vol. 7, no. 11

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VII SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER, 1942 No. 11

VOTE "NO" ON PROP. NO. 1

“Hot Cargo” Measure Aff ects Civil Rights of All Citizens

The “Hot Cargo”? proposal on the November ballot affects adversely all people in California. The proponents of the measure have emphasized the restrictions the law places on Labor and claim, with little or no reason, that its passage will help win the war. The thing they DON’T tell us, however, is that there is a little “joker’’ in the measure which will limit your liberties and mine, and which alone requires a “No” vote on Proposition No. 1.

The “Joker” In the Act

The “joker” may be the result of poor draftsmanship, as has been asserted, but that does not remove it from the act. It stands there as a threat to any person wishing to express himself concerning a labor dispute. “‘Any act,” reads the law, ‘“‘which directly or indirectly causes, induces or compels” a secondary boycott or the refusal of employees to handle hot cargo is unlawful. The practical effect of this provision of the proposal is that any comment concerning a labor dispute could be construed as indirectly inducing a secondary boycott or a refusal to handle hot cargo. Very likely this “joker’’ would not be applied in the average situation, but in the unusual case, at the place where you felt you owed a duty to speak out against a bad con- dition, the law might very conceivably be applied against you. You would then be > subject to a suit for damages, or, more likely, you would be served with a copy of a Sweeping injunction, violation of which would mean a jail sentence for contempt.

“Chronicle” Sees the “Joker”

On October 28, in opposing Proposition No. 1, the San Francisco Chronicle declared ‘St believes the law was badly drawn, and is not alone in that belief. Its wording is so ambiguous that many legal experts think it overshoots the labor-industrial field and could be used as a general club against the citizenry.”’

The authors of the act were overly ambitious when they incorporated the above broad restrictive provision, but even without it, the proposal is still bad from the civil - liberties standpoint. Under the act, peaceful picketing in aid of a secondary boycott or a hot cargo dispute is unlawful, even though the United States Supreme Court has ruled that peaceful picketing is merely an incident of the constitutional guarantee ' of freedom of speech. In this respect then, there can be no question that the law is patently unconstitutional.

Forced Labor

Finally, some argument can be made that the act establishes “forced labor’ or involuntary servitude. While individually workers may refuse to handle hot cargo and quit their jobs, if they did so collectively they would be violating the law.

The usual answer to charges that a proposal is unconstitutional is that such a ques- tion is one for the courts to decide. But the trouble with such an answer is that it usually takes a couple of years at least before final court action can be taken, and, in the meantime, the measure is being enforced.

There are other reasons why Proposition No. 1 should be defeated, but on civil liber- ties grounds alone, we strongly urge that you vote “‘No’”’ on No. 1.

War Dept. Promises Probe of Fusco Case

The War Department has agreed to investigate the case of Sam Fusco, California born citizen of Italian extraction, who was excluded from the Pacific Coast on alleged grounds of military necessity by an order of General J. L. DeWitt. The A.C.L.U. has . contended that a fair investigation will” show that there is no reasonable ground for excluding Fusco from his home and business in San Francisco.

Fusco had absolutely no connection with.

any Fascist or Nazi organization. His only offense was being, as Col. Meek told him, “too friendly with the Japanese,” by directing an Episcopalian choir, leading a Boy Scout Drum and Bugle Corps, stimulating the registration of Japanese as voters, ar- ranging Japanese political meetings addressed by conservate candidates, studying Japanese calligraphy, which resulted in a prize for one of his exhibits shown in Jap- an, visiting his friends at the Tanforan Assembly Center and maintaining a personal friendship with a Japanese lady.

Here are some of the questions Mr. Fusco declares were asked at his hearing: “Do you have a flare in your apartment? Do you have some wiring? Did you say, ‘To hell with the United States?’ Did you speak in favor of Hirohito? Have you any Japanese property? Did you say the Japanese current helps the Japanese Navy? Did you say the German submarines run on a schedule like street cars?”

