vol. 6, no. 10

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VI SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER, 1941 No. 10

WIDESPREAD BAN ON MEETINGS

Public and Private Buildings Closed To Anti-War Groups

Discrimination in the right of assemblage in public buildings is becoming an increas- ingly serious civil liberties issue in California and throughout the country. Not so long ago, the Communists were the principal group to suffer ostracism from public halls, but the increasingly bitter fight between interventionists and isolationists has resulted in the America First Committee becoming the chief target of such exclusionary action.

Miami, Pasadena, Portland and San Diego banned America First Committee meetings in city auditoriums in recent months, and only very loud protests caused such action to be reversed. Oklahoma City and the San Francisco School Board have thus far gotten by with their rulings against the igolationist meetings. In the latter case, it will be recalled, the Board refused to allow the use of the Marina Junior High Schoo! because it was opposed to “highly controversial” meetings and also because the meeting might be attended by disorder. That decision still stands.

Alameda Supervisor’s Political Gesture During the past month the issue flared up again in Alameda County where the Board of Supervisors, at the request of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, adopted a resolution banning the America First Committee from the use of all county buildings. Since the Board has no buildings under its jurisdiction that are customarily used for public meetings, its action was nothing more than a cheap political gesture.

The A. C. L. U. protested that the Board’s resolution ‘‘makes a mockery of the consti- tutional guarantee of freedom of speech and assembly. It simply means that those who exercise power reserve freedom of speech and assembly to themselves and their supporters while denying these liberties to all who disagree with them. Such “freedom of speech for our side”’ is a typical totalitarian concept that will be applauded by all the dictators, but it is clearly repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Bill of Rights.

“We do not espouse the cause of the -/America First Committee. What we do say is that isolationists and interventionists alike should be permitted to debate pressing public issues in our public buildings on equal terms!”’

Oakland City Council Upholds Lease

The same veterans were less successful in inducing the Oakland City Council to cancel a lease secured for a Senator Burton K. Wheeler meeting at the Civic Auditorium on September 25. The City Attorney held that the lease was binding and, if it were cancelled, would subject the city to a suit for damages.

Our thesis now, as it has always been, is that if such denials of civil liberties go unchallenged they will spread like the plague until no one’s liberties are any longer secure. Discriminations today are merely the result of previous discriminations against meetings of Communists, Socialists, Mankind United and Jehovah’s Witnesses, the American League for Peace and Democracy, Tom Mooney and Harry Bridges.

A Contageous Disease

Just last month, in the spirit of the times, quc Trustees of the San Franeaeas Omera House succumbed to the contagious disease by refusing the use of the auditorium to the Town Hall for a debate between Sinclair Lewis and Lewis Browne, as reported elsewhere in this issue. And, in Seattle last month, the same spirit of intolerance was exhibited when the rental of the Eagles’ Hall was cancelled for a Senator Burton K. Wheeler meeting, on instructions from the Elks’ national office, forcing the meeting to be held in the Majestic Theatre. Then, too, (Continued on Page 4, Col. 3)

Roger N. Baldwin's Tentative Speaking Program, Nov. 5-8

Following is the tentative speaking program that has been arranged for Roger N. Baldwin, national director of the A.C.L.U., during his visit to the Bay Area from No- vember 5 to 8:

Wednesday, Nov. 5—10 A. M—Forum, fac‘ulty and students, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley. 4 P. M.—Tea, International House, Berkeley.

6:15 P. M.—A.C.L.U. dinner meeting (for members and friends), College Women’s Club, 2680 Bancroft Way, Berkeley. (Price, 87c).

Thursday, Nov. 6—Noon—A.C.L.U. luncheon for Executive Committee, members and friends, in San Francisco.

8 P. M.—Jewish Community Center, Oakland. —

‘Friday, Nov. 7—6:30 P. M.—Dinner meet ing, World Problem Club, Parish House, All Saints Episcopal Church, Hamilton Ave. and Waverley St., Palo Alto. A.C.L.U. members and friends invited. (Price, 65c). :

Saturday, Nov. 8—Open—tLeaves Berkeley at 9:30 P. M. for Salt Lake City.

