vol. 9, no. 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. IX SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL, 1944 No. 4

MEMBERSHIP MEETING APR. 14

Dr. Max Radin Speaks At Berkeley On Civil Liberties In War-Time

A membership meeting of the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U. will be held at the University Y.W.C.A. Cottage, Union and Allston Way, in Berkeley, on Friday evening, April 14, at 8:00 p.m. Dr. Max Radin, distinguished scholar and John Henry Boalt professor of law at the U. C. Law School, will speak on the subject, “Civil Liberties in War-Time.” Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons, national vice chairman of the Union and chairman of the Executive Committee of the Northern California branch, will preside.

Attorneys Philip Adams and Clarence E. Rust, and possibly one or two more of the Union’s attorneys, will act as a panel to ask questions and to join inanswering those from the floor. Dr. Radin is widely known as a teacher, scholar, author and lecturer. If anyone would like a full list of his distinctions, we would refer them to the current issue of “Who’s Who in America.” Suffice to say, however, that Dr. Radin is a member of numerous educational and legal societies. He is the author of many books on Greek and Roman law, Angelo-American legal history, etc. Among his recent books are the following: “Law as Logic and Experience,” “Manners and Morals of Business,’” and “The Law and Mr. Smith.” Dr Radin has also contributed innumerable articles to legal periodicals.

This will be the first meeting undertaken by the Union since the war started. It was arranged in consequence of the recent poll conducted among the members which indicated that there was sufficient interest to warrant the holding of a spring membership meeting in Berkeley, and a fall meeting in San Francisco which will mark the ‘tenth anniversary of the local branch.

The Executive Committee sincerely hopes that the meeting will be well supported and that the membership will make it an occasion to invite their friends. There is no ad- mission charge. The meeting is open to all who are interested.

LOS ANGELES COURT UPHOLDS FREE SPEECH FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

The California District Court of Anpenlc at Los Angeles affirmed on March 6 an order by Superior Judge Henry M. Willis directing the reinstatement of Zerah H. La Prade, a civil service employee, discharged for criticizing his superiors in the Department of Water and Power of Los Angeles. The case was handled by A. L. Wirin, counsel for the Union’s Southern California Branch. A brief in the case was ‘filed by Attorney Wirin, with Arthur Garfield Hays and Osmond K. Fraenkel of New York. The decision upholds the right of a public employee to criticize his superior on the same basis as an employee of a ‘private employer.

‘specific proposals:

ALIEN HELD IN JAIL 8 MONTHS ON IMMIGRATION CHARGE RELEASED

Last month the U.S. Immigration Service in San Francisco ordered the release from the Alameda County Jail of Patrick J. Ker‘in, who had been held in custody since early in August, 1943, on a charge of illegal entry. Last December he appealed to the A.C.L.U. for assistance because no effort was being made by the government to deport him.

The Union’s local Executive Committee authorized intervention in the case—not to defend Kerin’s illegal entry but to oppose and bring to an end his lengthy detention in Jail. Under the immigration laws, deportation questions are civil, and not criminal, in their nature. By reason of the Department’s dilatory tactics, however, Mr. Kerin was in effect being punished for his illegal entry, whereas he should have been deported or released.

When the A.C.L.U. finally entered the case, in January, a final hearing was arranged; testimony was taken; and after the filing of briefs, Mr. Kerin was ordered deported to Eire. The deportation warrant, however, could not be executed, and as a result Mr. Kerin has been released.

Reforms In C. O. System Urged On President

A four-point program for reforms in the treatment of conscientious objectors was presented to President Roosevelt last month by an American Civil Liberties Union Com- mittee on Conscientious Objectors, Rt. Rev. William Appleton Lawrence, Episcopal Bis- hop of Western Massachusetts, and Dr. Rufus M. Jones of the Society of Friends.