Incidentally, Fusco does own a Japanese paint brush, wrapped in bamboo lining, which may have been mistaken for a flare, and some Xmas tree wiring.

MILITARY REMOVALS REVIEWED BY U. S. ATTORNEYS

Responding to a letter from Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel of the Union, regarding the exclusion of allegedly dangerous persons from designated coastal military areas, the Department of. Justice has replied that “civilian officials will not conduct this procedure, but in view of the fact that the military authorities may re- quest enforcement of exclusion orders by federal prosecution under the recently en- acted Public No. 503 which makes it a misdemeanor to violate such a military order, the military authorities have agreed to submit each case to the appropriate United States Attorney for his reeammendatian he. fore an order is issued. The military au- thorities have not agreed, however, to be bound by that recommendation, but it is believed that this procedure is an aid to avoidance of the abuse of exclusion power.”

In Northern California, however, the United States Attorney informed the Union that while he had received the Individual Exclusion Hearing Board Reports in the various cases, “I did not have. an opportunity to examine the reports upon which the Exclusion Board acted, being furnished merely with a summary of the reports prepared by the Board. In some of the cases I did not have sufficient information to make any recommendation.”

Mr. Hays’ letter had held that ‘“‘unprecedented and arbitrary” power had been put in the hands of the military through proclamations providing for the removal from fif- teen east coast states and three west coast states of all persons deemed to be danger- ous or potentially dangerous to the national defense. ‘It is evident in such cases,” Mr. Hays said, “‘the main issue will be refusal to obey, a military order without an opportunity for defendants to demonstrate that they are not ‘dangerous.’ ”’

Since it had been learned that the Department of Justice would participate in the removal proceedings, Mr. Hays urged that the department make provisions to insure that that these inquiries be of the “fairest and most searching character in order to prevent injustice.” Mr. Hays added that “it is clear that so unprecedented and arbitrary a power is open to abuse. Mere suspicion of unlawful conduct which cannot be proved may become only too readily the ground for action.”

Schneiderman Case

Wendell Wilkie will argue the William Schneiderman case in the U. S. Supreme Court on November 9. When Schneiderman was admitted to citizenship in 1927 no question was raised concerning his admitted membership in Communist Party groups. In 19389, however, in revoking his citizenship, it was held that such membership is incompatible with an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

Page 2

How The Military’s "Star Chamber’ Operates

At least 59 citizens of the United States — have thus far been excluded from the Pa- cific Coast on grounds of military necessity by General J. L. DeWitt. The national office of the A.C.L.U. has requested the local branch to assist in any court contest of removal orders where it can be shown they were unreasonable. No person affected has yet accepted the offer.

The A.C.L.U. recently secured a good picture of how the Military’s Star Chamber proceeding works when the local director appeared at a hearing for Lorenz C.. Carisen, president of the United German Societies in San Francisco, who announced “publicly on October 13 that he had been served with a citation to appear before the Military Board on October 23. Mr. Carlsen at that time told the press he had nothing to hide and considered himself just as good an American as anyone else. Indeed, our own investigations disclosed that Mr. Carlsen was not even a suspect among: antiNazi elements in the community.

The hearing was before three Army colonels, Messrs. Meek, McLain and Deyo, who were apparently in the active practice of law before the war. The questioning, which was quite courteous, was directed generally to a questionnaire all suspects are asked to fill out, and particularly to Mr. Carlsen’s connection with the United German Societies which had expelled the German-American Bund from membership after a seven-months’ association. The hearing did not disclose any pernicious conduct by Mr. Carlsen—in fact, it was quite dull, and the chances are that he won’t be excluded from his home in San Francisco. In any event, he will be informed of the Board’s decision by about the 15th of November. |

. After the hearing was concluded, how ever, the members of the Board were partic- ularly concerned about keeping the proceedings entirely secret. They wanted to know whether anything about the case would be printed in the ‘““News’. They insisted it would be a breach of ethics if after appearing as Mr. Carlsen’s representative any account of the proceedings were published by the A.C.L.U. Mr. Carlsen, however, has no desire to conceal anything that happened to him. He would prefer the “public trial’ the Constitution guarantees, because then he would be protected, in some measure, against arbitrary action. A Board that has to do its business in public always exposes itself to criticism. That is something these officers were not too happy about. As Wendell Willkie stated in his recent radio address, ‘‘Men with great power usually like to live free of criticism. But when they get that way, that’s the time to in. crease the criticism.’”’ The Army’s extraordinary Board would like to live free of criticism and therefore hides behind seerecy, but that is all the more reason why its methods should be closely scrutinized in order that there may be no abuse of the powers it exercises over the lives of human beings.

