vol. 8, no. 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VIII SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL, 1943 No. 4

NISEI CASES GO TO SUP. COURT

Three Questions Certified To High Court; Denman Dissents

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on March 27 certified various questions to the United States Supreme Court for its answers before deciding the Hira- bayashi and Yasui Japanese exclusion and curfew test cases. Five Justices joined in certifying the questions. Justice Stephens was absent. In a vigorous dissent, Justice Denman objected to the certification of the questions on five grounds which he elabo- rated upon in opinions filed subsequently. No: decision was announced in the third Japanese exclusion test case involving Fred T. Korematsu.

The Questions

Three questions were certified by a majority of the justices in the Hirabayashi case. They are as follows:

“1, Was Lt. Gen. DeWitt’s Civilian Exclusion order No. 57 of May 10, 1942, ex- cluding all persons of Japanese ancestry, including American citizens of Japanese ancestry ... a constitutional exercise of the war powers of the President derived from the Constitution and statutes of the United States.

“2. Was Lt. Gen. DeWitt’s Public Proclamation No. 3 of March 24, 1942, requiring all alien Japanese, Germans and Italians and all persons of Japanese ancestry, including American citizens of Japanese ancestry, residing within the geographical limits of Military Area No. 1 of March 2, 1942, to be within their place of residence between the curfew hours of 8:00 p. m. and 6:00. a. m. daily, a constitutional exer- cise of the said war powers.

“3 If the answer to question One or the answer to question Two is in the affirmative, did the Act of March 21, 1942 (18 US.C.A. 97), constitutionally make it a criminal offense for the appellant wilfully and knowingly to fail to report to the Civil Control Station as ordered or to remain outside of his place of residence during the curfew hours.”

Two questions were certified in the Yasui case. Those questions were practically the same as questions 2 and 3 in the Hirabayashi case. The question concerning the validity of the exclusion orders was not present in the Yasui case.

Denman’s Dissent

Justice Denman’s memorandum dissent in the Hirabayashi case follows:

“I dissent from the certification on the grounds,

“(1) Because the questions simply transfer to the Supreme Court the final decision of the matters pending here, namely, as to the guilt or innocence of the appellant referred to.

(2) Because assuming the question are proper for certification, they take from this court, with its peculiarly clearly defined judicial cognizance of facts of the relationship of Japanese descended citizens to the white citizens in the social fab- ric of the Pacific coastal areas involved, the valuable contribution which such a court of appeals as this may give to tlie -corsideration of the issues of such major im- portance. If the case were to be certified, the facts should have been stated in the certificate.

(3) Because certain important admissions were made by both the Government and the appellant at the hearing before this court, pertinent to the final decisions of the case involved in the questions, of which the certificate makes no mention.

(4) Because, although the certificate (Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL SENT TO ASSEMBLY FLOOR

Last month the Assembly Labor and Capitol Committee gave a favorable recommendation to A.B. 50, by Assemblyman Augustus Hawkins, providing ‘‘Any person, who, directly or indirectly excludes a citizen because of race, color, or creed from any public employment, or employment in any capacity in industries engaged on defense contracts, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100).

NEW MEMBERS ADDED TO A.C.L.U. BOARD AND NATIONAL COMMITTEE

The annual election of members of the Board of Directors and the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union on February 15 added to the Board Ernest Angell, lawyer, president of the Council for Democracy; Prof. Karl N. Llewellyn of the Columbia Law School, and Prof. Robert N. Maclver of the Sociology Department, Columbia University.

New members of the National Committee elected are William Henry Chamberlin, author; Rep. John M. Coffee of Washington; Prof. William F. Ogburn of the University of Chicago; James G. Patton, president of the Farmers Union, Denver; Jennings Perry, editor of the Nashville Tennessean; Prof. Odell Shepard, former Lt. Governor of Connecticut, and Raymond Gram Swing, radio news commentator.

Two Individual Exclusion Test Cases Filed

Two test cases were filed last month challenging the power of the Military to exclude alleged “dangerous or potentially dangerous” United States citizens from the Pacific Coast.

One suit was filed in the United States District Court at Los Angeles on behalf of Homer Glen Wilcox by Attorney A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles. It is directed against Lieut. General John L. DeWitt, heading the | Western Defense Command, certain other Army officers and several F.B.I. agents. Besides asking $55,000 in damages, the complaint seeks to restrain the defendants from exluding Wilcox from the Pacific Coast.