MILLER CASE DISMISSED

Assistant Attorney General Wendell Berge, under date of September 8, notified the American Civil Liberties Union that Frank J. Hennessy, United States attorney at San Francisco, had dismissed charges against Wesley C. Miller, mild-mannered, 36-year-old-Quaker of Berkeley, California, recently arrested on a charge of writing letters intended to cause disaffection in the armed forces,

The dismissal followed the Union’s appeal to the Department of Justice to review the case before submission to the grand jury. The Union’s counsel held that Miller’s letters were ‘not calculated to cause any disaffection”. The Union's aopeal io e ” 7 view was based on a departmental order requiring action at Washington on cases involving expressions of opinion in the absence of overt acts.

Miller, University of California graduate and son of a late officer in the U. S. Naval Intelligence active in the last war, was arrested under a section of the 1940 Alien Registration Act making it a federal offense to “incite disaffection in the armed forces”. Violation is punishable by ten years imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 or both. Miller was out on $2,500 bail furnished by his 73-year-old widowed mother.

According to the charges, Miller wrote identical signed letters to four military camp commanders suggesting that they get together and refuse to send draftees out of this hemisphere, thereby upholding the present law. Enclosed with each letter was a copy of one sent to President Roosevelt outlining Miller’s plan for keeping our armed forces in this hemisphere. Under this plan, local draft boards would be requested to notify camp commanders that all men classified by them would be subject to military service in this hemisphere only. Miller’s letters to the camp commanders asked them whether it would give them support “if drafted persons at the time of their induction would hand in letters saying they would not serve outside this hemi| sphere.”’

In aiding Miller at the time of his arrest, the San Francisco branch of the Civil Lib- erties Union stated that the whole affair “might seem rather humorous if the gov- ernment were not apparently treating it as a grave offense.”’

Hot Cargo Referendum

The “hot cargo’ referendum qualified for the ballot, either at a special election to be called by the governor or the general election in November, 1942, by securing 205,594 valid signatures as compared with the 132,573 that were required. More than half of the signatures carne from Los Angeles County.

Page 2

Removal Warrants Refused In Peonage Case

District Federal Judge Bascom S. Deaver, sitting in Macon, Ga., has denied the fed- eral government’s application for warrants to remove for trial in Chicago W. T. Cunn- ingham, Oglethorpe planter, and Hamilton McWhorter, former president of the Georgia Senate, indicated on charges of conspiring to “hold Negroes in a condition of peonage and slavery.”

Following this decision, the American Civil Liberties Union has inquired of the Department of Justice whether it plans to bring the removal application before another judge. This case is the first indictment for slavery in many years.

McWhorter and Cunningham were indicted by a Chicago federal grand jury several months ago on charges that “for many years Cunningham had enslaved Negroes on his plantation, inducing them to come to work by promises of wages and by getting them out of jail or off the chain gang. Once on the plantation, the Negroes were no longer free. They received no wages and Cunningham instilled in them the fear of running away by lashing them with straps.”

More than 35 Negroes escaped from Cunningham’s Georgia slave plantation to Chicago. Three of these were indicted for burglary in Oglethorpe County and Cunningham came to Chicago in an effort to have them extradicted. In this he failed. Instead, a grand jury indicted him and Attorney McWhorter on the peonage and slavery charges. The two men returned to Georgia; and, in an effort to have them brought to trial in Chicago, the Department of Justice applied to Judge Deaver for removal warrants.

Arguing the government’s case, Assistant Attorney General Henry A. Schweinhaut said: “We have shown that the Negroes did work on Cunningham’s farm, that there ‘was an attempt to bring them back to the state and that there is a claim that they at tempted to bring them back for peonage purposes, so there should be a trial before ae jULy.