This writer is not too sure that all of the members of the Board can give objective consideration to cases. One of the three exhibited anti-Semitic feelings, as well as a strong prejudice against Communists. Assuming that the writer was a Communist “sent by Bridges’, Col. McLean stated that “In my part of the country you’d be skinned alive.” We have also been informed that in the course of hearings he has expressed the hope that the Germans and Russians would annihiliate each other. Another person has informed us that this officer indulges in tirades against the Jews.

Poll Tax

The Geyer Anti-Poll Tax Bill was adopted by the House on October 13, by a vote of 252-83, and the Senate companion measure, the Pepper Bill, received favorable action by the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 26, by a vote of 13 to 5Write your Senators now urging adoption of the Pepper Bill.

West Virginia Court Voids Flag-Salute; Refuses To Follow U.S. Supreme Court Refusing to follow the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the precedentsetting Gobitis case, a three judge federal court in West Virginia on October 6 enjoined the State Board of Education from enforcing the compulsory flag-salute law in a case brought by three children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Walter Barnette, Paul Stuhl, and Lucy McClure.

The Supreme Court had ruled that compulsory requirement of the flag-salute by local educational bodies could not be held a violation of religious rights. Justifying their refusal to abide by this ruling, Judges John F. Parker, Harry EWatkins and Ben Moore said in a unanimous opinion:

“Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Su- preme Court of the United States whether we agreed with it or not. The developments with respect to the Gobitis case, however, are such that we do not feel it is incumbent on us to accept it as binding authority.

“Of the seven judges now members of the Supreme Court who participated in that decision, four have given public expression to the view that it is unsound. Under such circumstances, and believing as we do that the flag salute here required is violative of religious liberty when required of persons holding the religious view of the plaintiffs, we feel that we would be recreant to our duty as judges if through a blind following of a decision which the Supreme Court itself has thus impaired as an authority, we should deny protection to rights which we regard as among the most sacred of those protected by constitutional guaranties.

Functions of Courts

“Courts may decide whether the public welfare is jeopardized by acts done or omitted because of religious belief; but they have nothing to do with determining the reasonableness of the belief. That is necessarily a matter of individual conscience. There is hardly a group of religious people to be found in the world who do not hold to beliefs and regard practices as important which seem utterly foolish and lacking in reason to others equally wise and religious; and for the courts to attempt to distinguish between religious beliefs or practices on the ground that they are reasonable or unreasonable would be for them to embark upon a hopeless undertaking and one which would inevitably result in the end of religious liberty. There is not a religious persecution in history that was not justified in the eyes of those engaging in it on the ground that it was reasonable and right and that the persons whose practices were suppressed were guilty of stubborn folly hurtful to the general welfare. The fathers of this country were familiar with persecution of this character; and one of their chief purposes in leaving friends and kindred and settling here was to establish a nation in which every man might worship God in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience and without interference from those who might not agree with him. The religious freedom guaranteed by the Ist and 14th amendments means that he shall have the right to do this, whether his belief is reasonable or not, without interference from anyone, so long as his action or refusal to act is not directly harmful to the society of which he forms a part.”’