Wiicox is a member of “Mankind United” and was San Diego bureau manager of the organization. The Army ordered him to leave the area as a “dangerous or potentially dangerous” citizen, but subsequently permitted him to return until after the forthcoming sedition trial of ‘‘Mankind United” leaders in Los Angeles, in which Wilcox is one of the defendants.

The second test case is also in the nature of an injunction proceeding. -It was commenced by Attorney Albert Asbahr of Portland, Oregon, on behalf of one Henry L. Beach. The Union has no further details on the case.

Scores of United States citizens, besides the tens of thousands of persons of Japa- nese ancestry, have been excluded from the Pacific Coast by the Military. None of the exclusions are based on alleged criminal offenses. In each case, the exclusion resulted after a hearing board composed of three Army officers in star chamber session considered the evidence of alleged unfriendliness to the United States and friendliness to the Axis powers.

UNION ASKS REPEAL OF LAW ON NEW YORK CITY ELECTIONS

Declaring that a bill signed recently by Governor Dewey of New York authorizing him to appoint successors to the Mayor and President of the City Council should they enter the armed services, “reflects a fascistic attitude arising out of a lack of faith in the common people,” the American Civil Liberties Union last month called upon the Governor to ask the legislature to repeal this measure.

The Union charged that the bill had “virtually disfranchised the people of the City of New York, taking from them the right to fill these offices by election in 1948 and 1944. Any doubt as to the filling of the vacancies should in true democratic fashion have been remedied by an amendment to the City Charter which could have been voted on by all the people, under the democratic principles of the Home Rule Amendment.”

Page 2

APPEALS COURT LIBERALIZES BASIS FOR C.O.'S

A liberal interpretation of the draft act provision for recognizing conscientious ob- jectors was written by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York in a recent decision on the appeal of Mathias Kauten, 30-year-old magazine artist from conviction in a district court for refusing to be inducted. Kauten’s conviction was sustained, but the Court in so doing distinguished his alleged ‘political’? objections from re- ligious scruples.

The opinion held that “religious training and belief” as used in the draft act “‘must be a general scruple against participation in war in any form and not merely an ob- jection to this particular war.

“There is a distinction between a course of reasoning resulting in a conviction that a particular war is inexpedient or disastrous and a conscientious objection to a participation in any war under any circumstances. The latter, and not the former, may be the basis for exemption under the act. The former is usually a political objection, while the latter, we think, may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse.”

Kauten was represented by Julien Cornell, New York attorney.

20YEAR SENTENCE FOR REFUSING MILITARY DUTIES ON SABBATH DAY

Twenty years at hard labor faces a Seventh-day Adventist who refused to perform any duties on the Sabbath Day (which is Saturday for Adventists). The sentence was arrived at by a court martial which tried Private George C. Vance at Camp Roberts on February 25, for refusing to obey orders. The case is now pelo the War Department for review.

Vance has been in the service only since December 23, 1942. While he claims to be entitled to a non-combatant status, his claim has not been clearly recognized by the Army. Nevertheless, he was requested to carry a rifle on only one occasion during his five weeks on active duty, although he had been denied the right to attend church on Saturdays.

On Saturday, January 30, Vance was ordered to attend the “Regimental Gymkhana.” He failed to obey the order and his court martial followed. The Seventh-day Adventist War Service Commission has inee in Vance’s behalf.

PROPOSE AMENDMENT OF WARTIME WIRE-TAPPING BILL

The American Civil Liberties Union last month proposed the amendment of a pending Congressional bill permitting wiretapping in wartime by the F.B.I. and the Intelligence Divisions of the War and Navy Departments, ‘‘to guard against possible abuses of this power.’

Sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler, the measure permits wire-tapping in connection with “attempts or plans for interference with the national security and defense’”’ by such acts as treason and sabotage, ‘or in any other manner.” In a memorandum to Rep. Celler, the Union charged that this section was “so vague and uncertain of application as to permit widespread abuse of this power to interfere with the privacy of citizens.”

Authority to order wire-tapping is given by the bill to the executives of the three departments and to other officials designated by them. The Union objected to this provision on the ground that “it gives great power to the three department heads and possibly to hundreds of additional minor officials without judicial supervision.” The Union suggested instead that as in the case of seizures and searches, “the authority to invade the privacy of the citizens should emanate from judicial officers in such a manner as to permit subsequent judicial review.’