Urging that administration of objectors’ work camps be under civilian rather than military direction, the committee made four 1) that jurisdiction over Civilian Public Service be placed in the Interior or Argiculture Department and be removed entirely from Selective Service; 2) that the present Appeals Board in Selective Service be replaced by a special civilian board to hear the appeals of conscientious objectors; 3) that exclusive jurisdiction over paroles be placed in the Department of Justice; and 4) that a civilian committee be appointed by the Secretary of. War to examine for reclassification the case of all objectors in the army.

Military Capitulates In Individual Exclusion Cases

The military has capitulated in two out of three individual exclusion test cases re- cently filed in the U. S. District Court in San Francisco by citizens of German an- cestry who had been exiled from the Pacific Coast as “dangerous or ‘potentially dangerous’. The exclusion orders in the cases of Walter Gotthelf Jacobi and Dr. Hajo Plagge have been cancelled by General Emmons.

Still pending, however, is the suit. brought by Erwin Paul Gerhard. The government has not yet filed its answer to the suit, so it is not improbable that it will also be ended in the hear futive,

In the case of Kenneth Alexander of Los Angeles, which came to the Circuit Court — of Appeals from Los Angeles, that court ruled individual exclusions orders may not be enforced by the Military itself. In Alexander’s case he was seized at his home by a squad of soldiers and forcibly “deported”’ from California to Nevada.

The Court of Appeals, in expressing its views, stated: “The order was not a Self- enforcing order, nor did it constitute a threat of enforcement by any of the de- fendants (General DeWitt and his subordinates). Instead, it warned plaintiff that violation of the order would subject him to penalties prescribed in the Act (of Con- gress)....in other words, subject him to criminal prosecution by officers empowered as defendants were not, to institute and conduct such prosecutions.” Following the court’s decision, the military authorities have cancelled the exclusion order.

The case of Homer G. Wilcox, Mankind United associate, who was forcibly removed from the area by the Military following the issuance of a military exclusion order, is on its way to the Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. It is not at all unlikely that the Military authorities will vacate the order to prevent the issue from being determined by the courts.

HOUSE PASSES BILL AIMED AT DISLOYAL JAPANESE AMERICANS

A bill providing that American-born citizens can voluntarily expatriate themselves in war-time while in the U. S. recently passed the House of Representatives and is before the Senate Committee on immigration. Introduced by Representative A. Leonard Allen of Louisiana, and endorsed by the Attorney General, the bill’s immediate purpose, according to the Attorney General, “is to deal with the problem presented by a group of persons of Japanese descent who are native-born U. S. citizens but who presumably are, according to the laws of Japan, Japanese nationals and who assert their loyalty to Japan and their desire to renounce U.S. citizenship. Under existing law, it is not possible for a U.S. national voluntarily to expatriate himself while within the U. 8S.”

Page 2

Attacked By A. C. L. U.

The American Civil Liberties Union last month challenged the Colorado labor peace act of 1943 as unconstitutional in a brief filed in the Colorado Supreme Court by Arthur Garfield Hays, Nathan Greene and Osmond K. Fraenkel of New York and Carle Whitehead of Denver. The case was brought jointly by the AFL and the CIO against a statute which “typifies the wave of anti-labor legislation that swept the West and Southwest in 1942 and 1943.” The present suit is the first to reach a higher court.

Pointing out that “the American Civil Liberties Union point of view is that of the general public, not of either labor or employer,” the Union’s brief charges that the Colorado act “violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, press, as- sembly and petition.” The law requires compulsory incorporation of unions, and restricts picketing and the right to strike.

The Union contends that picketing is so restricted that ‘‘a minority of employees may not peacefully picket. The exercise of the right of free speech is thus made dependent upon the consent. of the majority of employees.” By authorizing. the State Industrial Commission ‘‘to regulate the number of pickets, the manner of pick-eting, and disturbances,” the brief holds that the law goes beyond the legitimate control of violence. The lawyers say, “It does not require a showing either that there has been or will probably be violence, or that if there is threat of violence, it is the pickets who are responsible rather than the victims of it. Such a restriction is invalid.”