Clear and Present Danger

. To justify the overriding of religious scruples, however, there must be a clear justification therefor in the necessities of national or community life. Like the right of free speech, it is not to be overborne by the police power, unless its exercise pre- sents a clear and present danger to the community-”

The court then compared further the right of religious liberty to that of freedom of speech, and ruled:

“Religious freedom is no less sacred or important to the future of the Republic than freedom of speech and if speech tending to the overthrow of the government but not constituting a clear and present danger may not be forbidden because of the guaranty of free speech, it is difficult to see how it can be held that conscientious scruples against giving a flag salute must give way to an educational policy having only indirect relation, at most, to the public safety. Surely, it cannot be that the nation is endangered more by the refusal of school children, for religious reasons, to salute the flag than by the advocacy on the part of grown men of doctrines which tend towards the overthrow of the government.” The court then went on to explain the importance of preserving the rights of minorities, as against majorities, stating:

Majority Tyranny Danger

. The tyranny of majorities over the rekts es individuals or helpless minorities has always been recognized as one of the great dangers of popular government. The fathers sought to guard against this danger by writing into the Constitution a bill of rights guaranteeing to every individual certain fundamental liberties, of which he might not be deprived by any exercise whatever of governmental power. This bill of rights is not a mere guide for the exercise of legislative discretion. It is a part of the fundamental law of the land, and is to be enforced as such by the courts. If legislation or regulation of boards conflict with it, they must give way; for the aa eT a is of superior obligation. .

‘While appreciating the “pedancs of a flag salute ceremony, the court observed:

Compulsory Salute Not Valuable

. As fine a ceremony as the flag salute is, i: ean have at most only an indirect in- fluence on the national safety; and no clear and present danger will result to

‘anyone if the children of this sect are allowed to refrain from saluting however groundless we may personally think these scruples to be. It certainly cannot strength- en the Republic, or help the state in any . way, to require persons to give a salute which they have conscientious scruples against giving, or to deprive them of an education because they refuse to give it.”’

An apt quotation from Judge Irving Lehman of the New York Court of appeals then follows:

“The salute of the flag is a gesture of love and respect — fine when there is real love and respect back of the gesture. The flag is dishonored by a salute by a child in reluctant and terrified obedience to a command of secular authority which clashes with the dictates of conscience.”

The court then concluded:

“The salute of the flag is an expression of the homage of the soul. To force it upon one who has conscientious scruples against giving it, is petty tyranny unworthy of the spirit of this Republic and forbidden, we think, by the fundamental law. This court will not countenance such tyranny but will use the power at its command to see that rights guaranteed by the fundamental law are respected.”’

Accordingly, the court ordered a permanent injunction restraining the enforcement of the regulation as to children whose parents were Jehovah’s Witnesses and who refused to salute the flag upon religious grounds.

Compulsory Chapel

The local Executive Committee of the A.C.L.U. instructed the director to check with Brig. General Stephen H. Sherrill concerning press reports of a regulation requiring trainees at Camp Kohler, Sacramento, to ‘‘attend chapel services at least once,” and, if the story was confirmed, to enter appropriate protests with the Secretary of War. General Sherrill has responded but instead of answering the director’s questions has invited the Union to send a repeveenenye to discuss the matter with

im to absorb the Japanese-Americans

Annual | Drive

Fane’ 3

Begins

Japanese To Be Released Ask Membership To Give An Extra Dollar For Necessary Office Help

Once again it is budget time for the A.C.L.U. Letters have already been sent to the Union’s 618 members requesting donations in the Union’s drive for $3605 to carry on its work during the fiscal year ending October 31, 1943.. Attention has been called partic- ularly to the absence from the budget of an item of $840 for a part-time office worker. Unless that item is returned to the budget by the increased donations of our member

FE rom Relocation Centers

Now regulations announced recently, by the War Relocation Authority permit Japanese, aliens and citizens, detained in relocation centers to obtain indefinite leaves “as a matter of right” provided they can “successfully maintain employment and residence at the proposed destination” and provided that the issuance of a leave in a particular case will not “interfere with the War program or otherwise endanger the public peace.” Before granting an indefinite leave, the W.R.A. will consider ‘such information as may be obtainable” from the F.B.I. Dillon S. Myer, national director of the W.R.A. has expressed the opinion that 25,000 or perhaps more than that number of evacuees may eventually be released.