UNION PRAISES ROOSEVELT'S ACTION IN KEARNY

Satisfaction at the manner in which, under President Roosevelt’s orders, the gov- ernment took over the property of the Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company at Kearny, N. J., has been expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union in a letter sent to the President. The Union emphasized the fact that no use of force accompanied the procedure and that property was taken not for the purpose of settling an industrial dispute and then turning it back to its owners, but for government operation in the public interest during the entire period of the present war emergency.

The Union, which had criticized the use of troops in the North American Aviation Company strike, ended its letter to President Roosevelt by saying that the Kearny procedure, in contrast with that of the North American, “‘seems to us to protect the civil rights of all parties and at the same | time to rest upon sound policy in the settlement of an industrial dispute.”

KLAN SEEKS $1,000,000 FOR “PROGRAM OF INTOLERANCE

The Ku Klux Klan is seeking a one mil‘lion dollar fund to promote its program of “Americanism”, aimed against Negroes, Catholics, Jews and aliens, according to in- formation received by the American Civil Liberties Union from its southern represen- tatives. It is reported that the Klan has already raised $100,000 toward this fund. The August issue of “The Fiery Cross’, official Klan organ published in Atlanta, Ga., is openly anti-Semitic in its contents, and observers believe this presages a campaign by the Klan in that direction. Other articles in this issue attack Catholics and urge halting all immigration for ten years.

Union To Participate In Schneiderman Appeal To the U. $. Supreme Court The American Civil Liberties Union has asked permission of Acting Solicitor General Charles Fahy to file a brief amicus curiae in the appeal of William Schneiderman of California to the United States Supreme Court for the reversal of a lower court decision cancelling his citizenship on the ground that he had obtained naturalization illegally and fraudulently.

Schneiderman entered the United States at the age of three, became fully naturalized in 1927. Seeking to nullify his naturalization in recent years, the Department of Justice claimed Schneiderman had obtained citizenship fraudulently and illegally be- ‘cause he had failed to state his membership in the Communist Party. A factor in the ease: the naturalization court did not question Schneiderman as to his political affiliations.

‘Lower Court’s Decision

The case was first tried by the District Court in Northern California. Basing its de- cision solely on Schneiderman’s membership in the Communist Party, the court ruled that the party was not attached to the principles of the U. S. Constitution and that it advocated force and violence. The court held that this made Schneiderman’s failure voluntarily to state Party membership a fraudulent method of obtaining citizenship, and ordered his naturalization cancelled:

Subsequently, on April 28, 1941, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir- cuit affirmed this decision. The appellate court admitted that there was evidence to support the contention that the Communist Party did not advocate overthrow of the government by force and violence, but in view of the conflicting evidence the decision of the lower court could not be reversed.

A. C.L.U; Contentions

This fall, when Schneiderman will appeal his case to the U. S. Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union will submit. the following arguments in its brief amicus curiae: Failure to state membership in the Communist Party was not a fraud, nor did it make Schneiderman’s naturalization illegal. The law in effect at the time of Schneiderman’s naturalization did not bar Communists from citizenship because the Communist Party at the time did believe in organized government, and there is no credible evidence that it taught the propriety of assaulting or killing government officials. Finally, there is no evidence whatever that Schneiderman believed mem- bership in the Communist Party was incompatible with support of the U. S. Constitu- tion.

BIRTH OF A BABY OBSCENE TO N. Y. FILM CENSORS

Condemning “the caprices and dangers © of bureaucratic censorship”, the American Civil Liberties Union, through its National Council on Freedom from Censorship, has protested the action of the New York State Board of Censors in forbidding ‘‘The Forgotten *¥iltage”’, a documentary film of Mexican life, on grounds of immorality. -The National Council, headed by Quincy Howe, radio commentator, has offered its gervices to the exhibitors of the film in appealing the case to the courts if the Board of Censors does not reverse its order.

