vol. 9, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. IX SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MAY, 1944 No. 5

ENDO CASE SENT TO HIGH COURTH

Wayne Collins Will Argue Korematsu — Case Before Supreme Court On May 1

The Ninth Circuit Court of Aapealet in San Francisco on Apel 22 requested the advice of the Supreme Court of the United States with reference to the habeas corpus pro- ceeding filed by Mitsuye Endo, a citizen of Japanese ancestry, detained by the War Re- location Authority in a concentration camp for almost two years.

Five of the Court’s seven judges (Presiding Judge Curtis Wilbur is absent, and Sen. Homer Bone has not yet taken his place on the bench) signed the CTS addressed to the high court, Hearing In Korematsu Case, May 1.

In the meantime, the case of Fred T. Korematsu, testing the power of the Military to exclude and imprison citizens of Japanese ancestry from the Pacific Coast, has been scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court on May 1. A.C.L.U. counsel Wayne M. Collins left San Francisco for Washington on April 19 to argue the case. It is quite possible, however, that argument in the Korematsu case may be postponed to allow it and the Endo case to be heard together.

The Endo case is being handled by attorney James C. Purcell of Ferriter and Purcell in San Francisco. The Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U. has heretofore appeared in the case as “friend of the court.”” However, since Mr. Collins is already in Washington and is familiar with

the Endo case, he has been authorized by —

Mr. Purcell to appear as counsel in that case, especially if it is set for argument on May 10, which has been mentioned as a likely date. If, however, the Endo case is not heard until the next term of court, beginning in October, Mr. Collins may request postponement of the hearing in the Korematsu case until that time.

High Court’s Choices In Endo Case >

Of course, all of this assumes that the

Supreme Court will undertake to instruct ~the Circuit Court of Appeals as requested or bring the entire case before it. Three courses are open to the Supreme Court. 1. It may answer the questions certified. 2. It may decline to answer the questions, “in which case the Circuit Court would decide the case without the advice of the Supreme Court. 38. It may decline to answer the questions and order the entire case to be brought before it for final determination. Our guess is that the Court will choose the third course.

The four questions that have been certified to the Supreme Court are substantially -as follows: 1. May an American citizen be held in a concentration camp, without the right to a hearing which has all the elements of due process (right to counsel, ov- portunity to call witnesses in her behalf, etc.) merely because such citizen is of Ja. panese ancestry? 2. May a loyal citizen be so confined until she satisfies the War Relocation Authority that she can support

‘the W.R.A. herself and receive acceptance in the community where she desires to live? 3. May such issues of self-support and community acceptance be decided by the W.R.A. without a pene at which the citizen enjoys in “addition r require that she report after she has left the camp?

Purcéll Had Sought Coruhication: These questions were certified to the Supreme Court after attorney James Purcell filed a motion in the Circuit Court requesting the certification of nine questions to the Supreme Court. That motion was set for argument before the Court on May 17, but by that time the Court had already decided to certify certain questions to the Supreme Court, so the motion was removed from the calendar. Incidentally, the Endo case was scheduled to be heard by the Circuit Court on its merit on May 16.

Of course, other important questions than (Continued on Page 2, Col. 1)

DR. MAX RADIN TALKS TO 300 AT BERKELEY MEMBERSHIP MEETING

About 300 persons attended the Berkeley meeting of the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U. on April 14 at which Dr. Max Radin spoke on ‘‘Civil Liberties in War-Time’”’. In the absence of Bishop Par‘sons, who found himself unable to attend.

Joseph S. Thompson, Secretary-Treasurer of the local branch, presided in brilliant style. Attorneys Clarence E. Rust and Philip Adams served as a special panel to ask questions and to answer those from the floor.

Ernest Besig, local director of the Union, gave a brief report on the Union’s activities during the past year and its present status. The Rev. Oscar Green, Committee member, made an appeal for new memberships that resulted in 13 persons joining the Union.

‘While no appeal was made for funds, several members gave special contributions, and one person sent in a check for $250. Accompanying one contribution was the following note: “I attended the A.C.L.U. meeting in Berkeley last night and believe that seldom have so many been indebted to so few for so much good sense and good humor.”