An indefinite leave may permit unlimited travel except in areas already restricted as military zones, or may permit travel only in designated areas. All that is required of a person once he leaves the relocation area is that he observe the conditions set in his leave, and report changes of address and employment. Revocation of permanent leave may occur ‘when conditions are so far changed, or when such additional information has become available, that an original application by such person for leave would be denied.” Under this general provision the W.R.A. may possibly require the return of all persons of Japanese ancestry whenever it sees fit, although in some quarters revocation is regarded as impractical of enforcement in the case of citizens. ;

The American Civil Liberties Union has long urged that “Japanese-Americans be permitted to leave the relocation centers under the furlough provisions to take employment in private industry outside the western military zones.”” This would “tend into American life instead of congregating them in communities on the Pacific Coast, a highly desirable goal. The tragedy of their present situation could be turned thus to advantage in incorporating them in American community life.

Japanese Exclusion Test Cases

The Korematsu evacuation test case is now on file with the Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The Endo and Wakayama cases, testing the right of the government to hold citizens after their evacuation from military areas, are still undecided in U. S. District Courts in San Francisco and Los Angeles, as is the Portland curfew test case. The Hirabayashi case was scheduled for trial in Seattle the latter part of last month, but we have had no further reports on the case.

Nazism At Mare Island

A Mare Island Navy Yard worker, born in San Francisco, was recently suspended from his job following charges of pro-Nazi statements and utterances antagonistic to the American way of life. He was given five days in which to file a written reply: The answer not only vehemently denied the charges but pointed out, 1, that he had worked faithfully for the government for 382 years, and, 2, that he had only recently signed the necessary form allowing his 18year-old son to enlist in the Navy. Reinstatement, we are glad to say, followed in short order.

A.C.L.U. Membership As we go to press, the A.C.L.Upaid-up membership stands at 618, an increase from 593 at the close of the last fiscal year on October 31, 1941. In addition, we have 60 separate paid subscriptions to the ‘‘News’’. Those figures are unexpected, because we anticipated a war-time drop in membership. Maybe we’ll feel the war this year. In any event, you can help the cause by signing up some friend at $2.00 for a year’s membership, or by subscribing to the ‘‘News’’ for him at 75c for a year.

gard to the Italians as

Biddle Considers Removal Of Restrictions On Anti-Nazis

Extension to other alien groups of the principle exempting Italians from enemyalien restrictions is “being carefully studied”, Attorney General Francis Biddle told the American Civil Liberties Union last month in reply to a letter from Roger N. Baldwin, director. No proof of loyalty will go unheeded Mr. Biddle said.

The Union’s letter congratulating the Attorney-General had said that extension of the same relief to some 200,000 anti-Nazi refugees from Germany ‘“‘would leave only the non-refugee Germans and Japanese as enemy aliens under restrictions. Since the great majority of Japanese aliens have been handled by evacuation from the Pacific Coast, it is doubtless impractical to suggest any exemption for them at this time’’.

Dr. John Haynes Holmes, chairman of the Union’s board, in a letter to the Attorney General, characterized his action in re““statesmanship of the highest order’’.

“What cheers us more than anything else’, Dr. Holmes said, “is the support which your action brings to our unshakeable conviction that the great mass of the American people, whatever their national or racial origin, are wholeheartedly loyal to America. We have never believed that disloyalty, much less sedition or treason, constitutes any serious menace to the nation’s life.

‘“Among the millions of our people there may be some thousands who are Nazis at heart, as there may be some hundreds who are traitorous in actual plotting and plannings against the high interests of the nation’s life. But these constitute a fraction of our people so insignificant as to be of little concern.

“There are wide differences of opinion among us, as is only natural in a free country, but we are all one in our desire to see America live and prosper, and lead mankind to the better day of which we dream’’.

