vol. 8, no. 3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VIII SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MARCH, 1943 No. 3

CITIZENSHIP OF NISEI UPHELD Circuit Court Bebuffs Native Sons; Japanese Exclusion Cases Argued The United States Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on February 20 dismiss ed the contention of the Native Sons of the Golden West that the Nisei or Americanborn Japanese and other American-born orientals are not citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...” The court wasted no time in reaching its decision. After listening 35 minutes to the ponderous argument of former California Attorney General U. S.. Webb (who is responsible for drafting California’s Alien Land Law), the seven judges momentarily held a whispered consultation without leaving the pench, after which it was announced by Presiding Judge Curtis Wilbur that “The judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without further ar‘gument.”’ It was just about the worst rebuff that could be given ag Webb and the Native Sons.

Evacuation Test Cases Submitted

At the same time, the court took under submission the Korematsu, Hirabayashi and Yasui cases testing the military’s right to evacuate citizens of Japanese extraction from the Pacific Coast, and to place them under curfew restrictions. Written opinions in these cases are not expected for at least one month, and possibly two or three months. While we can only speculate as to the results, it is felt that at least four of the seven judges will be willing to uphold the military’s power. Whatever the decision, however, the cases will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court for a final ruling.:

Webb Sought to Overrule Sup. Ct.

The citizenship issue arose in a suit for an injunction directed against the Registrar of Voters of San Francisco county. The suit sought to restrain the Registrar from permitting citizens of Japanese ancestry from voting, on the ground that they are not eligible to vote because they lack citizenship. In arguing the case, Mr. Webb conceded that the Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898, had decided the issue against him. ‘‘Are you asking this court to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States,” asked Judge Wilbur. Said Mr. Webb, fencing not too adroitly, “T am asking this court, as God gives it light and power, to give a correct judgment according to the law.’’ He then went on to indicate that he thought the court should follow the minority opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case.

Union Filed Brief

A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles, appearing as counsel for the Japanese-American Citizenss’ League, which had filed a brief as “friend of the court,’ had been granted 30

minutes for oral argument, but because of the court’s speedy ruling was not given an opportunity to be heard. Amici curiae briefs were also filed on behalf of the A.C.L.U. and the Lawyers’ Guild. The former brief was prepared by Attorney.

Wayne M. Coilins of San Francisco Evacuation Test Cases

The principal issues before the court, however, were 1, the constitutionality of (Continued on Page 2, Col. 2)

600 COPIES SOLD

pamphlet, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the War’”’ was exhausted shortly after its sale was announced in the February issue of the ““News.”’ More than 600 copies have been distributed by this office alone. A couple of hundred copies are now on hand at a price of 10c each. Send your orders to the A.C.L.U., 216 Pine St., San Francisco.

MORE AVAILABLE

Schneiderman Appeal To Be Reargued

A long-awaited opinion from the U. S. Supreme Court as to whether membership in the Communist Party constitutes advocacy of the overthrow of government by force and violence was postponed last month when the court ordered reargument of the appeal of William Schneiderman, party functionary, from the decision of a lower court upholding revocation of his citizenship.

In the argument on the appeal last November, the government held that since Schneiderman was a member of the Workers’ Party, predecessor to the Communist Party, when he was naturalized in 1927, he advocated violent overthrow, an alleged principle of the party, and is thereby disqualified from citizenship. .Wendell WilIkie, counsel for Schneiderman, challenged as imputation, based on the government attorney’s own interpretation of Communist theory, the charge that his client advocated violence, a tenet which ‘‘would not necessarily be binding on the member” even if advocated by the party.

Our original supply of the excellent |

+ WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED MISS WHITNEY

The California District Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento, has granted a writ of habeas corpus to ‘Anita Whitney, Communist candidate for controller at the last State election, and in so doing has invalidated a Sacramento ordinance providing “No person shall, in or upon any of the public grounds make any public address. . except in accordance with a permit from the City Manager.’”’ Miss Whitney had been arrested on October 4, 1942, after attempting to speak in support of her candidacy 1 in one of Sacramento’s city parks.

The ordinance recited that it. had been adopted as an emergency measure because the parks had been made the location of speeches “to the annoyance of the citizens” which might lead to public disturbances. The Court held that the ordinance was one “Imposing censorship on the freedom of speech, and the motive inducing its adoption thereby becomes unimportant. . Freedom of speech is one of those rights which is vital to the maintenance of a democratic form of government, and an ordinance which prohibits the rights of public speech upon public grounds, except by special permit, simply because of the stated reason that citizens have been annoyed, is therefore insufficient and unconstitutional.’’