The ban was based on a scene showing the birth of a child, and another showing the mother nursing the child. A statement issued by the National Council declared that its representatives had seen the film and found nothing whatever in it “which can reasonably be considered immoral or obscene.” To object to a serious treatment of mother and child, the statement said, is “to ban a theme which for nearly 1000 years has filled the great paintings of the western world.” Such censorship, the statement. added, also reveals “a wholly unsavory approach to the origins of human life.”’ The National Council compared the banned parts of the film with the “Fight for Life’, a motion picture on child birth and care, filmed and released by the United States government and now being shown in various parts of the country.

“The Forgotten Village’ was written by John Steinbeck, author of ‘“‘The Grapes of Wrath’, and directed in Mexico by Herbert Kline, now a Hollywood director.

U: Ss. POST OFFICE PERMITS MAILING OF “THE SOVIET POWER”

The American Civil Liberties Union has been advised by the U. S. Post Office De- partment that the book entitled, ‘‘The Soviet Power”, by the Dean of Canterbury, “should be treated as mailable, with the understanding that full responsibility for any violation of law involved would rest with the senders.”

This ruling came after the Civil Liberties Union called the attention of the Post Office Department to the fact that post office officials in Olympia, Washington, re- fused to accept for mailing copies of the five cent edition of the Dean of Canter- bury’s book. The Olympia officials referred the book to Washington for ruling as to its mailability.

NAVY DEPARTMENT ANSWERS PROTEST AGAINST MARE | ISLAND DISMISSALS

The Navy Department has rejected protests against the summary procedure it followed in dismissing 120 civil service em-. ployees from Mare Island and other yards throughout the country, but such discharges now appear to have ended. The men in question lost their jobs on the basis of con : *fidential reports and without a hearing.

Only upon request were the men informed of the reasons for their dismissal, and then in the most general terms which virtually foreclosed any opportunity for a defense by affidavit or statement, as was permitted them. In the main, they were ac| cused of actively associating with members | of and attending meetings of an organization which advocates the overthrow of the constitutional form of government of the United States. The nature of the meetings © and the names of the evil associates were not specified.

Rear Admiral W. L. Friedell informed the Union that “the reasons given to those who requested them are adequate.” He insisted that each dismissal was reviewed by a competent official in accordance with the provisions of law adopted June 28, 1940.

The Navy Department declares that its unusual powers have been exercised with utmost restraint. We hope they have, but — we think that any law permitting dismissals of public employees on the basis of secret reports impugning their loyalty and with no real opportunity for defense, is patently bad and should be repealed.

WAR DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE BARRING OF CIVIL LIBERTIES BOOK FROM ARMY CAMPS

The War Department has notified the American Civil Liberties Union that it will investigate the refusal of the Commanding General of the Sixth Corps Area, Chicago, to accept an offer for army libraries of Professor Leon Whipple’s “The Story of Civil Liberties in the United States’ on the ground that “there is no demand for books | of this type in army libraries.”’

The War Department’s action was in reply to a protest from the Union against the censorship involved. The offer of Professor Whipple’s book to army camp libraries in the Sixth Corps Area was made by the | Chicago Civil Liberties Committee.. The book is available at the local A. C. L. U. office at 25c a copy.

Let Freedom Ring

Valtin Pardon Application

AS an essential step in his fight against deportation, the local branch of the A. C. L. U. has endorsed the pardon application of Richard Julius Herman Krebs (Jan Valtin), author of “Out of the Night’, which comes before the Advisory Pardon Board on the morning of September 30. Valtin’s deportation is being opposed by the A. C. L. U. on the ground that he is a political refugee who faces almost certain * death if he is deported to Germany.

Several hundred letters have already gone to Governor Culbert L. Olson urging the pardon. Among them are letters from William Allen White and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. Members of the A. C. L. U. are urged to support the ee application with letters to Governor son.

Chico Flag Salute Problem Solved

By the simple expedient of having the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses pledge al- legiance to the Constitution of the United States instead of the flag, the vexing flag salute issue has been solved in Chico, California,during the past month. The pro- cedure is somewhat similar to that followed in Rochester, Michigan, last December. In — that case, 27 non-saluting children were reinstated in school upon agreeing to pledge allegiance to the United States of America. instead of to the flag.