High Court to Hear Cases on C. O. Judicial Review

The U. S. Supreme Court last month agreed to hear the case of Whitney Bowles, 25-year-old conscientious objector of Newfoundland, N. J., opening the way for a test of the decisions that a draftee can obtain judicial review of his classification only after he is inducted into the army. If the court sustains his contentions, scores of men facing prison for refusing induction would get court review of their claims as conscientious objectors.

Bowles refused to report for induction last year, claiming that his local draft and appeals boards had erred in denying him classification as a conscientious objector because he had not been ‘‘born into a religious sect one of whose cardinal prin- ciples was resistance to armed force.” This requirement is not made by the Selective Service Act, Bowles pointed out. :

He was tried by the federal district court at Newark, N. J., and sentenced to three years. The conviction was sustained by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia. Both courts declined to review evidence as to the erroneous action of draft boards. The Circuit Court held that the local boards had erred but ruled that an erroneous classification could not be reviewed in a criminal trial for draft violation.

Bowles’ appeal to the Supreme Court points out that a sincere conscientious objector cannot submit to induction because this requires his taking an oath to defend the country by force of arms. He asked the court to rule that where the claim is made that a classification is based on a wrong interpretation of the law, review may be had in the prosecution for refusal to be inducted. He is represented by Osmond K. Fraenkel, A.C.L.U. counsel.

His case in the lower courts was handled by Irving Piltch of Newark. Bowles, whose father was killed in World War I, has run > a New Jersey farm since his undergraduate years at Princeton and Rutgers. He is a Presbyterian.

MILITANT TO FIGHT POST OFFICE BAN IN COURT

An appeal to the courts will be taken to contest the action of the Post Office De- partment last month in revoking the second-class mailing privileges of the Militant, New York Trotskyist weekly, described by the American Civil Liberties Union as “‘the only clearly anti-fascist publication” cited under the Espionage Act.

The Department acted on the basis of a hearing before postal authorities in Wash- ington last January at which the publication was charged with printing material “deemed diversionary in character and appearing to be calculated to engender oppo- sition to the war effort as well as to interfere with the morale of the armed forces.”

The revocation will be challenged in the District of Columbia courts. The American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the defense at the Post Office hearing, will appear in the proceedings as friend of the court. According to Osmond K. Fraenkel, A.C.L.U. counsel who represented the Union, ‘“‘the evidence against the Militant consists of quotations whose truth the Post Office Department does not challenge, but whose tendency is alleged to obstruct the conduct of the war by condemning its alleged imperialist character, and criticising discrimination against labor and Negroes.”

The Union contends that the action of the Post Office Department taken on complaint of the Department of Justice is unwarranted under the Espionage Act and constitutes “interference with legitimate comment on the war not essentially different from that appearing in other publications.”

SEATTLE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR WINS RELEASE FROM THE ARMY

Morris C. Graves, Seattle artist and conscientious objector, on March 2nd received an honorable discharge from the Army.

Graves was inducted into the Army in Seattle as a non-combatant on April 21, 1942, all the time thinking he was about to receive a physical examination in advance of a hearing on his claims as a conscientious objector opposed to any activities under military direction. Graves deserted several times and finally came to the A.C.L.U. for advice the early part ofJune, 1942.

The Union recommended that he surrender himself to the Military and pursue administrative measures to secure his release. The evidence indicated that while his local draft board had promised him a hearing on his conscientious objections, the matter had been “overlooked.” The Army finally decided that Mr. Graves would not make a good soldier anyway, and ote honorable discharge followed.

FORCED CONFESSION CONVICTIONS REVERSED BY SUPREME COURT |

-After a two-year battle in the courts, eight Tennessee copper miners, members of the CIO Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Wnion, found guilty in 1941 of conSpiracy to dynamite government power lines at Ducktown, Tenn., went free last week when the United States Supreme Court reversed their convictions and wiped out jail sentences of 15 years each and fines totaling $88,000.

The men were indicted with thirteen other union leaders after the Tennessee Copper Co. had broken a year-old strike of 400 miners. The case against the others was dropped and the eight were tried in the federal district court at Knoxville in They were convicted on the basis of “‘confessions’”’ which were later proved to have been extracted under intimidation by local police authorities and federal agents, working hand in hand with company guards.

Threatened with 35 year sentences if they didn’t “‘talk,”’ and enticed with paroles if they did, they finally confessed after days of third-degree examination during which they were held incommunicado, denied drink and proper food and prevented from sleeping.