The opinion goes on to say that “The ordinance by its terms is not regulatory but on the contrary it is prohibitory. The provisions thereof fail to indicate that comfort Or convenience in the use of the city parks and grounds is a consideration for the en- actment of the ordinance. Contrary to the contention of respondent, the provision re- quiring the procuring of a permit from the City Manager confers upon him the discre- tion of absolutely denying such a permit. The ordinance, also, by its terms applies generally to all Sacra ete public a and grounds.”

The A.C.L.U. field a brief in the case as a “friend of the court,’ which was prepared by attorney A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles and countersigned by attorney eee M. Collins of San Francisco.

RECENT BOOKS ON : CIVIL LIBERTIES ABOVE ALL LIBERTIES: By Alec Craig, Published by George Allen and Unwin Ltd. in England, and in the United States by W. W. Norton, 70 Fifth Ave., N. Y. C. A 200 page survey of censorship of so-called obscenity, presented from an advanced viewpoint, with chapters on the handling of such issues in French and American courts, but with the body of reference to English cases and background.

Page 2

Bridge: Loses Pie: For Habeas Corpus; Will Appeal

Harry Bridges, west coast labor leader, lost another round in his fight against de. portation as an “‘undesirable alien” when the federal district court at San Francisco last month denied his plea for a writ of habeas corpus through which he sought to block Attorney General Biddle’s deportation order of last May.

The court held that the order was issued “after a fair hearing on substantial evi- dence and no error of law occurred which ‘operated to deprive petitioner of due pro- cess of law or any other constitutional rights.”’ The court also sustained the Con- gressional amendment of the Deportation Act in 1940 which makes deportable those with past as well as present membership in organizations advocating violent overthrow of the government. Bridges was held to come within the amendment through evidence given at a hearing conducted in 1941 by trial examiner Charles B. Sears that he was formerly a member of the Communist Party and of the Marine Workers Industrial Union.

Bridges’ contention that he was placed in “double jeopardy” by being subjected to trial before Examiner Sears after having been cleared of identical charges in a hear‘ing before Dean James M. Landis in 1939 were rejected by presiding Judge Martin I. Welsh who held that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy ‘“‘applies only to proceedings essentially criminal” and that a deportation proceeding is “aimed at the revocation of a privilege and not as a punishment for crime.”

Bridges will appeal to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the case will un- doubtedly reach the U. S. Supreme Court. The A.C.L.U. has opposed the proceedings against Bridges as involving prosecution for alleged political opinions and connections, and hostility to his trade union activities.

URGE JAPANESE-AMERICANS BE DRAFTED WITHOUT SEGREGATION

Commending the War Department for its recent decision to reopen the ranks of the army to Japanese-Americans by accepting volunteers for special ‘‘combat-teams,”’ the American Civil Liberties Union in a letter to Secretary of War Stimson has ‘urged that those not confined in the centers “be dealt with by Selective Service the same as all other American citizens and taken into the armed forces without segregation.” Since last May all JapaneseAmericans have been deferred.

The Union said that acceptance of its proposal would be in keeping with the sentiments recently expressed by President Roosevelt in a letter to the Secretary of War commenting favorably on the move to accept Japanese-Americans once more in the army. The President wrote:

“No loyal citizen of the United States should be denied the democratic right to exercise the responsibilities of his citizenship, regardless of his ancestry. The principle on which this country was founded and by which it has always been governed is that Americanism is a matter of the mind and heart; Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race or ancestry. Every loyal American citizen should be given the opportunity to serve this country wherever his skills will make the greatest contribution—whether it be in the ranks of the armed forces, war production, agriculture, government service, or other work essential to the war effort.”

DON’T RING—KNOCKY!

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to examine the constitutionality of an ordinance which makes it a crime to ring a door bell for the purpose of distributing literature.