The brief further attacks the limitation of the right to strike to cases where a ma- jority of employees vote to do so, and the | requirement of a 20-day “cooling off” no- tice before going on strike. The lawyers say, “Deprivation of the right to strike in the absence of specific circumstances warranting application of that specific remedy is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. While it may be conceded that a strike may be illegal because of its purpose, state interference with the method by which a strike is called is a limitation upon the rights of assembly and of speech. If the statute is construed as limiting a man’s right to leave his work, then clearly the federal constitutional provision against involuntary servitude is violated.” Compulsory incorporation of unions is attacked in principle. The brief contends: “in granting incorporation, the state may attach such conditions as it chooses. Thus the statute conditions the exercise of the rights of free speech and assembly on a license from the state. Yet perhaps the most fundamental aspect historically of these constitutional rights is that they cannot be made subject to a grant of permission from anyone.”

SENATE BILLS TO CURTAIL INDIAN RIGHTS FOUGHT

Urging defeat of four bills pending in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee as “de- signed to wipe out the gains made over a decade in restoring to Indian tribes in- creased autonomy over their own affairs and property,” the American Civil Liberties Union has joined the American Association on Indian Affairs, the Home Missions Council of North America and other agencies in a campaign to preserve the reforms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1938.

In a widely circulated memorandum, the Union’s Committee on Indian Civil Rights, through Jay B. Nash, chairman, urges friends of Indian rights to address the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in opposition to all the bills. The bills provide: (1) for the transfer of the Indians’ management of tribal business to Congressional control; (2) for the repeal of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1933, (3) for the removal of restric- tions of Indian property so that it could be acquired by non-Indians; and (4) for the application of state penal laws to Indian reservations, thus abolishing the Indians’ own tribal courts.

The Southern and Northern California branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, through Attorneys A. L. Wirin and Wayne M. Collins, filed a brief last month in the California District Court of Appeal at Sacramento as friend of the court, challenging the constitutionality of the California Subversive Organization Registration Act as applied in the prosecution of Robert Noble and Ellis O. Jones, leaders of the Friends of Progress, and seven others.

The act in question, adopted in 1941, is a proposal of State Senator Jack B. Tenney and his California ‘“‘Committee on unAmerican Activities.” It provides that groups which advocate the violent overthrow of the government or which are under foreign domination or control must register with the Secretary of State by giving voluminous information. No groups have registered in this state, and the “Friends of Progress” has been the only group prosecuted under the law.

Colo. Anti-Labor Statute Union’s Calitornia Branches Attack Subversive Registration Act

In attacking the constitutionality of the California statute, the Union contends that it conflicts with the federal registration acts, sweeping beyond the “carefully de- vised, comprehensive and integrated federal system” into a field in which ‘“Congress intended to assert both exclusive and comprehensive jurisdiction.’’ The state law also, the brief asserts, deprives the defendants of liberty without due process of law. In addition, “the California subversive organization registration act is so vague, in- definite and uncertain” as to “impose criminal guilt without setting up any reasonable standard of guilt.”

While pointing out that it holds no sympathy with the views of the appellants, the Union characterizes the prosecution as “the sole war casualty to the Bill of Rights suffered in the California state courts during this war... .a trial by prejudice rather than a judgment comporting with the elementary principles of due process or the rudimentary demands of American fair play.”

A.C.L.U. BACKS CITIZENSHIP FOR FILIPINOS

oe provision for naturalization of Filipinos resident in the United States will be presented to the House of Representatives | in the bill advancing the date of Philip- pine independence, now before the House Insular Affairs Committee after passing the Senate.

Bills to accomplish this. purpose have’ been previously introduced, both by the Hawaiian delegate, Joseph Farrington, and Rep. Jennings Randolph of West Virginia.’ ‘The proposal is supported by the Philip-pine delegate and by the Philippine Commonwealth government.

The American Civil Liberties Union is supporting the proposal, as a move to extend to nationals of another Oriental country, the opportunities recently accorded the Chinese by the repeal of the exclusion act.