TWELVE RESCUE SHIP PASSENGERS RELEASED; WRITS SOUGHT FOR TWO

Twelve of the fifty Drottningholm passengers held at Ellis Island since June 22 were released last month after clearance of their citizenship, while two were denied entrance for the duration at least, and the remainder waited impatiently for slow- moving authorities at Washington to complete their investigation.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union sought by writs of habeas corpus to obtain reversals for the two whom the authorities excluded on the ground they had lost their American citienship, leaving them in effect ‘““without a country” and separat ing them from other members of their families admitted earlier.

The Union will initiate court action shortly on behalf of several others who charge the immigration authorities with unreasonable delay in the investigation of their citizenship claims despite repeated assurances of quick action.

ship, the work of the Union will be seriously handicapped during the ensuing year. Consequently, we hope that every supporer who is able to do so will give an extra dollar this year to enable the Union to hire needed secretarial help.

Don’t forget, the local branch of the Union receives no financial support from any foundation or other agency, or from the national office of the Union. Every dollar used in.the work must be raised among our local membership. Since that membership is only 618, the regular $2 annual dues is insufficient to finance our activities. Therefore, we turn to our supporters each year to ask for pledges from those who can afford to make them.

How Much Should You Give?

How much should you pledge? We need some $50 and $100 contributions from those who can afford them. We hope, too, that the general contributions will contain many $25, $15 and 10 donations. Indeed, such contributions are necessary in order to secure an average contribution of $7.50 per person to fill the budget. After all, some © members can’t afford to give more than the required membership dues.

The Union has been operating on a deficit during the past two years, and, as a result, the Thomas T. White Fund, now reduced to about $3000, has had withdrawals of almost $1000 for general expenses. The $3605 budget has been fixed at anticipated income, but it does not meet the meager needs of the Union. The Committee has placed the organization on a business-like basis, but only your donations, especially an extra dollar for a stenographer, will place the Union on an effective footing during the coming year.

Remember, the Union holds no special financial drives throughout the year. You can help us concentrate our fund-raising activities so that there is a minimum of interference in handling civil liberties issues, by contributing NOW, rather than at some other time during the year.

The Budget

Following is the budget adopted by the Executive. Committee:

Salary—Director ee $2100 Printing and siatonsry a 630 Rent = 330 Postage |...0...2..- ee 220 Telephone and Telegraph........ 100 Transportation ............0...------ie axes (6 2 60 Miscellaneous ......................-------40 Publications... 7 8 35 Furniture and Equipment...... 15 TOTAL 22 ae $3605

BRUNI ACQUITTED IN PA. SEDITION TRIAL

It took an Easton, Pa., jury only fifteen minutes to acquit Vittorio Domenico Bruni of a charge of sedition based on barroom comment allegedly disparaging to President Roosevelt and laudatory of Benito Mussolini. Under cross-examination, the defendant persistently denied having made these comments and voiced complete loyalty to country and president. The A.C.L.U: cooperated with defense counsel, Wayne Barber.

for me.

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: pe 1816 ERNEST BBSIG ....... 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 Cen

ts a woe Ten Cents per Coy

The Story of a C. O. Who Joined the Army

We are printing, in in part, the unusual story of a man who volunteered for the Army and who now seeks discharge as a conscientious objector. There have been numerous cases of objectors who were drafted into the Army and who then refused to serve, but this is the first case we have learned about of a volunteer turned conscientious objector.

“I was born and raised in a very pious and religious environment, namely the large Mennonite community around Lehigh, Kansas, Marion County. I ama Mennonite myself.

“My parents have been dead for the last four years, leaving me to support a sister, Martha, aged 30, and a brother, aged 14.

“It has often been very difficult to do this. I’ve had to leave home many times in quest of work. And I believe it was due to the lack of parental guidance and the fact that I have had to shift for myself so long, that in my youthful way I became, in a way alienated from the church of which I was a member.

“So when it became imminent that I, too, would be drafted, I was in a state of con- fusion. I knew I was deep down inside of me a conscientious objector. But it seems I didn’t have the courage to admit it to my friends. I was really in a quandary. What I did will no doubt seem incredible to you, as it seems to me now, too. I went to the draft board and volunteered for military service! I have been in a terrible state of mind since. I don’t believe a more earnest conscientious objector can be found in the Army today than I. I hope to assure you it isn’t that I have a fear of death or harm, but I just don’t believe in war. I am now on limited service. I would never have to be in actual combat duty: But to me that makes no difference.