Circuit Court Hears Arguments In Japanese Exclusion Test Cases

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

the mass evacuation of citizens of Japanese ancestry; 2, the validity of curfew imposed on alien enemies and citizens of Japanese extraction; and, 8, the holding by Judge Fee of Portland, Oregon, that an Americanborn citizen who, under International Law, holds. dual citizenship, may lose his American citizenship when he attains the age of 21 by acts and speech indicating an election. Seven judges instead of the usual three were assigned to hear the cases. Involved were Fred T. Korematsu, Alameda county boy, who had been convicted for failing to evacuate, and Gordon Hirabayashi, Quaker and University of Washington student, who had been tried and convicted on the same charges and also for violating the curfew regulation: The third case involved Minoru Yasui, born in Hood River, Oregon, who was convicted as an alien for violating the curfew regulation.

The lower. court, while holding the mili-. tary had no authority over citizens, had held that Yasui had lost his citizenship by -reason of being employed at the Japanese. consulate in Chicago, and because his father had received some kind of recognition from the Japanese government because of bringing about friendly relations between Japanese and Americans in Hood River.

Wayne M. Collins, A.C.L.U. attorney of San Francisco; Frank L. Walter of Seattle, and E. L. Bernard of Portland appeared as counsel for the Japanese. Three attorneys likewise appeared for the government, including E. J. Ennis, the very able Assistant Attorney General who came to San Francisco particularly for the purpose of argu-. ing the cases.

Government’s Contentions

The government’s attorneys contended that the evacuation was taken under the war powers of the President and Congress, and that if any act of the government has any reasonable relation to that power, it must be upheld. They claimed it was not necessary for the government to prove there was any military necessity, but that the court could take judicial notice of the military dangers to the Pacific Coast and the menacing character of the Japanese residing here. “Their loyalty,’ according to Asst. U. S. Attorney A. J. Zirpoli, “was beyond the discernment of the military authorities.”’

Asst. Attorney General E. J. Ennis argued that the removal, was not based on racial prejudice but on the alleged allegiance of the Japanese to the Emperor, of which the court likewise could take judicial notice. Of course, if the evacuation resulted from racial prejudice, then it was admitted that it would be arbitrary and could be set aside.

Fear of Possible Disloyalty

At this point Judge Denman stated, “You ask us to take judicial notice of the menace of the Japanese. Is there any case of a native born Japanese being proceeded against?” When Mr. Ennis answered, “No,” Judge Denman then wanted to know, ‘Tg there a single case of arrest?” Mr. Ennis admitted there was not, and that as a matter of fact the most prominent prosecutions for espionage and sabotage thus far were against citizens who are not Japanese. Nevertheless, said Mr. Ennis, if there were an invasion of the Pacific Coast and only a few thousand of the Japanese were friendly to the invaders, they could do incaleuable damage to our ‘cause. Mr. Ennis admitted that the evacuation is an extreme exercise of the war power, but that such exercise is called martial law only when it is exercised to replace the judicial function of the courts. Consequently, in this instance, there was no martial law.

The government’s attorneys argued, too, that the military’s action had been ratified by the Congress in enacting Public Law

No. 508, under which the men had been convicted, and by the subsequent appropriation of monies to pay for the evacuation. The former statute, it was asserted, was not too indefinite for a penal law.

. The Case for the Nisei

The attorneys for the Japanese contended that the military has no power over civilians in the absence of martial law, and if it is claimed that a kind of martial law exists, then it is necessary for the government to prove facts which alone can. justify the exercise of such power. The court, they asserted, may not take “judicial notice’’ of any military necessity; that is a matter of proof.

The evacuation, too, was denounced as a denial of the equal protection of the laws since it was based on racial prejudice and not directed against all citizens on a like basis. Moreover, due process of law requires that a person be granted a fair hearing before his liberty is taken from him. Finally, a penal statute must be definite in order to put people on notice against the particular thing that is prohibited, whereas this particular statute made no attempt to define the offense.

Does the War Make Any Difference?

It was generally acknowledged that if the exclusion had occurred in peace time there would be no question about its invalidity. The issue before the court is whether the war makes any difference; whether there is a war-time power to exclude citizens from areas within the United States, and, if so, whether that power was properly exercised.

Tenn essee Repeals The Poll-Tax

Last month the Tennessee legislature — passed a bill sponsored by Governor Prentice Cooper repealing the state’s fifty-yearold poll-tax law. This reduces to seven the number of southern states still requiring payment of a poll-tax as a prerequisite to voting. These are Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas.