‘A similar bill to extend citizenship to Indian nationals resident in the United States, has also been introduced under pressure of the Indian community, following the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Nationals of India were naturalized up to 1924 when the Supreme Court held that they were not ‘white persons” within the meaning of the law.

NEW JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES TESTS IN LOS ANGELES COURTS

Both without precedent in the long succession of prosecutions dealing with the civil rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses, two convictions are now being contested in Los Angeles courts as unconstitutional by A. L. Wirin, counsel for the Union’s Southern California branch. One case involves ‘“‘malicious disturbance of the peace“ by distribution of religious literature to tenants of a hotel without permission of the manager, and is being appealed to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The other involves a fine of $500 under the draft law, in addition to a prison sent- ence, imposed on Clarence Mackay Newcomb, because he requested and received a trial by jury. A motion filed in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals discloses that it is the regular practice of the particular judge not to impose a fine in such cases where a jury is waived, but to impose a fine of anywhere from $250 to $1,000 if a jury trial is received. Wirin’s brief argues that “the imposition of a fine which is intended to... discourage and hence abridge the right to trial by jury, constitutes an abuse of dis- cretion, and arbitrary administration of criminal law, offends against due process, ‘and violates the constitutional guarantee against excessive fines.”

Legality of Martial Law Again Challenged In Hawaii

The legality of martial law in Hawaii has again been challenged in a suit now pend- ‘ing in the U. S. District Court in Hawaii.

It is the case of Lloyd Duncan, a civilian worker at Pearl Harbor who was recently arrested by the Military, tried by an Army court, and sentenced to six months in jail. Duncan has petitioned the U. S. District Court for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he is unlawfully detained because he should have been tried by a civil “eourt since the martial law that has existed in Hawaii for over two years is illegal.

' Whether or ‘not the issue will ever be determined by the courts is extremely doubtful. The government has ‘again sent Edward J. Ennis, director of the Alien Enemy Control Unit of the Department of Justice, to Honolulu to adjust the matter.

It was Mr. Ennis who settled the differences between General Richardson and Judge Metzger when the former not only refused to obey the court’s order to produce in court two citizens of German ancestry detained by him, but also promulgated a rule pro- hibiting any judge from hearing a habeas corpus case. Richardson was fined for con- tempt of court but pardoned by President Roosevelt. The General rescinded his order and the two men were released in San Francisco.

Previously, in the Zimmerman case, martial law in Hawaii was sustained by the . Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a two | to one decision, but when an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court the Justice Department released Zimmerman and thereby mooted the case.

Mailing Rights Restored To Trotskyite Paper

The Post Office Department last month agreed to restore the second class mailing privileges of the Militant, organ of the Socialist Worker’s Party, which were revoked last year on advice of the Department of Justice. The department held that certain articles violated the espionage act by encouraging disaffection in the armed forces. The conduct of the paper since that time has resulted in recommendations by both the Department of Justice and the Post Office Department that the privilege be restored.

The leaders of the Socialist Worker’s Party are serving prison terms following their conviction in Minneapolis in 1941 under the Smith peace-time sedition law, for literature and speeches held to advocate the over-throw of the government by force and promote disaffection in the arm. ed forces.

| Supreme Court Grants Review In Korematsu Case

FLASH! — The Supreme Court of the’

United States on March 27 granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Korematsu case thus, in effect, agreeing to review the entire question of the Military’s exclusion of Japanese from the Pacific Coast. The Circuit Court, in turning down Korematsu’s appeal, had argued that the matter was disposed of by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hirabayashi case upholding the curfew, and the government had echoed that argument in opposing the petition in the Supreme Court.

In addition to granting review, the Supreme Court also permitted the case to be prosecuted in forma pauperis, that is, without the payment of court costs. In all likelihood, arguments on the case will be heard around the Ist of May, after briefs have been filed. Unless the case is argued at that time it will not be heard until next October. A.C.L.U. Attorney Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco will argue the case for Korematsu.