“I am now 21. I believe in democracy. There is only one thing I can’t understand about it. It grants citizens the privilege of freedom of conscience as civilians, but it seems to me a soldier has not this privilege. I realize it was my own thoughtlessness that brought all this on me. But I know, too, that I cannot allow myself to support war, because of my Christian training and beliefs. I say this from my heart. I never was so sure of anything in my life. Yet it seems that for me, there is nothing but disappoint- ment and disaster ahead.

“T do not wish that you will be caused any trouble. If you find it impossible within the law, to help me, then please disregard this plea. I am only seeking help because I feel that somewhere I might find a solution to my problem. I have been told by the Army because of the fact I volunteered for the draft there is nothing that can be done Maybe this is true, and if it is I’m afraid my faith in democracy will die. It is no fun, being an orphan, it is often terribly grim.

“If it is not possible for you to help me in any way, I will understand. ... A. P.”’

Another Hague Case

Anita Whitney, Communist Party candidate for Controller, and Mrs. Elsie Crane, were arrested in Sacramento last month for speaking in a public park without a permit. Application has been made in the District Court of Appeal for writs of habeas corpus, and the matter will come up for consideration on November 6. The Union is filing an amicus curiae brief, and Attorney A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles will ask the court for permission to argue the case orally.

Conscientious Objectors Serving In Prison inerease

The conflict between conscription and conscience has resulted in the imprisonment of some hundreds of conscientious objectors, with the number constantly increasing. The precise number of objectors among the 1500 men serving sentences for violations of the Selective Service Act is not definitely known. Recruits come ‘chiefly from the group of men not recognized as objectors who thereupon refused induction into the Army, and from the many members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who claim a status as ministers and who refuse to go to a conscientious objector camp even when so assigned. A smaller number comes from men refusing registration.

Paroles Granted

In the case of men convicted for refusing induction, the government examines each of the cases with a view to parole to conscientious objector camps when satisfied of their sincerity. Thus men who are not recognized by the Selective Service machinery, largely because of narrow interpretations of “religious training and belief,” are later recognized by the Department of Justice. Many of them are objectors on political grounds.

The most numerous group in prison, Jehovah’s Witnesses, consists of men whose claim as ministers of the Gospel is not recognized because they are not on the list of full-time representatives furnished the government by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Eleven have thus far been convicted in the Federal Court in San Francisco. Most of them are part-time workers. Since they refuse any conscripted service whatever, efforts are being made to create special camps in the prison system where they may do work similar to that in the Civilian Public Service Camps: The same provision is being urged for other men who refuse parole from prison to the camps on the ground that they will render no voluntary service under conscription.

Refusals To Register

Refusals to register by men in the older draft group, 45-64 years of age, have been met by the government by registering anyhow all men whose identities are ascertained. The distinction between these and younger men who were prosecuted is due to the fact that the older men are not being called upon for military service. In one case, however, that of Julius Eichel of Brookyln, N. Y.,a World War conscientious objector who again refused to register, the government is proceeding with the prosecution apparently because of the insistence of the local District Attorney. A few other men are still being held for grand juries, but it is.indicated by the Department of Justice that the complaints will be dismissed without trial.

An increasing number of men are rendering service in public health and agriculture on furlough from the conscientious objector camps, but the number is yet only a few hundred and therefore not comparable with the 4000 objectors who were furloughed to agricultural work during the first World War. On account of the more useful character of these so-called detached services every effort is being made to increase them.