It is anticipated that the opponents of the measure will seek to upset it on grounds of constitutionality since the state constitution provides that “‘each voter shall give satisfactory. evidence that he has payed the poll taxes assessed against him without. which his vote cannot be received.”

GOVERNMENT DROPS PROSECUTION AGAINST MICHIGAN SENATOR

The federal prosecution against Stanley Nowak, Michigan state senator, for alleged falsification of his naturalization oath in 1937 was dropped last month at the in- stance of Attorney General Francis Biddle who admitted an “error in judgment.”

Nowak was indicted last December for “swearing falsely” that he was not a member of an organization “opposed to organized government.” It was charged that he was a member of the Communist Party at the time of his naturalization and that the party falls within the definition.

Henry A. Schweinhaut, representing the Attorney General, issued a statement in Detroit saying that ‘‘the facts are not such as to warrant a criminal prosecution and the attorney general takes the entire responsibility for the error in judgment.”’ He indicated that the Justice Department does not intend to bring denaturalization pro- ceedings.

Nowak’s indictment provoked a nationwide protest from liberal and labor organ- izations, among them the American Civil Liberties Union, which said that ‘“‘such ex- traordinary proceedings would appear to be due to local political controversy rather than an attempt to fairly enforce the law.”’

State Legislation Aimed At Racial Discrimination

More liberties , for colored people are sought by a series of bills introduced in the State Legislature by Assemblyman Augustus Hawkins. It is a program that will make progress, however, only with YOUR support. Send letters to your legislators urging them to vote for the following bills:

A. B. 41 and A. B. 50 prohibit discrimination because of race, color, creed or sex in war industries and labor organizations. A. B. 390 does the same thing in public utilities, such as street railways.

A couple of the bills would make it easier for the colored people to secure decent housing. A. B. 1598 makes unlawful residential segregation, while A. B. 1599 pro- hibits racial discrimination in public housing projects.

A.B. 18 and A. B. 838 would make it unlawful for insurance companies to discrimi- nate against anyone because of race, color, creed or national origin in writing insur- ance policies.

Many State forms and blanks inquire into a person’s race or religion. A. B. 1732 would prohibit that practice.

Finally, Assembly Joint Resolution No. 18 peeienees Congress to eliminate poll axes.

Besides the above-mentioned anti-discrimination bills by Assemblyman Hawkins, many other bills are on file. For example, identical bills have been introduced in the Assembly and Senate (A. B. 27 and S. B. 40) penalizing discrimination because. of race, creed or color in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement.

Senator Tenney has introduced S. B. 41 which prohibits such discrimination in in- dustries serving the government, and A. B. 1117 by Assemblyman Rosenthal goes so far as to provide “Any employer, or agent, employee, superintendent or manager thereof, who refuses employment to any person solely because of such person’s race, color, or religious beliefs is guilty of a mis demeanor.” At the same time, Mr. Rosenthal would make it a misdemeanor for an employer (except motion picture producers) to express racial and religious preferences in advertisements for workers. A.B. 77 would accomplish the same purpose.

Senator Swan has introduced S. B. 871 to limit to 20. per cent the value of the inter- vow in any examination for a civil service job.

Executive Committee Northern California Branch American Civil Liberties Union

Rt. Rev. Edw. L. Parsons Chairman Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn Helen Salz Vice-Chairmen fs Joseph S. Thompson Secretary-Treasurer £ Ernest Besig Director Philip Adams Gladys Brown H. C. Carrasco Wayne M. Collins James J. Cronin, Jr. Charles R. Garry Rev. Oscar F. Green Morris M. Grupp Prof. Ernest R. Hilgard Dr. Edgar A. Lowther Mrs. Bruce Porter Judge Jackson H. Ralston Clarence E. Rust Kathleen Drew Tolman Marie de L. Welch Col. Chas. Erskine Scott Wood

Page 3

A Further Review of Suppressive Bills In The State Legislature

Last month we were unable to review all of the suppressive bills introduced at the present session of the California Legislature because at the time the story was written the Legislature had not yet recessed and bills were still pouring into the hopper. We now present a summary of the suppressive bills that were introduced after our previous article was written. Incidentally, the Legislature reconvenes on March 8.

The subjects covered by the latest batch of bills include aliens, Japanese, race and religious hatred, compulsory drill in our schools, labor, espionage, and our disloyal aged people (believe it or not).