The United States Supreme Court is now considering a petition filed by the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U. in behalf of Fred T. Korematsu, urging that Court to consider the latter’s appeal from a judgment of conviction for remaining on the Pacific Coast in violation of the order of General DeWitt excluding all Japanese from the area.

During the past month the Department of Justice filed with the Supreme Court a memorandum opposing Korematsu’s petition, contending that the issue of exclusion has already been decided by the Court in passing on the curfew question in the Hirabayashi case. The Government also denied that the detention question is properly an issue in the Korematsu case. “If the Court should regard the Hirabayashi decision as not dispositive of the present case,” said the brief “or should, contrary to our position, deem the validity of the detention of other persons of Japanese ancestry in war relocation centers to be properly in issue here, the case would present Federal ques- tions of importance and the Government would recognize the propriety of further review.”

In the meantime, the Government has filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco its opposing brief in the Endo case, which challenges the Government’s detention of citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps. The brief contends that, Miss Endo’s petition cannot be heard until she exhausts her administrative remedy, despite the fact that regulations providing for release did not become effective until after the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed to determine whether Miss Endo’s detention pending a decision on an application by her for leave is valid.

Miss Endo’s attorneys will shortly file a reply brief, and the Northern California branch of the Union, thru attorney Wayne Collins, will file an amicus curiae brief.

A. C. L. U. Opposes N. Y. “Race Hatred” Bills

Bills penalizing publication or radio broadcasting of statements likely to arouse hatred or contempt for groups or individuals because of color, race or religion, are now under consideration by committees of the New York legislature. Known as the “Wicks-Steingut bills” and introduced by Assembly Minority Leader Irwin Steingut and Senator A. H. Wicks the bills would amend the criminal libel law to include libel of groups. They are similar to a recently vetoed Rhode Island bill and the New Jersey so-called anti-Nazi law, declared unconstitutional in 1941.

The New York City Committee of the A.C.L.U. has sent a memorandum to members of the legislature urging defeat of the ‘bills on the grounds that they are danger: our to all discussion of race and religion.

A Case of “Southern Justice” In Richmond, California

Page 3

One of the most flagrant cases involving racial prejudice to arise in Northern Cali- fornia is now pending in Richmond, Cali— fornia, in which three white men from Oklahoma, armed with a tire wrench, a tire iron and a piece of bumper, attacked three Negroes, who were at work collecting garbage, and beat one of them, Homer Martin, to death. Although the Negroes were merely defending themselves, the white men and the surviving Negroes have all been charged with riot—a misdemeanor. The case goes to trial March 30 in the Superior Court in Martinez, and a decision thereon should be held by the time this issue of the ‘‘News”’ is delivered.

Kenny Urged To Intervene

Attorney General Robert W. Kenny was urged by the Civil Liberties Union to intervene in the case by virtue of the powers granted him under the State Constitution. Article 5, Section 21, provides that ‘““Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the Superior Court shall have jurisdiction. When required by the public interest or directed by the Governor, he shall assist any district attorney in the discharge of his duties.”

General Kenny assigned deputy attorney general Jess Hessions, as well as his chief investigator, to examine the case. On the basis of Mr. Hession’s report, the Attorney General decided not to intervene in the case at this time because more facts might be elicited at the riot trail. At the trial a representative of the Attorney General’s office will be in attendance as an observer.

The Attorney General expressed the opinion to this writer that the record dis‘closes a case of manslaughter if not of murder. At the same time, he insists the Con- stitution permits him to take only affirmative action. Consequently, he has declined to dismiss the riot charges against the Negroes. It was pointed out to him that if a grand jury could be found to indict the colored men on riot charges when they were merely defending themselves, a trial jury could be found to convict them on such charges. In any case, General Kenny has refused to do anything at this time.