Court Cases

In the courts only a comparatively few contests have arisen challenging local boards. In New Jersey, Whitney Bowles, who refused induction after failing to be classified as a conscientious objector, has taken an appeal on the ground that his local and appeals boards clearly did not follow the law in denying him that classification. The case was heard before the Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in October. In California, Federal Judge Leon R. Yankwich at Los Angeles has granted a writ of habeas corpus to a Jehovah’s Witness, Kenneth Stewart, whose local board refused him classification as a minister of the Gospel. The judge, in an unprecedented ruling, held that a draftee ‘“‘who claims to be unfairly classified need not risk the danger inherent in surrender to the military forces.” Stewart sought the writ while in

scene of the United States marshal, held for prosecution. He is defended by LE; Wirin, counsel for the Southern California branch.

Legal aid in adjusting the many problems which arise in the departments at Washington is being rendered by R. Boland Brooks, New York attorney, who on September 1 began full-time service with the National Service Board for Religious Objectors. The Civil Liberties Union, through its National Committee on. Conscientious Objectors, is rendering legal and other aid wherever requested. The place of its counsel, Kenneth Walser, recently deceased, has been taken by Julien D. Cornell of New

or

A.C.L.U. AIDS APPEAL IN MARTIAL LAW CASE

Military imprisonment based on martial law in Hawaii was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union last month when counsel for the Union filed a brief as friend of the court in the US. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco on the appeal of Hans Zimmerman from the refusal of the federal court at Honolulu to issue a writ of habeas corpus in his behalf.

Zimmerman, a naturalized citizen and resident of Honolulu, was imprisoned by the military authorities shortly after the outbreak of war with Japan. He then sought release on a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by Judge D. E. Metzger who said that although a writ was justified, he felt. powerless to issue it because he was under “‘military duress’’.

The Union’s brief argued that military detention deprived Zimmerman of constitutional rights particularly trial by jury; that his imprisonment was not directly related to urgent military necessity ; and that action by civil authorities, rather than the military, would not be too late in dealing with any danger in the Hawaiian Islands, ee months after the attack on Pearl Haror.

STATEMENT OF THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, CIRCULATION, ETC., REQUIRED BY THE ACTS OF CONGRESS OF AUGUST 24, 1912, AND f MARCH 3, 1933. Of American Civil Liberties Union — News published monthly at San Francisco, California, for October, 1942. County of San Francisco) , State of California

Before me, a Notary ae in and for the State and county aforesaid, personally appeared Hrnest Besig, who, having been duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the Editor of the American Civil Liberties UnionNews, and that the following is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a true statement of the ownership, management (and if a daily paper, the circulation), ete., of the aforesaid publication for the date shown in the above caption, required by the Act of August 24, 1912, as amended by the Act of March 3, 1933, embodied in section 5387, Postal pave and Regulations, printed on the reverse of this form, o-wit:

1. That the names and addresses of the publisher, editor, managing editor, and business managers are: Publisher—Northern California Branch, American Civil

Liberties Union, 216 Pine St., San Francisco. Editor—Ernest Besig, 216 Pine St., San Francisco. Managing Editor—None.

Business Managers—None.

2. That the owner is: (If owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding one per cent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a firm, company, or other unincorporated concern, its name and address, as well as those of each individual member, must be given.)

Northern California Branch, American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco. Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons, Chairman, 216 Pine St., San Francisco, Ernest Besig, Director, 216 Pine St., San Francisco. :

3. That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 per cent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities are: (If there are none, so state.) None.

4. That the two paragraphs next above, giving the names of the owners, stockholders, and security holders, if any, contain not only the list of stockholders and security holders as they appear upon the books of the company but also, in cases where the stockholders or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustees or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting, is given; also that the said two paragraphs contain statements embracing affiant’s full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner and this affiant has no reason to believe that any other person, association, or corporation has any interest direct or indirect in the said stock, bonds, or other securities than as so stated by him.

5. That the average number of copies of each issue of this publication sold or distributed, through the mails or otherwise, to paid subscribers during the twelve months preceding the date SHOWN AbDOVE iS..W-. uu... seen eneteeeccteenentecnceeecen (This information is required from daily publications only.)

ERNEST BESIG, Editor. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of September, 1942,

(SEAL) RAB G. BEHRENS.

“Notary Public in and for the Co. of San Francisco, State of California. My commission expires Jan. 1, 1948.)