Page Dr. Townsend

Senators Rich, Tickle, DeLap, Breed (of Alameda county) and Seawell have suddenly become agitated about the radicals who are receiving public assistance “‘including aid to the aged under the Old Age Security Law.” Any “person who comes within” the criminal syndicalism act, or who is a member of or contributor to an organization advocating the violent overthrow of the government, is defined by S.B. 848 as a “‘disloyal person” and would henceforth be disqualified from receiving . public assistance.

Assemblymen Dilworth and Clarke have joined the parade in making political capital at the expense of the Nisei by introducing Assembly Joint Resolution 29 memorializing Congress to prepare an amendment to the Constitution ‘‘so as to provide that native-born descendants of alien Japanese parents be not citizens of the United States by reason of their birth within the territorial limits of the United States.’’

Alien Motorists Restricted

The aliens come in for their usual blow from Senator Swan of Sacramento who has reintroduced a bill (S.B. 870) originally introduced in 1941, prohibiting the regis- tration or operation of motor vehicles owned by aliens unless they file proof of ability to respond in damages. The implication of the measure would seem to be that aliens “are worse drivers than citizens.

Another of Senator Swan’s pet measures is compulsory military drill in all junior colleges and state colleges, S.B. 872. Of course, no provision is made for conscien- tious objectors.

Assemblyman Rosenthal (by request) -has introduced an espionage act (A.B. 1101) that is almost word for word the same as the federal law enacted in 1917. During the World War that law was enforced with great vigor and unfairness. Today, under Attorney General Biddle, discretion is being used in its enforcement. We venture to say that a State law would open the way to considerable witch-hunting and would result in prosecutions the federal government would never choose to undertake.

Legislating Tolerance

Senators Tenney and Burns have collaborated in a couple of bills aimed at legislat- ing racial and religious tolerance, but which may well result in a fantastic re- striction of free speech. The first bill, S.B. 606, is an extensive proposal revived from the time Mr. Tenney was in the Assembly. It provides that any person who publishes, distributes or intends to distribute or exhibit any book, speech, or writing, any record of an organization, or any picture, photograph, etc., “‘which is intended in any way to incite, counsel, promote or advocate hatred, violence or hos- tility against any group or groups of persons residing or being in this State, by rea- son of race, color, religion or manner of worship;” is punishable by a maximum fine of $500 or by imprisonment for no more than three years. Owners knowingly leasing premises to groups for the above purpose, or who knowingly allow the use of broadcast facilities for such purposes are also punishable to the same extent.

Interestingly enough, “the provisions of this act shall not apply to citizens or sub- jects or the descendants of any citizen or subject of any country or state now at war with the United States.”

New Jersey had a law of this kind which was first enforced against Jehovah’s Wit- nesses. Later the law was declared invalid ee applied against members of the und.

Group Libel

The same senators have also introduced S.B. 607 which expands the definitions of libel and slander to permit any member of a race or religious organization to sue in behalf of such group any person who allegedly libels or slanders the group. This and the foregoing measure would seem to narrow in a senseless way the field of free speech. The discussion of racial and religious matters, if these laws were enacted, would become extremely hazardous.

A couple of anti-labor bills have been introduced by Assemblyman. Hastain. A.B. 1022 would make it unlawful for a Union to discipline a member who refuses to strike not only in a war industry,. but in an activity “‘required in the maintenance of the public peace, safety, health or welfare,” or in any occupation requiring six months’ training, or where the number of workers available is insufficient for ‘‘existing or anticipated requirements.” Mr. Hastain’ would have found it difficult to be more inclusive. The other bill, A.B. 1852, does away with all closed shop con— tracts.

Union Undertakes Legal Service For Conscientious Objectors

A bureau for Legal Service to Conscientious Objectors recently established in Washington on an experimental basis has been taken over by the National Committee on Conscientious Objectors, organized by the A.C.L.U. The Legal Service, organized by R. Boland Brooks, New York attorney, and George B. Reeves of Philadelphia, formerly associated. with the National Service Board, is endeavoring to deal with critical problems which have arisen both in the classification and treatment of objectors. It has been generally agreed among all those interested in conscientious objectors that — bringing pressure to bear for the solution of these problems should be separated from the administration of the Civilian Public Service camps under the National Service Board. In aadition to the services of Mr. Brooks and Mr. Reeves, Dorothy Detzer, secretary of the Women’s International League, is giving part time to a solution of the problems.