The contention of the CIO attorneys, Abraham J. Isserman and Nathan: Witt, that the men had been “framed” was sustained by the Supreme Court which said in the opinion written by Justice Frankfurter that the “confessions” were obtained involuntarily and that “it was error to admit them” in evidence. Justice Reed dissented.

The A.C.L.U. was represented in the litigation by a brief filed as friend of the court signed by Arthur Garfield Hays.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR TEST OF “SELF-INCRIMINATION” PRIVILEGE

The U. S. Supreme Court last month granted a review of the five-month sentence of Rosario St. Pierre of New York for refusal to answer a question put to him by a federal grand jury, thus clearing the way for a test of the extent of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Osmond K. Fraenkel, A.C.L.U. attorney, filed a brief as friend of the court.

St. Pierre’s conviction was upheld recently by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that he had waived the privilege by ‘‘telling too much” up to the point where he refused to answer. The A.C.L.U. brief contended that a defendant in a criminal prosecution, either before the grand jury or at the trial, should be able to claim the privilege at any point before he has admitted facts sufficient to bring about his conviction.

‘Page 3

Urge Oklahoma Drop Zimmerman’s Release Balks Test Of Hawaii Martial Law

On March 12, Dr. Hans Zimmerman of Honolulu, who had been detained as “dangerous to military security,” was released from military custody in San Francisco. The day before attorneys for Zimmerman had filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking to review a 2-1 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap- peals upholding the refusal of the District Court in Honolulu to issue a writ of habeas

Syndicalism Cases

The American Civil Liberties Union recently urged Attorney General Mac Q. Williamson of Oklahoma to drop the cases against three Communists whose convictions for criminal syndicalism based on membership in the Communist Party were reversed recently by the state Criminal Court of Appeals on grounds of inadequate evidence. The defendants are Ina Wood, Alan Shaw and Eli Jaffe.

The prosecution plans to file a petition for reargument of the appeals and will likely move for retrial in the county district court where the cases originated, if the petition is denied.

The Union, in a letter to Mr. Williamson, also urged that indictments pending against the three for sale of literature be withdrawn. Nine others against whom indictments are pending for membership in the Communist Party, have not yet been brought to trial. The appeal of another defendant, Robert Wood, for selling books is awaiting decision.

The letter, signed by Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel, said that “making criminal the mere possession or sale of literature which goes freely through the United States mails is contrary to public policy. No danger to the state in the attitude and activities of these defendants or of the Communist Party justifies further proceedings.” It was also pointed out that these are the only cases brought under state syndicalism laws in many years.

“We recognize that there are indictments pending against others and that there is one case in the Criminal Court of Appeals not yet decided and for that reason it may appear to you premature to make any move at the moment,” Mr. Hays’ letter said. ‘‘But we would like to present for your consideration the desirability of dismissing the indictments in the cases reversed as an indication that the state does not intend to proceed to a new trial. Such action would be in conformity with the spirit of the appellate court’s decision.”

WAVES OF ANTI-LABOR BILLS IN STATE LEGISLATURES

After the enactment in Kansas last month of a sweeping bill limiting the freedom of labor to organize, strike and picket, the American Civil Liberties Union called upon its members in other states to oppose similar bills pending in their legislatures.

The Union reported a “virtual epidemic of measures designed to curtail the legiti- -mate activities of trade unions.” The restrictions imposed in these bills, the A.C.- L.U. said, range from the compulsory registration of unions and the regulation of their internal affairs, to the extreme of direct prohibition of picketing and striking. Severe penalties including jail sentences and excessive fines are provided in many of them.

RIGHT OF NISEI TO CITIZENSHIP WILL BE DETER.MINED BY SUPREME COURT

Former California Attorney General U.S. Webb is carrying the Regan Japanese citi- zenship test case to the U. 8. Supreme Court. Under date of March 24 the Clerk of the Circuit’ Court of Appeals in San Francisco, at Mr. Webb’s request, transmitted the record in the case to the Supreme Court. In the near future, then, Webb will ask the court to review the Circuit Court’s decision holding that under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case, persons of Japanese ancestry born in the United States are citizens.