The next membership meeting will be held in San Francisco sometime next Octo- ber to mark the tenth anniversary of the branch.

No Action Yet By Geheral Kenny i in Turner Case

Last month the A.C.L.U.-NEWS ad the story of the Homer Turner case in which three Richmond, California, Negroes on February 14, were set upon by three white men from Oklahoma, armed with pieces of iron, and one of them, Turner, beaten to death. Murder charges were at first filed against the three Provence brothers, but dropped after the surviving Ne— groes and three whites were all charged with riot in an indictment returned by the Contra Costa County Grand Jury. Early last month, after a week’s trial, a jury returned “Not Guilty” verdicts i in the cases of all five men.’

Attorney General Robert W. Kennv, after being urged to intervene in the case un

der the Constitutional provision allowing him to do so where “any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in.any county,” under date of March 29 advised the A.C.L.U. that “I have instructed Mr. Hession and Mr. Ohnimus of my office to sit in throughout the entire (riot) trial, which begins I understand on March 30th, and at the conclusion of the trial I will communicate with you further as to-what the future plans of this office will be relative to the case.’

Over the telephone, Genera! Kenny expressed the opinion to this writer that the record disclosed a case of manslaughter if not of murder.

One week after the jury returned its verdict in the riot trial the Union wrote to General Kenny that “‘A Superior Court jury in Martinez, on April 6, returned a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict against all five defendants charged with riot in the Homer Turner case. We would appreciate knowing at this time what the plans of your office are with respect to this case.”” No answer was received to the letter. On April 20, two weeks after the verdict in the riot trial a further inquiry was addressed to General Kenny, likewise without response. General Kenny has a State-wide reputation as a believer in civil liberties and particularly in fair play for racial and political minorities. It would be helpful if interested groups and individuals would write to General Kenny to find out what he plans to do about the Homer Turner. case.

D. C. COURT HEARS POST OFFICE BAN ON SEX PAMPHLET

The contest of the Post Office ban of Dr. Paul Popenoe’s pamphlet, “Preparing for ‘Marriage,’ was argued last month before the federal court in the District of Columbia by Civil Liberties Union counsel Charles Horsky. The pamphlet, endorsed by the American Social Hygiene Assn. and other agencies, has been excluded from the mails for almost two years as “‘obscene.”’ Page 2

ENDO CASE SENT TO HIGH COU

Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

those certi

fied by the Circuit Court are raised in the Endo case and would have to be determined in any decision on the case. That fact may impel the Supreme Court to bring the entire case before it for final decision.

Circuit Court’s Statement

Following is the Circuit Court’s statment requesting the Supreme Court’s advice on the four questions of law:

Mitsuye Endo, an American woman citizen of Japanese descent, of twenty-two years of age, has appealed from an order of the district court denying her petition for writ of habeas corpus and for a hearing upon her claimed right to release from further restraint by the War Relocation Authority. Because of the importance of the case, the requirement for its summary disposition which may lead to a certification of the entire case, and the brevity of the record of the proceedings in the court below, that record is hereunto annexed and . hereby made a part hereof.

This court recognizes that the facts upon which this certificate submits questions of law are those existing during the pendency of the cause in this appellate court, though differing from those at the time of the decision below, and that we are required to ~ascertain those facts and dispose of appel-lant’s claim of freedom from the custody ~ of the War Relocation Authority in the same summary manner as in the district court.

The case is before us over twenty months after the regulations and administrative orders establishing the War Relocation Centers and the confining therein of American citizens of Japanese descent evacuated -from the Military Areas of the Pacific a Coast. The regulations of January 1, 1944, such confinement of such American citizens are not of a temporary character. ae Authority’s Leave Regulations — These regulations may be summarized as providing for such citizens no release from the control of the War Relocation Authority. They provide only for a revocable “indefinite leave” from the confinement in the Relocation Center, conditioned upon -the agreement of the citizen to make report to the Director of any change of residence or employment. Such revocable leave is obtainable and is revocable by an administrative procedure in which none of the elements of due process is present.