The Facts

The facts in the case are simple. Three colored men—-Homer Turner, Rufus Robinson and Ellis Robinson, were driving a garbage truck in Richmond. Upon reaching an intersection, Homer Turner, driver of the truck, decided to make a left turn after he had gone beyond the middle of the intersection. He backed up his truck and in the process bumped into a car driven by Carl Provence and occupied by his brother Claude. No damage was done to the Provence car, but the driver pulled the car alongside the garbage truck and an argument ensued. There is a conflict as to what took place at the time. Carl and Claude Provence declare that all the colored men got off the truck, and that Homer Turner threatened them with a pocket knife. Inany case, the Provence car and the garbage truck went on their respective ways, and the garbage men proceeded about their duties of picking up garbage.

The Provence boys, however, were not content to let the matter rest but sought re- enforcements. Another brother and a brother-in-law joined them, and the four drove to within half a block of where the colored men were working and parked their car. The three brothers armed themselves with a tire wrench, tire iron and a piece of bumper taken from the back of the car. Then they walked up to the Negroes and a freefor-all fight ensued. Two of the Negroes finally fled, but the third, Homer Turner, was beaten to death. He died on the spot.

When the matter was heard before the grand jury, Albert Provence gave the following answers to questions asked by the District Attorney:

Q.—What was the idea of you three men going back there with those negroes? Did you go back there to clean up on them?

A.—No, sir, not with that intention at all. I told the boys, I said, ““‘We’ll go around there and see why them colored guys has got it in for you two boys, or what is the reason for stopping you and giving you all the cussing like that.” I said, ‘I don’t think they have any right.” In fact, if the boys had talked to us, I would have tried to told them that we was reasonable people, and didn’t believe in no such trouble as that and try to reason the thing out instead of going on through what we did.

Q.—But when you went back to reason you took the tire wrench and a piece of bumperand an iron? |

A.—Naturally a fellow is waiting for you to come down there, and he has a club in his hand and threatened you with a knife, | you wouldn’t go empty handed.

Q.—That is what I am getting at. You fellows went to clean up on them, didn’t you?

A.—No, sir. We went back there—taken. — this stuff with us in case we had to defend ourselves, we would have a little protection... After the incident occurred all the parit« cipants were arrested. The three Provence ©: boys were held on murder complaints sign-. | ed by the Chief of Police, while the colored boys were booked on charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Before the coroner: had an opportunity to present the matter to a jury, however, the District Attorney presented the matter to the Grand Jury which promptly returned riot indictments. | Thereupon the previous charges were dismissed.

Verdict By Coroner’s Jury. The Coroner’s jury found that Homer

Turner, aged about 47 years, “came to his, death on the 14th day of February, at about 12 o’clock noon, at Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, and we further find that death was caused by being struck on the head by Claude Provence during a fight and we recommend full investigation. and prosecution by the law enforcement. — officers.”

LOS ANGELES “OPEN SHOPPERS” CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITIONS

Southern California employers are responsible for an initiative petition which proposes a constitutional amendment outlawing the closed shop in California. The petition is entitled “Right of Employment”, and circulators are gathering signatures by declaring that the initiative is a measure “to give the boys jobs when they come © home from the war.”’ The measure requires 178,764 valid signatures to secure a place on the November ballot. =

“Witnesses”? Win Another Literature Case In The Supreme Court

On March 27, by a 6 to 8 vote, the Supreme Court invalidated a McCormick, S. C., ordinance under which Lester Follette, a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was convicted of selling religious literature without a license. It held that one who preaches the gospel from door to door does not become a book agent by selling religious literature to help defray expenses. “Freedom of religion’, said the court, “is not merely reserved for those with a long purse.”

Page. 4

Aorcrican Civil Liberties Union News

Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, San Francisco, 4, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG: ... Editor Entered as second-class matter, July 31, 1941, at the Post Office at San Francisco, California, Subscription Rates Pou! ‘five one a ‘Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

BOSTON ue : ANOTHER BOOK

The banning in Boston of Georgia author ‘Lillian Smith’s new race relations novel “Strange Fruit,’’ on the ground that it contains obscene language, has been protested by the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union, the Authors’ League of America and other agencies as another evidence of Boston’s “Puritanical standards.”’ Union counsel Al- fred A. Albert has protested to Boston’s Mayor, Police Commissioner and City Censor the official pressure which resulted in the book’s quiet removal on March 17 from local book stores on order of the Boston Board of Retail Book Merchants.

