of their concepts of ‘‘context of violence’ and ‘“‘coercive effect”.

Mr. Justice Black insisted that the injunction should be scrutinized like a statute, and that so considered it was an ‘“‘overhanging threat of future punishment’ so vague and all-embracing as to be void. And he dwelt on the facts that the trial court had, not deemed it necessary to enjoin peaceful picketing, though it had enjoined | violence; that the picketing had not com-— menced ‘until many month after the violence; and that the picketing Poe had always been peaceful.

Conclusion 4

The decision in the Meadowmoor case tik been widely criticized ag opening wide the door to injunctions banning peaceful picketing. There can be no doubt that unscrupul- ous employers may be led to “planting” acts of violence in the hope that thus an injunction against all picketing may be obtained. And State Court judges hostile to labor will be eu oaee in issuing such injunctions.

It is hoped that the Court will either withdraw from the position adopted in this case or restrict the effect of the decision to a situation where it clearly appears that violence on the part of the union and its picketing will be inextricably entwined.

Governor Olson Signs Witch-Hunt Bill

(Continued from Page 2, Col. 3) by Tenney), establishing membership in the Communist Party or the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government as: grounds for disbarment or suspension of a lawyer. The portion of the bill requiring. applicants for admission to take an oath. ‘promising not to join the Communist Party nor to advocate the violent overthrow of the government was stricken out.

The bill to eliminate: Communists from’ State jobs, A.B. 155, has been adopted by the Assembly in amended form and is now before the Senate. Originally, the bill merely covered future employees. The amendments allow the discharge of any State employee “known by his appointing: power to be a member of” the Communist Party. A.B. 2348, prohibiting the wearing of for=. eign military or semi-military uniforms, or. uniforms similar thereto, has been adopted by the Assembly and is now before the Senate. Likewise, A.B. 2349, which raises the presumption under the Civic Center Act that any groups using the name Com“munist, or a derivate of that word, advocate the violent overthrow of the govern= ment, and are, therefore, barred from using public schools as meeting places.