According to Ernest Angell, chairman of the National Committee, the principal issues concern the removal of military men from control over classifications and pa— roles, the assignment of objectors to ‘‘detached service” in agriculture and hospitals direct from draft boards and from prison, the retention of wages in detached service equivalent to a soldier’s, and the speeding up of paroles and detached service outside the camps.

The results aimed at, Mr. Angell said, are to reduce the prison population and further commitments, and to get as many men as possible into useful work at wages outside the camps instead of the ‘‘C.C.C. type of work they now perform.” Over 1,000 objectors are in prison, twice the number in World War I, and some 6,000 in Civilian Public Service Camps administered by the National Service Board for Religious Objectors.

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 = 3 = 2 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.

Federal Conviction Upheld For Attack On ‘Witnesses’

The federal Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Va., last month sustained the conviction of a deputy sheriff in Nicholas County, W. Va., for violating in 1941 the federal civil rights statute by an attack on Jehovah’s Witnesses. The conviction was the first secured by the Department of justice against a public official under that statute.

The lower court had found the official guilty not only of failing to protect a group of Witnesses in Richmond, W. Va., but of assaulting them and administering a dose of castor oil.

Circuit Court Judge Dobie in the opinion said: “‘We are here concerned only with protecting the rights of these victims no matter how locally unpalatable the victims may be as a result of their seeming fanaticism. These rights include those of free speech, freedom of religion, immunity from illegal restraint and equal protection, all of which are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”’

Other recent decisions upholding the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses are a reversal by the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals of a conviction under a state law punishing ‘ ‘use of language calculated to incite anger or cause breach of peace” for expressing religious views in public, and an injunction by a Minnesota district court restraining a local school board from exone children for refusal to salute the flag.

U. S. Supreme Court Grants Rehearing In Literature Sales Case

“The U. S. Supreme Court last month granted a rehearing in the famous “‘freepress’’ case in which the court in a 5 to 4 decision last June sustained local ordinances taxing the sale of literature in public places, denying the appeal of Jehovah’s Witnesses from convictions under such ordinances in Alabama, Arkansas and Arizona.

Though Aa litigation soles only Jehovah’s Witnesses, far-reaching consequences are involved for freedom of press and religion, evidenced by the fact that the petition for rehearing was supported in. briefs by the American Newspaper Publishers’ Association, the Seventh Day AdVenusts, and the American Civil Liberties nion.

The decision to rehear was announced shortly after Wiley Blount Rutledge, Jr., was sworn in to fill the vacancy left by Justice James F. Byrnes last fall. Apparently this broke a deadlock between the dissenters in the original case—Chief Justice Stone with Justices Black, Murphy and Douglas—and Justices Reed, Roberts, Frankfurter and Jackson.

This month, the court is scheduled to hear the appeal of the State of West Virginia from the decision of a federal court last October voiding the state flag-salute law as applied to children with religious scruples. It seems likely that the Supreme Court’s own decision of 1940 in the Gobitis case sustaining such statutes will be reversed, in view of the expressed dissent of four justices and Justice Rutledge’s liberal views. A brief will be filed by the Union. were ‘merely observers

Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds War Gag Law

A sweeping Mississippi statute making it unlawful in wartime to advocate “doctrines and teachings detrimental to the public safety’ and ‘“‘to encourage by speech or print disloyalty to the government or to create an attitude of refusal to salute the flag’ was sustained last month by the State » Supreme Court in a 3 to 8 decision.

The court denied in three separate cases the appeals of Jehovah’s Witnesses from convictions in the lower courts for violating the statute by imparting to others their religious beliefs opposing man-made laws and flag saluting. The conviction in the case of another appellant, Otto Mills, was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Answering the contention of the appellants that their free speech is violated, the controlling opinion written by Judge W. G. Roberds said: “If this were peacetime legislation, the writer would not hesitate to hold it unconstitutional as to ap- pellant—but this is one of several statutes passed by the Mississippi legislature in 1942 to aid in the prosecution of the war. It is an emergency war act and by its terms it will expire upon termination of the war.’

Precedents were cited to show that in wartime constitutional liberties may be cur tailed to meet the emergency, with the conclusion that “the rights of citizens must give way temporarily as this may be reasonably necessary for the nation’s self pres- ervation.”