Such conditional and revocable leave may be had only after the citizen has procured the approval of her application for a “leave clearance”’ by the Director, who instructs .the Project Director, who is restraining the citizen at the Center, of the approval or disapproval of the citizen’s application for such clearance. In the administrative proceeding for the procuring of the approval for leave clearance from the distant Di- rector, the Director holds no hearing. The citizen remains imprisoned at the center - while the Director considers the secret reports of the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion and determines the granting or denial of the citizen’s petition for leave clearance on such and other reports of which the citizen has no knowledge, much less the right to eross-examine persons stating facts likely to lead to the denial of the clearance. The granted leave clearance states that its granting does not give the right to leave the Center. The restrained citizen must then apply for one of three types of leave, of which the most favorable is the revocable “indefinite leave’ from the confinement of the Center. This will be granted only after the Director has determined that the citizen has the means of his self-support or employment for such support and that the community in which he intends to reside will accept him. Here, as with the application for “leave clearance’, the citizen has provided for him no hearing nor any of the essential elements of due process.

: (9 F.R. 154) controlling the continuance of not of Japanese ancestry; (c) because, as

Miss Endo Found To Be Loyal

The parties are agreed that on February 19, 1943, appellant applied to the War Re- location Authority for a leave clearance and that over six months later, on August 23, 1943, her application was granted. The Authority’s brief here admits that the leave clearance so granted was a “determination that her release would not impede the war effort or be contrary to public peace and safety, which means in effect that she is found to be not disloyal.” It is also agreed that appellant has not availed herself of any other of the provisions of the regulations.

On behalf of the War Relocation Author| ity is the contention that the rights confer- red by: Part 5, Chap. 1, Title 82 Code of: Federal Regulations, as amended January 1, 1944, upon such citizens confined in such centers, constitute a sufficient provision for the freedom of such citizens and that such citizens have no right to seek freedom through habeas corpus proceedings until they have complied with the requirements of the regulations.

Miss Endo’s Contentions On behalf of appellant are the contentions that she is entitled to an unconditional release from such confinement in the present habeas corpus proceeding (a) because -in the absence of any of the rights of due process in such regulations they afford her no such remedy as due an American citizen. and that she may ignore their requirements, . and that any proceeding commenced thereunder has no relation to the right of release on habeas corpus; (b) because, if the finding of loyalty to the United States in proceedings under such regulations be relevant, she may ignore all the further requirements regarding means of self-support or supporting employment and community acceptance, since they cannot be imposed upon a loyal American citizen whether or suming such latter requirements-may be imposed upon such a loyal American citizen, no hearing or any of the rights of due process are accorded her for the establishment of such requirements, and (d) because in no event can she be kept in such confinement until she accept such a revocable indefinite leave from such confinement with the agreement to report to the Authority. Because of the summary nature of appellant’s claim for relief from her alleged wrongful restraint and of the great public need for the decision of the question of the right to restrain many thousands of such citizens in Relocation Centers, now almost two years since their evacuation from the Pacific. Coast areas, this court certifies to the Supreme Court of the United States the following questions of law concerning which instruction is desired for the proper decision of the cause pending before us: Questions Certified (1) Has the War Relocation Authority the power to hold in its custody in a War Relocation Center an American citizen, now more than twenty months after such citizen has been evacuated from her residence in California, without any right in such citizen to seek release from such custody in a hearing by the Authority with the substantial elements of due process for the deter-: mination of facts warranting her further detention, because such citizen is of Japanese ancestry? :

(2) If under the regulations as amended January 1, 1944, the War Relocation Authority has determined that an United States citizen of Japanese descent is loyal to the United States, and such determination be relevant, may the Authority continue to confine such citizen in a Relocation Center until such citizen establishes to the “satisfaction of the Director that there is no reasonable cause to believe that she will not have employment or other means of Support or that she cannot otherwise successfully maintain residence at the proposed destination of the citizen when she is released from such confinement?