Anti-Okie Case

The appeal of Fred F. Edwards of Marysville, who was convicted more than a year ago under a State statute for aiding his indigent brother-in-law and his family to enter the state, is expected to be argued be fore the United States Supreme Court some time around October 18. In accordance with -a previous order of the court, the California attorney general will make his initial appearance in the case to defend the statute, submitting information concerning its administrative and judicial interpretation. Samuel Slaff of New York City, A. C. L. U. attorney, will appear on behalf of Edwards.

Right of Petition Upheld

During the past month, the Superior Court of San Mateo County dismissed a petition for a writ of mandate ordering the San Mateo Board of Supervisors to permit J. M. Reynolds, Secretary of Labor’s NonPartisan League, and Frank M. Price, Chairman, to address the Board on public issues. The action was taken only after the Board agreed not to apply its resolution barring ‘all known members of subversive groups” to representatives of Labor’s NonPartisan League.

Seven Candles

Mark up another birthday for the Northern California branch of the A. C. L. U.— our seventh, if you please. Re-established September 14, 1934, the branch had its first start in the summer of 1926, following a visit of Roger Baldwin. Under the guidance of a full-time director, it managed to hurdle financial obstacles for a year, after which Austin Lewis carried on single-handedly, with the meager support of a few loyal friends until our rebirth in 1934. We know that the going will be especially tough during the coming year, but we are counting on your continued support of the cause.

IS YOUR PLEDGE PAID?

If you pledged a contribution to the Union for 1941, won’t you please send us a check for the unpaid portion NOW—if you can. Our fiscal year ends on October 31, and naturally we would like to clean up this year’s pledges in order to. balance our books.

HAS YOUR MEMBERSHIP ‘ EXPIRED?

We also want to take the occasion to remind certain persons on our delinquent list to renew their memberships. Please shake off the inertia and send in your dollars. Help build the ACLU.

San Francisco Opera House Trustees

Page 3

Sinclair Lewis Lewis Browne Debate

Without: discussion by its members, the Trustees of San Francisco’s War Memorial Opera House on September 11 reaffirmed their refusal to lease the Opera House to the Town Hall for a debate between Sinclair Lewis and Dr. Lewis Browne on the subject, “It Can’t Happen Here.’’ The motion, offered by John J. Sullivan, and seconded by Claudius A. Marckley, was adopted unanimously.

When the Trustees were requested to give some reason for their action, Chairman Ramsay Moran finally stated that the ‘“‘controlling reason” was that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is not a proper subject for debate when it is quite likely that by next January this country will be engaged in war.” Moreover, said he, the Opera House is “‘no place for dictatorship to be debated.”

Sullivan Dislikes A. C. L. U.

John J. Sullivan then burst forth with a declaration that he was against anyone ad- vocating dictatorship in the Opera House, and “It is enough for me if the Civil Lib- erties Union appears here.’ He did not amplify his statement, and the chairman finally ended the proceeding by remarking that the Trustees’ action was “no reflection upon the good citizenship of Sinclair Lewis or Lewis Browne.”

The Trustees’ action appears quite incomprehensible because neither speaker was going to advocate dictatorship in the Opera House. The proposed question amounted to nothing more than a discussion of whether the nation is vulnerable to dictatorship. The Trustees’ suppressive action should leave the answer clear in everyone’s | mind. ‘

No Other Place Adequate

Attorney John K. Hagopian appeared for Town Hall. He did not contend that the denial of the use of the Opera Housé constituted attempted censorship on the part of the Trustees, and so stated. Instead, he rested his case principally on the lack of. suitable facilities for holding the debate if the Opera House was denied. The downtown theatres (Curran and Geary), he pointed out, were available only on short notice, and, even if they were free, their seating capacity was too limited for the debate in question. He also argued that from the standpoint of precedent the Trustees had previously allowed debates and speakers to appear at the Opera House, and that such precedent should be controlling in this case.:

Miss Julia Robinson, assistant director of Town Hall, supported Mr. Hagopian’s ar- gument with a statement that her organization was not a propaganda agency. The argument of Ernest Besig, local director of the A. C. L. U., conformed to the following written protest that had previously been authorized by the Executive Committee:

A.C. L. U.’s Position

We regret very much the recent action of the Board in refusing to rent the Opera House to the Town Hall for a debate between Nobel Prize winner Sinclair Lewis and Dr. Lewis Browne next January 19, on the subject, “It Can’t Happen Here”, dealing with the possibilities of totalitarianism in this country. At the same time, we are glad to note that the applicant will appear at your regular meeting on September 11 to request your Board to reconsider its refusal of the application.

Our disagreement with your Board is based on press stories which recite the following reasons for refusing the application:

1. The highly controversial nature of the program.

2. Protests against such use made by downtown theatre owners.

3. The policy of the Board to limit the use of the Opera House to “artistic - performances.”

It seems to us that these reasons are not sufficient to exclude the applicant from the use of the Opera House. Similar Meetings Held In Opera House In the first place, the applicant has heretofore met the test of policy, because speakers have appeared at the Opera House under his auspices on eight or ten occasions (including Messrs. Wells, Kaltenborn and Van Passen, as well as Dorothy Thompson), while others have appeared under the sponsorship of Paul Posz. Indeed, as far as debates go, we recall a recent de-. bate at the Opera House that was sponsored by the Town Meeting of the Air. Since the program in question does not differ in any substantial way from many of those pre- viously held at the Opera House, we feel that it is consistent with the Board’s policy to grant the application in the instant case. Incidentally, it seems somewhat amusing to us to find that Dorothy Thompson was allowed to speak at the Opera House, while her husband, Sinclair Lewis, is banned from appearing.

In the second place, while we are not unmindful of the legitimate interests of the | theatre owners, we doubt whether they would have any serious objection to the program in question. Certainly, the Geary or Curran theatres, the ones available, are hardly adequate to accommodate the thousands who will want to attend the debate, even if they were free on the proposed date.

Finally, we are particularly disturbed at the Board’s third ground for refusing to grant the application, namely, that a discussion of the possibilities of totalitarianism in this country is too ‘‘highly controversial” a subject. When the Board has so recently permitted a successful debate on the dynamite-laden question, “Is War With Japan Inevitable?”’, we think it is plainly discriminatory against the present applicant to contend that his subject is too controversial.

Board Becomes a Censor

But our protest goes deeper than that. We fear that the Board has unwittingly placed itself in the un-American position of a censor. Forbidding the discussion of a controversial subject smacks of totalitarianism, because it is customary for the dictators to limit the right of discussion on public issues. We should not emulate the dictator countries in this respect. On the contrary, public discussion of controversial issues should be encouraged if the democratic processes are to be maintained.

While at this juncture we are not clear as to the Board’s powers, we are certain that the Board itself recognizes that its trust has been impressed with a public interest, and that it should be administered in the interest of all of the people of San Francisco. In that spirit, we sincerely hope that the Board will reconsider its refusal to grant the permit to the applicant and allow the meeting to be held.

BIRTH CONTROL EXHIBIT BANNED AT N. Y. FAIR

The American Civil Liberties Union has inquired of New York’s Acting Governor Charles Poletti the legal grounds for his ban on the proposed birth control exhibit at the Syracuse State Fair. The Union’s attorneys are at a loss to understand the Acting Governor’s decision in view of the fact that New York State has legalized public clinics which give birth control information, and permits doctors freely to give such information to women for the protection of their health.

A statement by the Civil Liberties Union points out that the proposed birth control exhibit at the Syracuse Fair did not go beyond policies already fixed by state law. The Union also expressed regret that the shortness of time did not permit a challenge of the ban in the courts.

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 Entered as second-class matter, July 31, 1941, at the Post Office at San Francisco, California, under the Act.of March 3, 1879.

Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

Att'ny -Gen. Outlines Government Position In Trotskyite Cases

Replying to a memorandum submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union on the Minneapolis indictment of 29 members of the CIO and the Socialist Workers’ Party, Attorney General Francis Biddle has outlined the government’s position in a letter to Arthur Garfield Hays, the Union’s General Counsel. The Attorney General wrote:

“You state from your examination of the ‘character of the evidence on which the in- dictment rests’ that the charges attack utterances or publications, and include only one overt act—the organization of the workers in a defense corps. This overt act, however—arming workers to carry out the purpose to which ‘the utterances are ad- dressed—is clearly sufficient to remove the case from one involving expression of opinion, even if the utterances went no further than that, which they do.

“You suggest that the facts show the intent was merely to protect union property against threats of violence. But the indictment specifically alleges otherwise, and I am confident that it will be supported by the evidence. You conclude that the statutes under which the indictments are brought will be held unconstitutional. I do not agree; but in any event such a doubt should not deter this office from taking action on facts coming under the scope of the statutes. The courts will determine the question of constitutionality.

“You add that a series of circumstances suggests the conclusion ‘that the government injected itself into an inter-union controversy in order to promote the interests of one side which supported the administration’s foreign and domestic policies’. That conclusion is completely unwarranted. The investigation of the case began early in 1940; and had continued without interruption ever since. The prosecution came in due course; it was not requested by anyone in or out of the government, or undertaken for the benefit of any person or group.”

The 29 Trotzkyite defendants were indicted under the U.S. Criminal Code on a charge of conspiring to overthrow the government by force, and under the Smith Act which penalizes advocacies even in the absence of overt acts. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this case is the “first peace-time federal prosecution for opinion since the cases under the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.” A Civil Rights De- fense Committee has been organized on behalf of the defendants with offices at 160 Fifth Avenue, New York City. The committee’s appeal for funds has been endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

UNION URGES REVISION OF BLAND RADIO OPERATORS BILL

Revision of the Bland Radio Operators Bill (H.R. 5074), now pending in the Sen-ate after passing the House, has been urged by the American Civil Liberties Union in a memorandum presented to the Senate Committee on Commerce. This bill provides that the Federal Communications Commission shall deprive of his license any marine radio operator about whom there is “reasonable probability” of guilt of being a “subversive individual’,’a member or past member of any “subversive organization’, of having “had habits”, or being intemperate. :

The Union has urged the Senate Committee to revise those sections of the bill which deal with “subversive” individuals and organizations on the ground that the “vague language” involved endangers the rights of federal employees to hold their jobs with- out being subject to “capricious judgments.” pictures,

License Laws For Sale of Literature Challenged in Court Test

In cooperation with the American Civil Liberties Union, four cases where Jehovah’s Witnesses have been convicted for distributing or selling literature without a license will be presented this autumn on writs of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. These cases, appealed from the highest state courts of Massachusetts, Arkansas and Alabama, are the only ones involving peddling ordinances which have reached the Supreme Court. In nearly all other cases lower courts have ruled either that the particular ordinance in question was not intended to apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses, or that to require the Witnesses to be licensed would be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech and religious belief.

Other Cases Pending

At present the Civil Liberties Union is taking part in the appeal of a number of such cases to State Supreme Courts, usually in the form of a brief amicus curiae. Cases are pending in Iowa, Vermont and Arkansas. These are likely to be held over until the U. S. Supreme Court decides on the four cases it will consider this fall.

In a statement on the sale of literature in public places and from house to house just issued in connection with these cases, the Union points out that it has consistently taken the position that there should be no restrictions upon the distribution of opinion.

“If the distribution of material expressing opinions can be restricted by license re- quirements merely because it is sold’’, the Union’s statement said, “many organiza- tions which cannot afford to distribute their literature free will be seriously hampered.” The statement further points out that it is difficult for a policeman or a court to determine what is a sale or what are the license requirements for sales of literature, and that it is therefore impracticable to at© tempt a distinction between commercial and non-commercial literature.