ANTI-LABOR BILLS RECEIVE SETBACK IN STATE LEGISLATURE

Efforts to amend the “Hot Cargo” law and a bill to impose all manner of restrictions on labor unions were decisively defeated in the Senate Labor Committee last month. In the interest of war-time unity, all proposed anti-labor laws are expected to be defeated.

corpus. The Army’s action prevents a test before the Supreme Court of the constitu- tionality of the suspension of the Writ of habeas corpus in the Hawaiian Islands.

Refused to Sign Release

Ein route to San Francisco, Zimmerman claims the military sought by threats and intimidation to get him to sign a release absolving them from any liability for his 15-month detention. He refused, and upon reaching San Francisco he was handed over to the Immigration authorities, but since he was a duly naturalized citizen, he was promptly released. At the time, the only money he had in his possession was two dollars.

Zimmerman’s Statement

In Los Angeles last month, Zimmerman made the following statement concerning his detention: “On December 8, 1941, along with many others, I was arrested by the military authorities at Honolulu. —

“Before that, as a graduate physician, specializing in naturopathy, after approxi- mately ten years of such medical practice, I had built up a substantial practice, had erected a clinic in Honolulu, and was earning: approximately $1500 a month. As a naturopathic physician, however, I had incurred the active enmity of Honolulu’s ‘medical trust.’

Asked Three Questions |

“Twelve days after my arrest I was given a hearing before a board at which I was asked just three questions. They were, first, whether I had said that Hitler would win the war. This I denied. The second question was why I had fired my American nurse. To this I stated that I had not. To the third question, ‘What did you do on your trip to ‘Germany?’ I explained that I had taken the trip to visit my sick father who died two months after my leaving Germany.

“Permitted to call witnessés in my behalf the following testified to my being a loyal American:

“Congressional delegate from the Hawaiian Islands, Joe R. Farrington; John E. Fleming, Vice-President of the Bishop Trust Company, Honolulu; Alvah Scott, President of the Mutual Telephone Company, Honolulu; and Nolle R. Smith, Director of the Territorial Budget and Legislative Advisor to the Governor.

No Reason Given for Detention

“At no time during my detention or transfer from the Islands to the mainland was I ever given any reason for my detention other than the three questions that I have indicated, throughout the fifteen months period from December 8, 1941, to March 15, 1948.

“At no time was I allowed to see any one except my attorneys; at the ‘hearing’ I was unrepresented by any counsel.

“For many years prior to my detention I had expressed myself openly as opposed to Hitler and the Hitler regime, particularly to racial persecution by Nazi Germany.” |

Dr. Zimmerman announced that he will seek an injunction in the Federal Court at Honolulu to enjoin General Emmons from interfering with his right to return tothe

A.C.L.U. Intervened

Along with the filing of the petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court there was submitted to the court a brief as a “friend of the court” by | the American CivilLiberties Union, prepared by Attorney A. L. Wirin and counter- signed by Arthur Garfield Hays and Osmond K. Fraenkel, national counsel for the A.C.L.U.

When the case was before the Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco, a similar brief was submitted by the A.C.L.U.

WAKAYAMAS DROP SUIT CHALLENGING DETENTION BY MILITARY

At the request of Ernest and Toki Wakayama, Japanese evacuees interned at the Manzanar, California relocation center, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, due to be argued shortly in the federal district — court at Los Angeles, was withdrawn last month.

' A. L. Wirin, counsel for the A.C.L.U., representing the Wakayamas, explained that the petitioners had expressed a desire to be transferred to another relocation center in Arkansas where several of their relatives are located. :

The suit brought by the A.C.L.U. in behalf of the Wakayamas challenged the con- stitutionality of the military orders for detention of American citizens of Japanese extraction in internment centers. Mr. Wirin said the Southern California Branch of the A.C.L.U. is contemplating resuming the test soon in the case of another Jap- anese-American.

DISCHARGE PETITION CIRCULATED IN ANTI-POLL TAX FIGHT

As we go to press, more than seventyfive congressmen have already signed Discharge Petition No. 8 which would bring H.R. 7, the anti-poll tax bill to the floor of the House for a vote. At the present time the bill is bottled up in committee. All persons favoring this legislation. should write or wire their congressman urging him to sign the Discharge Petition and to support the resolution.

FAIR PLAY COMMITTEE OPPOSES ANTI-JAPANESE LEGISLATION

The newly-formed Pacific Coast Committee on American Principles and Fair Play is conducting an organized fight to defeat discriminatory legislation aimed at Americans of Japanese ancestry. The committee, in a letter to every member of the California Legislature, called upon the legislature to decide measures proposing race discrimination, especially those directed against Americans of Japanese ancestry, in a spirit of high statesmanship, avoiding haste, and with a clear look at our future relations with all Oriental peoples.