. (8) If under the regulations an amended January 1, 1944, the War Relocation Au- thority has determined the loyalty to the United States of a citizen in a War Reloca- tion Center and such a determination be relevant, may such Authority continue such confinement until the Authority determine whether or not there is no reasonable cause to believe that she will not have employment or other means of support or that she cannot otherwise successfully maintain residence at the proposed destination, without any hearing in which such issues may be tendered by the citizen or at which the citizen may be present in person, or by counsel, to offer evidence thereon or at which must be presented. the evidence adverse to her contention or at which she is — confronted with the witnesses adverse to her contentions?

(4) If such requirements of self-support and community acceptance may be imposed upon a loyal American citizen, may such a citizen. be confined in such a Center until she satisfy the Authority, when despite such satisfaction she must further agree she will report to the Authority as required by such regulations?

HAWAII MARTIAL LAW RULED ILLEGAL BUT VICTIM IN CUSTODY |

Ruling that Hawaii’s martial law is illegal, courageous federal judge Delbert EK. Metzger last month, after a full hearing, ordered the release of Lloyd Duncan, civilian, who. was tried by an Army court, and sentenced to six months in jail. Judge Metzger ruled that martial law was not justified since Hawaii is not in “imminent danger of invasion by hostile forces or... . in rebellion.”

Since the ruling was handed down eo ports have appeared that the issue may pE——— compromised by declaring Hawaii a “mili-. tary area” and revoking martial law. In the meantime, however; it is said that Duncan will remain in the military’s custody while an appeal is filed. “This will doubtless mean,” Roger Baldwin recently declared, “that his sentence will be completed before the higher courts can decide, and the issue will thus become moot. To avoid | that the Union’s counsel are contemplating seeking a writ in the Supreme Court of the United States to review the issue. It seems to us indefensible for the military authorities to claim jurisdiction over civilians when the civil courts are open and functioning.”

T

he Union’s attention has also been called to another case in which Federal Judge J. Frank McLaughlin of Hawaii recently granted a writ of habeas corpus to a former broker tried in a military court and convicted on a.charge of embezzlement in August, 1942. In ordering the man’s release Judge McLaughlin declared the martial law to be “absolutely and. wholly invalid.”

“FREE THE 18” SUBJECT FOR MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO MAY 3

The Civil Rights Defense Committee has scheduled a public meeting at Red Mens Hall in San Francisco, Wednesday evening, May 3, at eight o’clock, in support of the 18 Trotskyites convicted under the peacetime sedition law enacted in 1940. The Committee was established to aid in the defense of the 18,.who went to jail last New Year’s eve, and is now engaged in a campaign to ‘Free The 18”.

Warren K. Billings, Ernest Besig, Clarence Rust, Joseph James of the N.A.A.C.P. and George Novack, national sercetary of the Committee, are scheduled to speak. George Olshausen will serve as chairman. The A.C.L.U. participated in this case during its progress through the courts and is now urging clemency for the 18. “This is a case’, said Roger Baldwin recently, “which should never have been brought to court under a law which should never have been passed.” |

Negroes May Not Be Barred from Primaries

The United States Supreme Court last month upset a nine-year-old ruling when it handed down an 8 to 1 decision holding

that Negroes cannot be excluded hereafter from voting in the Democratic “white” primaries in Texas. The test case, brought to resolve conflicting decisions of the court

in Texas and Louisiana, was organized by the National Association for the Advance- ment of Colored People and backed by the American Civil Liberties Union which filed a brief signed by George Clifton Edwards,

. of Dallas, Texas, and Whitney North Seymour of New York.

Noting the conflict with previous decisions, the court held that ‘““when convinced of error, this court has never felt constrained to follow precedent.” Justice Owen Rob- erts filed a dissent critical of the court’s changes of view, which he classed with railroad tickets “good for this day and train only.”