All Printed Matter Should Be Unlicensed “In the judgment of the Civil Liberties Union’’, the statement went on to say, “‘no license should be required for either the sale or free distribution of any literature whatever, commercial or non-commercial, in public places. The line should be drawn between printed matter on the one hand, protecting it in conformity with the prin-. ciple of freedom of the press, and goods of- fered for sale on the other.” The Union urged the same rule for the distribution or sale of literature from house to house. ‘‘The communication of information and ideas— should be in this case, as in the case of street sales, the econtrolling consideration’’, its statement said.

The Union has announced that it will assist in carrying to the U.S. Supreme Court any appeal which may be taken from the conviction of a person for the sale without a license on the public streets of any literature, or for soliciting house to house sales of literature without a license.

Senate Film Inquiry Raises Censorship Issue

Replying to the American Civil Liberties Union’s request that his subcommittee “take a forthright position against any federal censorship of motion pictures”, Senator D. Worth Clark, chairman of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee’s subcommittee conducting the inquiry into alleged film and radio propaganda, stated that “we have no specific legislation in view”. Subsequent developments, Senator Clark added, ‘‘will be the guide as to whether or not any legislation will be necessary.”

In answer to the Union’s statement that discussion of the motives of film producers, ‘arising in the course of the inquiry, beclouds essential issues, Senator Clark said:

“I quite agree with you that motives are often indeterminate things and can easily obscure issues. However, since motion pictures are supposedly made to entertain, and since many of them are obviously not entertainment but propaganda, it is difficult to separate motives from the end results in this case. If pictures are propaganda then we are immediately confronted with the question as to why they are propaganda, and the motives behind them become extremely pertinent to the issue.”

The Union’s warning against federal film censorship was evoked by current charges that the investigation threatens freedom of speech and communication. Writing to Senator Clark, the Rev. Dr. John Haynes Holmes, chairman of the Board of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization’s chief concern with the inquiry is that it may “tend to discourage the treatment of controversial themes by motion picture producers”. Commending the film industry for treating pictorially aspects of political and economic life, the Union pointed out that “any unfairness which may result from bias can best be corrected by public pressure to Insure a fairer presentation of the varied sides of controversial matters.” Elimination of all controversial subjects, the Union maintained, would be contrary to the public interest.

The Union also urged the Clark committee to dissociate radio from its film inquiry, since the two mediums are so different in character and control, and since radio is already the subject of another inquiry embodied in a resolution pending in the Sen- ate. The committee was also asked to treat news reels separately from feature films because of their different effects on public opinion.

Emphasizing that the remedy for biased reporting is in public pressure for fair pre- sentation of both or several sides, the Union said that this principle ‘‘is already soundly embodied in public policy as affects radio.”

WIDESPREAD BAN ON MEETINGS —

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2) the California Hotel Association adopted a resolution at its recent convention sanctioning the refusal of its members to rent ballrooms and meeting halls to ‘‘any subversive group.”

The Legal Remedy

Unfortunately, the legal remedy against such limitations on the right of assemblage are not very adequate. After all, the groups involved want meetings, not law suits. They know that by the time their suits could be adjudicated, the issue for which they were campaigning would be dead.

In this connection, the A.C.L.U. has pending in the District Court of Appeals in San Francisco a case involving the Socialist Party which was denied the use of the schools under the Civic Center Act more than a year ago. The School Board would | not allow any political meetings in the schools, despite the sanction given to them by the law. If everything goes well, the case will be argued in the District Court on October 28. By the end of the year, a decision may be handed down, and, then, if another appeal is necessary, a final determination may be reached by the State Supreme Court in another year.

“Freedom for the Thought We Hate”

Justice Holmes once said that, “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought —not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” If restrictions on public meetings go unopposed by the believers in liberty, they will spread until the right of free speech becomes meaningless. Voice your protests now! At the same time, of course, the slower legal remedies need not be overlooked.