The ban was imposed soon after Police Commissioner Thomas F. Sullivan, who later denied responsibility for the prohibition, had looked over a copy. He said that the action was taken under a: voluntary “sventlemen’s agreement,” long in effect, whereby a “suggestion” from a high -official is taken as a cue for withdrawal by the Board and retailers. The book is the first to be withdrawn in some years, following a campaign against censorship resulting in an amendment by the legislature to the obscenity statute, under which a book must.be judged as a whole, not by isolated excerpts.

Representatives of the publishers and the book sellers are reported to be arranging for a revised edition, deleting what. Sullivan termed “a few objectionable ae ages’ and “the boldest I’ve ever seen.”

It appears doubtful whether a court, contest can be arranged in view of the ‘‘vol- untary”’ character of the ban. A. proposal is being considered to sell the book openly by someone other than a book seller in order to force official action.

South Carolina isp “White Supremacy” Resolution Buried

A resolution panied by the Souk Cano: lina House of Representatives a few weeks ago, reaffirming ‘‘our belief in established white supremacy as now prevailing in the South,” and demanding that “the damned agitators of the North leave the South alone,’”’ has been buried in the Senate Judiciary Committee as the legislature is about to adjourn. This apparently marks the end of an outburst which aroused national attention.

Concurrent with the killing of the white supremacy resolution, a large group of prominent South Carolinians released on March 16 a public “Statement on the Race Problem in South Carolina,’ Declaring that the “race problem has always been nationwide,” the statement contends that “‘social equality is not a part of the Negro problem in south Carolina. ..... The emphasis that is placed on this subject is an unworthy one, an unreasoning appeal to fear and prejudice and is calculated to prevent a fair and just consideration of our race problem in its fundamental aspects.”’

Recommendations to the ‘‘citizens of So. Carolina”’ include the formation of groups to study the race question; the promotion of equal civil rights for Negroes in provisions for jury service, representation on boards administering their affairs and property, the use of Negro police in Negro residential districts and improved: public facilities for Negroes; and better educational provisions and opportunities. On the question of Negro suffrage it sees “no: immediate solution,”’ and advocates no oe fic measures.

suggested are recognized © as prominent”. or. can be. found din“ ““Who’s the ground of his religious pacifism,’

‘ion.

‘peal to the same court for a rehearing and ‘sociation has declined to intervene. Summers is*meanwhile teaching law. ot the ‘University of Toledo.

SPEC

At the annual meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union held in New York City on February 12, a special session was held between representatives of the principal branches and the Board of Directors, resulting in the appointment of a special committee on reorganization which will report next July. The meeting was called as a result of two resolutions adopted by the Executive Committee of the Northern California branch.

The first resolution, which was indorsed by the Southern California branch and the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, proposed “the adoption of a by-law or regulation under which local affiliates of the A. C.L.U. would be given representation on the National Committee in proportion to the number of members they have in good standing.”

In presenting this resolution, the Northern California branch pointed out that the policies of the A.C.L.U., which affiliated groups are required tofollow, are estab- lished by the Board of Directors in consultation with the National Committee. The various affiliates have no direct representatioon on the Board or the National Commit- tee and are permitted merely to suggest nominees for the National Committee to the nominating committee. Unless the persons ‘nationally Who,” they are rejected.

Persons elected to the National Committee are frequently neither familiar with, nor active in, the work of local committees. Consequently, since there is no local repre- sentation, the views of affiliated groups are not’ reflected in the determination of na- tional policies.