The defendants in the suit contended “that the Democratic party of Texas is a - voluntary organization with members banded together for the purpose of selecting individuals of the group representing the common political beliefs as candidates in the general election. As such a voluntary organization, it was claimed, the Democratic party is free to select its own membership and limit to whites participation in the party primary... . Primaries, it is said, are political party affairs, handled by party not governmental officers.” :

‘In the majority opinion, written by Justice Stanley F. Reed, the court ruled that “when primaries become part of the machinery of choosing officials, the same tests should be applied to the primary as. are applied to the general election.” Otherwise, the opinion declared, ‘constitutional rights would be of little value”’ if the state is permitted to cast its electoral process in a form which allows a private organization to practice racial discrimination. “It may | ~ now be taken as a postulate,” said the court, “that the right to vote in such a primary for the nomination of candidates “without discrimination by the state, like the right to vote in a general election, is a right secured by the Constitution. ... Under our Constitution, the great privilege of choosing his rulers may not be denied a man by the state because of his color.” Roger N. Baldwin, A.C.L.U. director, ‘warned that, while: the decision removes one obstacle to the Negro and MexicanAmerican vote in the south, the formidable barriers of the poll tax and discriminatory educational tests remain for these minorities. Reaction from angry southern political leaders threatened that ‘““methods would be found” to circumvent the high court’s rul‘ing.

Ban On “Strange Fruit” Brings Court Test In Cambridge

. The banning in Boston and Cambridge of Lillian. Smith’s race relations novel “Strange Fruit’? moved toward a climax last month when Bernard DeVoto, noted author and educator, bought a copy of the ~work at a Cambridge book store in the presence of four policemen. The Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union pledged support in the defense of the bookseller and the purchaser. DeVoto and the bookseller, Abraham Isenstadt, who had notified the police of the sale, were served with summonses for appearance in court.

The Union announced it was prepared to carry the case to the State Supreme Court in the fight against ‘‘Puritanical standards.”’ No test has yet been made in Boston, where the ban originated, because the action was not official, being by the booksellers’ association.

To correct earlier reports to the contrary, a representative of the publishers, Reynal and Hitchcock, announced that a revised edition of the book with the ‘‘objec- tionable passages’”’ deleted is not in prospect. .The publisher ‘has no intention whatsoever of tampering with a fine and

important book,” he added.

Tekes Calla For Fair Play

Towards Japanese Americans"

Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes issued the following statement in San Fran- cisco last month regarding the program of the War Relocation Authority: “Immediately after the President, on his own motion, transferred the War Relocation Authority to the Department of the Interior, we began to study its policies and administration. I have recognized from the ‘beginning the difficulty and complexity of the problems, and I realize that the manner of their treatment is of vital importance, not only to the thousands of Japanese Americans who are immediately involved, but to the American civilians who are interned by the Japanese and the families of these Americans. The character and reputation of our own democracy are also involved.

WRA Has Unenviable Job

“The War Relocation Authority was given an unenviable job. It was not responsible for the evacuation of the Japanese Americans from the West Coast. That was a military decision. The War Relocation Authority was given the job of providing for the care and welfare of the people who were uprooted and transferred and of arranging for the restoration to normal life of those among them who are the blameless victims of a war-time program. I think that there can be no doubt that the program has, in general, been handled with discretion, humanity and wisdom. WRA did not persecute these people, and it made no attempt to punish those of a different race who were not responsible for what has been happening in the far Pacific. The War Relocation Authority—make no mis- take about it—has been criticized for not engaging in this sort of a lynching party. Under my jurisdiction, it will not be stampeded into undemocratic, bestial, inhuman action. It will not be converted into an instrument of revenge or racial warfare.

Don’t Injure the Innocent

“There is a place in this war for deserved anger and for punishment. I have on many occasions called for the punishment of the war criminals whether they have committed their outrages under Tojo and the fiendish military caste of Japan, or under Hitler. Let us see that the guilty are made to feel the heavy hand of justice; but let us not degrade ourselves by injuring innocent, defenseless people. To do this would be to lower ourselves to the level of the fanatical Nazis and Japanese war lords. Civilization expects more from us than from them.

“In resisting the onslaughts of those who would have the War Relocation Authority imitate the savageries of the ruling factions in the nations with which we are at war, I am sure that we have the support of virtually all Americans. I am particularly grateful to those groups and individuals on the West Coast who have been brave enough and Christian enough to speak out against the vindictive, bloodthirsty onslaughts of professional race mongers.