Honorary Chairman of the Committee is . President Robert Gordon Sproul of the University of California. Other officers and members include Maurice E. Harrison, Dr. Mary Lyman, Mrs. Harry S. Scott, Galen M. Fisher, Alfred J. Lundberg and General David Prescott Barrows.

Mrs. Ruth W. Kingman is serving as Executive Secretary of the Committee. Head- quarters of the group are at 465 California Street, San Francisco.

MORE THAN 1000 JAPANESE VOLUNTEER FOR THE ARMY

More than one thousand citizens of Japanese ancestry held in ten relocation centers in various parts of the country, recently volunteered for the Army combat team to be made up wholly of Japanese. There are already more than 5000 Japanese in the Army.

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 PRNESS BESIG 2 3 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.

Supreme Court Urged To Reverse Flag Salute Case

The Supreme Court was urged last month to reverse its own decision of 1940 in the Gobitis case upholding compulsory flagsaluting regulations in the public schools. Hayden Covington, counsel for three children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, made this plea as he urged the tribunal to sustain a three-judge district court decision voiding a West Virginia flag saluting rule as applied to children, with religious scruples.

The contentions of Jehovah’s Witnesses were supported in briefs by the Bill of Rights Committee of the American Bar Association and by the American Civil Liberties Union, both of which had filed briefs in the original Gobitis case. The ' American Legion filed an opposing brief denying that compulsory flag saluting violates freedom of worship.

The A.C.L.U. brief, signed by William G. Fennell, Osmond K. Fraenkel and Arthur Garfield Hays of the New York Bar, and Gen. Howard B. Lee of the West Virginia Bar, urged two points on the Court: first, that the previous case was “wrongly decided”’ and should be reversed, and second, that Congress since that case was decided has prescribed the manner in which the flag shall be saluted and any local regulations in conflict “‘must be invalid.”

Four of the justices now sitting have expressed disapproval of the Gobitis decision. Justice Rutledge is expected to side with them.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS DEFEATS DRAFT PROSECUTION

United States District Court Judge Martin I. Welsh of Sacramento last month granted a writ of habeas corpus in the draft case of John Alexander Seminoff, and at the hearing on the writ Seminoff was ordered discharged from custody. He had been arrested last fall on a charge of failing to report for induction.

The government conceded that the local draft board had erred in not considering Seminoff’s expressed claims as a conscientious objector. Upon appeal, his file was not referred to the Department of Justice for investigation, and he was never accorded a hearing before a ‘Hearing Officer,” as provided by Selective Service Regulations.

Seminoff also contended that the Board had acted arbitrarily in not classifying him as a minister. The Board ignored evidence before it that Seminoff is a ‘“‘Pioneer’’ or full time worker for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and also serves in the capacity of ““Company Servant” for that organization.

Attorney Clarence E. Rust of Oakland represented Seminoff.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESS CHILDREN NOT DELINQUENTS, WASHINGTON COURT RULES

The Washington Supreme Court last month joined the several state high courts which have ruled that children may not be judged delinquents and taken from their parents because they have been expelled from school for refusing to salute the flag out of religious conviction.

An order of the lower court making the children wards was reversed and the school board instructed to reinstate them, excusing them in the future from the flagsalute ceremony. The parents are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The constitutionality of local licensetaxes on the street sale of literature was argued for the second time before the U. S. Supreme Court last month. The occasion was a rehearing of the cases in which the court last June, in a 5 to 4 decision, affirmed convictions of Jehovah’s Witnesses for selling tracts without paying a tax required by local ordinances in Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas. The review was granted on petition of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, supported by the American Newspaper Publishers Association, the Seventh Day Adventists and the A.C.L.U. The Union’s petition was signed by Osmond K. Fraenkel.

Three other cases involving restrictive measures aimed at the distribution of lit- erature by Jehovah’s Witnesses were also heard by the court. They involved an ordi- nance of Struthers, Ohio, prohibiting the ringing of door-bells for the purpose of house-to-house distribution of literature, a ban on the sale of newspapers by persons under 18 years of age in Portland, Ore., and a prohibition on peddling without a license in Jeanette, Pa. The Jeanette case, though similar to the license-tax cases, involves an injunction against an ordinance, introducing a new question. The A.C.L.U. filed a brief as friend of the court in the Ohio case, prepared by former Judge Dorothy Kenyon of New York.