“A second ecoldtion: nposentaie bo the annial: meeting of the Union called attention ‘to the fact that representatives of the various, affiliates have never been assembled in national conference to discuss general policies,. mutual problems, and relations with the. national office. Since sharp disagreements, have arisen during the ome

‘CIAL COMMITTEE WILL RECO ECONSIDER | NIZATION OF NATIONAL ACLU

couple of years concerning on policies of the Union and the relation of affiliates to the national office, the Northern California branch, thru its Executive Committee, recommended ‘ ‘a national conference of representatives of the national office and local affiliates, for the purpose of discussing national policies and relations between the national office and local affiliates.” Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn, who is residing temporarily in Washington, D. C., represented the Northern California Committee at the special meeting. He submitted the following resolution, which was duly adopted:

“That the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Union be instructed to ap- point a special committee representative of the Corporation and of the affiliated com- mittee whose business it shall be to undertake a fundamental reconsideration of the By-Laws of the Union and to report its findings and recommendations at a special meeting of the Corporation in July, 1944, “And that the two resolutions adopted by the Northern California Committee on February 3, 1944, be referred to the special committee on the By-Laws of the Union, and-that this committee be asked to recommend action upon them at the special meeting. of the Corporation, to be held in. duly, 1944.”

The Northern California branch ey suggested that Dr. Meiklejohn and Osmond K. Fraenkel, who met with the local Executive Committee. several months ago, be. named on the special committee.. | .

‘The National Board has approved, as an immediate step pending the report of the special committee, appointment of one person each by the ‘affiliated committees in Southern and Northern California, Chicago, and Massachuetts. (which maintain offices) to act as consultants with the Board. and to receive all communications which go to.the members of the Board. The Northern California, Executive Committee, on March 9, named the-local director, Ernest Besig, as its consultant, qth: the

National Boots

Lawyers’ Licenses Refused To Negro and Pacifist

ane Negro ate of the University of Chicago. law school, George E. Ross, was recently denied admission to the bar by the Supreme Court of Georgia, which maintained that “while the law requires the State Board of Bar Examiners to grade examination papers and to certify applicants who make a grade of 70% or more, the members are the sole judges of grades and there is no appeal from their decision.”’ In a unanimous opinion the justices upheld a lower court decision dismissing proceedings brought by Ross for admission. Ross claimed that his better than 70% grade in a recent Georgia state examination entitled him to admission. An appeal will probably be taken to the U. S. Supreme Court.

In Illinois, a Methodist conscientious objector, Clyde W. Summers, was denied ad- mission. to the bar “apparently solely on 9? according to the A.C.L.U. Graduating from the University of Illinois law school in 1942, he was refused a license by the Illinois Committee on Character and Fitness, apparently on the ground that religious oppo- sition to the use of force is inconsistent with the duties of an officer of a court.

‘In September, 1948, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied an appeal without opinThe A.C.L.U. is cooperating in an apa decision is expected soon. If denied, it is planned to take the case to the U. 8. Supreme Court. The Illinois State Bar a r Witness Supeone Union's s ‘Contentions But DA. Refuses to Progecute ee oben the “News” - réported yaw Louis. Hill met his death in San Francisco, when two, servicemen drove their’ car onto the sidewalk and ran him down. We also noted at the time that.a disinterested eyewitness had not been called as a witness at the Coroner’s inquest and that District Attorney Edmund G. Brown promised that the name of the witness would be given to the A.C.L.U and that the Union would, have an opportunity to interview him.

Mr. Brown finally did turn the name and address of the witness over to the Union, but, although an immediate attempt was made to interview the witness, we discovered that he had moved two days before, leaving no forwarding address.

In turning over the name, however, District Attorney Brown indicated that the wit- ness would support the Union’s contentions that the servicemen were driving at a high rate of speed, instead of.7 or 8 miles a hour as they claimed, when they crashed into Louis Ti The: District Attorney stated, however, that the story of the -witness ‘would not alter his decision not to prosecute the two -servicemen. He declared it to be the policy of his office not to prosecute in cases where, though the evidence shows probable aS , there is no chance of conviction. And, this case, he felt no conviction could be secured.

The Executive Commies of the Tien:

Northern California brach recently excepted to Mr. Brown’s statement of policy and declared that there is a clear duty to prosecute where the evidence shows probable -cause. The. Union feels very strongly. that the District Attorney’ S present DANG is not ‘in the interest. of justice.