Disloyal Have Been Segregated

“All of the Japanese Americans who were evacuated from the West Coast have undergone and are undergoing a most intensive investigation. Those concerning whom there is any basis whatever for a suspicion of disloyalty have been sent to interment camps or are being segregated at Tule Lake. This segregation process is virtually complete, and the thousands of Japanese Americans who remain at the other centers are, by all reasonable tests, loyal American citizens or law-abiding aliens.

They are entitled to be treated as such.’ Those who do not believe in according these people the rights and privileges to which they are entitled under our laws do not believe in the Constitution of the United States.

“All of us recognize that, in time of war, we are subject to orders and restraints which would be intolerable in time of peace, All of us—regardless of race or re- ligion—are subject to the overriding demands of military necessity in time of war. N o one who is loyal to the United States objects to this. But when military necessity does not require it, no one of us who is an American citizen or a loyal alien can be de- prived of his rights under the law. I believe that the only justifiable reason’ for confinement of a citizen in a democratic. nation is the evidence that the individual might endanger the wartime security of the nation.

20,000 Released From Centers

“The major emphasis in War Relocation Authority operations is now on restoring the people of all WRA centers except Tule Lake as rapidly as possible to private life. Over 20,000 people have already left the ~ centers to make new homes and engage in new jobs in hundreds of cummunities stretched all of the way from Spokane, Washington, to Boston, Massachusetts. These relocated evacuees are establishing themselves in cities and.on farms and many have indicated that they plan to remain in their new locations during the post-war period. Thus the relocation program is contributing to a more widespread dispersal of apanese Americans throughout the coun“We must all face the problem of. the eventual status and treatment: of those Americans of Japanese descent who were taken from their homes and transported to evacuation camps. Most of them, after a thorough investigation, the doubts being re-. solved in favor of segregating them, have — been proved to be loyal and devoted to this Nation. It is intolerable to think that these people will be excluded from a normal life in this country for long. It is intolerable to think that merely because they resided on the West Coast — in California, or Wash- ington, or Oregon—they must be wards of: the Government for ene moment longer than the necessities of war require. I know of no virus in those three States which has infected them so that they must be treated differently than the Japanese Americans who reside in other States. And it is intolerable to think that decent people would suggest that. this Nation would for a moment consider sending loyal Americans of Japanese descent to a land which most-of them have never seen and in which most of them have no interest.

A Local Problem a8

“To a large extent this is a local problem. It is a problem of you people in Cali- fornia, in Washington and in Oregon. I hope that the clamor of those few among you who are screaming that this situation should be resolved on the basis of prejudice and hate will soon be overwhelmed by the stern remonstrances of those among you— an overwhelming majority—who.believe in fair play and decency, Christianity, in the principles of America, in the Constitution of the United States.”

Couchois. Sedition Crise. Backed On Appeal

A national Martime Union seaman convicted last August under the espionage act, at Mobile, Alabama, of seditious utterancés on a merchant ship was backed last month by the American Civil Liberties Union which filed a brief as a friend of the*court in the appeal of James O. Couchois to the — U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans.

Charging the lower court abridged the defendant’s right to counsel by forcing trial within a few hours of the appointment of a lawyer, the Union intervened after the N.M.U. had refused to defend the seaman on the ground the indictment did not involve his union activities.

epee 4

‘American Civil Liberties Union-News Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, San Fran- gisco, 4, Calif., by the Northérn California Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG.. Entered as secondclass matter, July 31, 1941, at the Post Office at San Francisco, California, Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per Copy. '

FLORIDA PEONAGE ~ LAW INVALIDATED

The U. S. Supreme Court on April 10 voided as unconstitutional a Florida ‘‘peonage’ law enacted in 1919 under which a Negro laborer was sent to jail for sixty days for lack of $100 to pay a fine imposed | by a state court as penalty for not working off a five dollar debt to an employer. .. With two justices dissenting, the decision assailed the presumption of fraud which arises under the law merely because of the nonperformance of a contract for labor service, which led to the Negro’s conviction in this case. It declared the “‘peonage”’ law in violation of the guarantees of the Thir. of admission the War Department has pre“seribed.”

teenth Amendment, which provides that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . Shall exist within the United States.