The court in the same week handed down two decisions dealing with other aspects of

1,000 COPIES SOLD

One thousand copies of the excellent A.C.L.U. pamphlet, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the War’ have been sold by the local branch of the Union during the past couple of months. A supply is still available. The price is 10c per copy. Send your orders to the A.C.L.U., 216 Pine Street, San Francisco.

The national office of the Union reports that the demand has been so great that a fourth printing was exhausted last month. Over twenty thousand copies have gone out from the Union’s offices in New York City since the pamphlet was released.

MORE AVAILABLE

Exclusion Questions Go To Supreme Court

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

asks the questions, in effect, a final decision of the guilt or innocence of the ap- pellant, the certificate purports to state but. one of the many contentions made by appellant concerning the invalidity of the orders of General DeWitt, matters upon which we ask no advice, though they must be determined by the Supreme Court in its answers to the questions.

“(5) I dissent from the war-haste with which the question involving the deportation of 70,000 of our citizens, without hearing, is hurried out of this court, with its peculiar qualifications for the consideration of the racial questions involved, on the plea of the Attorney General, one of the litigants, which, as I understand it, is that it will discommode the Supreme Court to ‘reassemble to consider the case in the time in which it would mature for hearing before the Court upon the petition for certiorari. In this connection, I note that the Supreme Court did reconvene in its vacation period in a case of lesser importance. Ex parte Richard Quirin, argued on July 29 and July 30, 1942.

“This dissent will be more fully stated in an opinion which is now in preparation and should be before the court by airmail by Tuesday morning next.”

restrictions on the distribution of literature by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Unanimously, but with Justice Rutledge not participating, the tribunal reversed the convictions of sect members who violated a Paris, Texas, ordinance prohibiting the sale of literature in public places except by permission of the mayor. The opinion, written by Justice Reed, said: “The Mayor issues a permit only if after thorough investigation he ‘deems it proper and advisable’. Dissemination of ideas depends upon the approval of the distributor by the official. This is administrative censorship in an extreme form. It abridges the freedom of religion, of the press, and of speech guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”’

Convictions were also reversed of. sect members in Dallas, Texas, charged with violating an ordinance against the distribution of commercial handbills. The lower courts held the defendants came within the statute because a religious circular they distributed also advertised a book. Affirming the right of a state to prohibit the use of the streets for the distribution of “‘purely commercial literature,” the Supreme Court said that ‘‘they may not prohibit the distribution of handbills in the pursuit of a clearly religious activity merely because the handbills invite the purchase of books for the improved understanding of the religion, or because the handbills seek in a lawful fashion to promote the raising of funds for religious purposes.”

LIFE IMPRISONMENT PENALTY FOR REFUSAL TO SALUTE FLAG

The charge: refusal to obey the order of a military officer to salute the flag.

The defendant: Herbert L. Weatherbee, one of Santa Barbara’s Jehovah’s Witnesses, asserting his inability to salute the flag because of his sincere religious beliefs.

The sentence: life imprisonment. A bleak page in the history of military law in the United States was written on the 10th day of March, 1943, when a military courtmartial imposed the life imprisonment sentence on Herbert L. Weatherbee.

Ordered inducted into the United States Army despite his claim of religious objection to war, Weatherbee reported for induction at Santa Barbara only after full explanation that he was unable to wear a military uniform or otherwise participate in war; he refused to take the oath of induction, and no oath was administered to him; he refused to wear the uniform until Ernie Strobel, another of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was severely beaten for such refusal at Ft. MacArthur. Then Weatherbee put on the uniform. He has refused to receive any army pay.

Under military law the court-martial proceedings are subject to review by higher military authorities; the reviewing authority may reduce the sentence or take such other action as justice demands.

Friends of freedom whose sense of justice is outraged by so shockingly excessive a sentence, will write directly both to the President of the United States, and to the Judge Advocate General, United States Army, Washington, D. C., saying so.

/ —QOpen Forum. COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING BILL TABLED IN STATE SENATE

At the request of Senator Swan, author of the measure, S.B. 872, establishing “compulsory courses in military training in all junior colleges and state colleges in the state,”’ was tabled in the Senate Education Committee on March 25. Senator Swan explained he took the action because “there would be no students to take the course. All those eligible . .. are being called into the armed forces.”