To the appellants’ contention that the statute violates their freedom of religion the opinion answered that the flag-salute and the pledge of allegiance have “‘nothing to do with religion,” despite the claim of the appellants that their attitude is based on Biblical injunction. The dissenting opinion held that ‘“‘we may differ with the ap- pellant on his interpretation of these Commandments—nevertheless that is a matter for his own determination and not for the determination of the judges of this or any other court.”

The dissent added that ‘‘to assume that the refusal to salute is stubborn and to argue therefrom that such a course is a sympton of a deep-seated disloyalty is to punish one not for the charge against him but for the evidence adduced to prove it.” The dissent did not question the validity of the statute, but held that it did not: apply to the customary acts, principles, and teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses plan an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. The A.C.L.U. which filed a brief as a friend of the court will file a brief on the appeal.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES : NOT “UNFIT” PARENTS

A rarely used form of attack against Jehovah’s Witnesses, denying parents the cus- tody of their minor children on the ground of ‘‘fitness,’”’ was dealt a sound rebuke last month by the Washington Supreme Court in reversing a lower court ruling that the sect is a ‘fanatical organization with teachings entirely inimical to the rearing of children as American Citizens.”’

The Supreme Court said: ‘“‘We do not doubt the right of the state to suppress religious practices dangerous to morals, and presumably those also which are inimical to public safety, health and good order, but so far as appears from the testimony in this case, the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be classed in any of these categories.

“We cannot find in the record any testimony which would justify the court in find- ing that this mother is unfit to have the care and custody of her children because of her religious beliefs, or that the children if left with her will be reared in an atmos- phere of disloyalty to their country.”

NO A. C. L. U. ACTION IN LAWRENCE DENNIS CASE

To correct the impression in recent newspaper reports that the A.C.L.U. is partic- ipating in the case of Lawrence Dennis of New York, a statement was sent last month by Dr. John Haynes Holmes, board chairman to newspapers, reading:

“A story carried in several newspapers last month gives the impression that the A.C.L.U. is interested in the case of Lawrence Dennis, which arose from recent ques- tioning of him by army officials in New: York with a view to his possible removal from the Eastern Military Area. The Union has not intervened in any way in the proceeding and there is as yet no case. The reported hearings were informal interrogations. Arthur Garfield Hays and Roger N. Baldwin, present at the request of Dennis, in a personal capacity.

“The Union follows all cases of military exclusion on the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts brought to its attention to determine in each instance whether the order is un- reasonable. If an order is issued against Dennis, his case, like others, will be con- sidered in the light of the Union’s war-time policy for the selection of test cases.”

Supreme Court Hears Radio Monopoly Case

Signed by Homer Cummings, former U. 8. Attorney General, and William Draper Lewis, director of the American Law Institute, a brief in support of the Federal Communications Commission was filed last month by the A.C.L.U. in the suit brought by the National Broadcasting Co. and the Columbia Broadcasting System in the U.S. Supreme Court to restrain the F.C.C. from — enforcing its anti-monopoly regulations against radio networks.

The Union’s brief centers around the principle that “the right to listen which is for most people today the significant sector of the right of free speech, shall not be curtailed,’ and contends that restrictive contracts between network and affiliated stations which the F.C.C. rules seek to abolish, “effectively curtail the freedom to listen by restricting the freedom of the stations to choose their program material.”

The brief points out that this position was sustained by Judge Learned Hand in the opinion in the lower court when he wrote that “the interests which the regulations seek to protect are the very interests which the Amendment (1st Amendment to the U. S. Constitution) itself protects, i.e., the interests first of the listeners, next of any licensee who may seek to be freer of the networks.”

TRUSTEES DEFY BOARD’S ORDER REINSTATING NON-SALUTING CHILD —

Last December the Lake County Board of | Education, on an appeal from a decision of the Burns Valley School District Trustees, ordered the reinstatement of Robert Drey, who had been expelled from school because of his refusal on religious grounds to salute the flag. The trustees then complained they had received no notice of the hearing on appeal. At a rehearing on February 6, the county board again ordered Robert Drey’s reinstatement, on condition that he stand at attention during the flag-salute ceremony.

Defying the county board’s order, the trustees have once again expelled Robert Drey from school, together with June Whitney, another pupil at the school. Appeals have been taken in both cases to the county board. If the appeals are successful and the trustees once again defy the county board’s order, the cases will be taken to the courts.