" Justice Robert H. Jackson who wrote the opinion declared that the law “‘is the latest of a lineage,” all of which have been asgsociated with peonage. Said he, ‘Deceit, is not beyond the power of the state because the cheat is a laborer nor because the de- vice for swindling is an agreement, of labor.

But when the state undertakes to deal with this specialized form of fraud, it must re- spect the constitutional and statutory command that it may not make failure to labor in discharge of a debt any part of a crime. It may not directly or indirectly command involuntary servitude, even if it was voluntarily contracted for. ”

AS

RIGHT OF ANONYMITY “IN POLITICS UPHELD

Upholding the right of anonymity to protect the interests of minorities in political campaigns, Arthur Garfield Hays, Civil

Liberties Union general counsel, last month urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to report adversely a bill passed by the House. The bill is designed to force disclosure of ‘the publishers and distributors of campaign literature,

In a letter to Hon. Frederick Van Nuys, chairman of the Senate Committee, Mr. Hays warned that “‘anonymity in political ‘campaigns is often a valuable phase of the exercise of citizens’ rights,’’ and sometimes *the only possible protection. for the expression of minority views opposed by powerful interests.”’ He added that “‘the whole history of political agitation has shown how necessary it is, in the interest of progress, to protect weak and unpopular groups from the penalties of exposure.

“We would cite, for instance, the need for anonymity on the part of. opponents of Mayor Hague of Jersey City, who dominates so powerful a local political machine that he is able to penalize those who challenge his power.’

SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW : TEXAS LABOR RIGHTS, ‘CASE

Arcane on the fight of R. J. Thomas, president of the United Automobile Workers, against a section of the Texas labor law requiring the licensing of union organizers will be heard by the United States Supreme Court, possibly next October. Thomas went especially to Texas to test the law, contending that a paid union organizer does not have to obtain a license before soliciting union memberships. The Texas Supreme Court, holding that “regulation of labor unions is a proper exercise of the state’s inherent police power,” found -the requirements to be a “reasonable regulation for the protection of both the laborers and the unions, to prevent moe deception by imposters.”

Editor ‘the scope of his authority or. | Military Has No Authority Over Drattee. Who Refuses Oath Holding that only by taking the oath of

induction are men legally drafted into the army, the U. 8. Supreme Court recently sustained in an eight to one decision the ~ contentions of Arthur G. Billings, conscien- tious objector, who had refused to take an oath when called to military service and was forcibly inducted after the oath was read to him. He has conducted the litigation personally from the guard house at Leavenworth, Kansas, to which he was committed by an army court-martial for . disobeying military orders.

will result in freeing him from the army and turning him over to the civil author

The decision

ities. He has been denied recognition as a conscientious objector. Billings, a Harvard graduate, was a former economics teacher at the University of Texas.

The decision should also aid® other ‘ob-jectors. denied recognition and ordered to military service by enabling men similarly inducted .to obtain release from army pris- ons. The Supreme Court opinion, delivered by Justice Douglas, held that ‘‘a selectee becomes inducted when after the army has

“found him acceptable for service he undergoes whatever ceremony or requirements

: A dissent was noted by Justice Roberts.

Los Angeles, fide Holds

F. B. I. Agents Liable

“Tn two sueepiie decisions upholding constitutional guarantees of freedom from un- awful ‘search’ and.seizure, Judge Ralph

‘Jenney of the federal district court in Los Angeles, rejected claims of agents of the ‘Federal Bureau of Investigation that they are immune from liability in civil suits on the ground that federal agents are not accountable for damages committed in line of duty. -Plaintiffs were represented by LorrinAndrews and A. L. Wirin, American Civil Liberties Union counsel. —— Pie eases, claiming damages for unlawful search, were brought by members of the Mankind United Associates whose homes were.invaded by the agents in search of seditious literature. In one case, at of Arthur L. Bell, no search warrant “Although compelled to dismiss Bell’ s suit as outside federal jurisdiction, Judge Jenney in-an oral opinion cited the broad protections afforded by the Fourth Amend“ment against unreasonable search and seizure. As to the responsibility of law enforcement officers for damages, he said that “when a public officer acts outside . in a wanton, malicious and unlawful manner .

and injures a private citizen he is liable in action for damages.’’ Subsequently, a damage suit was filed in the state courts.

New Jersey Court Reverses Refusal of State Agency to Employ “Witnesses” Ruling that ‘coerced acceptance of a patriotic creed is beyond official authority,” the New Jersey Supreme Court last month overruled the refusal of the Bergen County Board of Freeholders to employ Daniel E. Morgan, a Jehovah’s Witness, as a bridge attendant because he would not salute the flag out of religious convictions. The case was conducted by James L. Major of Hackensack, N. J., retained by the

American Civil Liberties Union, which appealed to the court after the State Civil Service Commission had sustained the action of the Board of Freeholders, although Morgan, by virtue of being a war veteran, was entitled to the appointment.

The Union contended “that a require-ment that public employees must salute the flag is a violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the federal and state consti- tutions when it is forced against a member .of. Jehovah’s Witnesses overriding of religious scruples there must.

To justify the be a clear justification therefor in the necessities of national or community life. There seems to be no reasonable purpose for this requirement other than to discrimi-nate against members of this sect.”

tial “seeking review must complete the selective from the Billings decision “

Billings’ Decision Opens 2 Way To Judicial Review Without Induction

Counsel for the Aineaoac Civil Liberte

“Union who have examined the Supreme Court decision in the ease of Arthur G. Billings, conscientious objector, held that it opens the way for judicial review of draft -board errors without an objector’s submitting to induction at the risk of court mar- Although a man classified 1-A and service process by reporting to the induction center, he may refuse to place himself under military jurisdiction. He will then be subject to prosecution by the civil authorities, and may after arrest test by habeas corpus his classification.

Julian Cornell, counsel for the National Committee on Conscientious Objectors ‘pointed out that the Billings decision supercedes the recent ruling in the Falbo case which required a registrant seeking judicial review to accept induction and only | then to swear out a writ. He cited the high court’s view that “Congress intended that those who refuse induction should be tried “In the civil courts only” and that ‘‘forcible ‘induction would thwart the intention of Congress.”

“The court realizes that the Falbo de cision, if carried out to its logical extremes, would require a registrant who desires judicial review to submit to induction against his will and risk being subjected to military law,” Mr. Cornell said, adding that, it is clear that a conscientious objector who is denied exemption may fulfill the requirements of the Supreme Court for obtaining judicial review by obeying the draft board’s order to report for induction, although he refuses to take the oath.”

Asserting that the safest course. “would — be to sue out a writ’’ upon arrest, Osmond K. Fraenkel, A.C.L.U. counsel, declared the Billing’s decision “opens a loophole for ju- ~~~ dicial’ review of draft board orders without the registrant having to submit to induction at the risk of court martial:.

borne in mind that while the Billings case has ‘probably simplified the procedural question, it has no bearing at all on the extent to which courts will review draft board decisions.”” Judicial review is commonly confined to gross errors and does. “not invoke the exercise of reasonable distinction.

LICENSE TAX ON EVANGELIST HELD TO BE INVALID

The judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court affirming the conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness as an itinerant peddler for selling religious literature without pay- ing a license of $1 per day or $15 per year — in the town of McCormick was recently re- versed by the Supreme Court in a six to three decision. The opinion was written by Justice Douglas with a reluctant concurrence by Justice Reed and comment by Justice Murphy on the dissenting opinion. v Justice Douglas declared the question in the case was a narrow one. “It is whether a flat license tax as applied to one who earns his livelihood as an evangelist or preacher in his home town is constitutional.” In previous cases the Court had ruled that an “itinerant evangelist” did not become. “a mere book agent by selling the Bible or religious tracts to help defray his expenses or to sustain him.” But, “Freedom of religion is not merely reserved for those with a long purse. Preachers of the more orthodox faiths are not engaged in commercial undertakings because they are dependent. on their calling for a living. A preacher has no less a claim to that privilege when he is not an itinerant.” At the same time, a license tax is equally invalid when applied to. “those who spread their religious beliefs from door. to door or on the street. The protection of the First Amendment is not restricted to orthodox re. ligious practices any more than it is to the expression of orthodox economic views.’ It must be