vol. 10, no. 5

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. X SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, MAY 1945 No. 5

Ration Board Discriminates Against ‘Objectors'

The A.C.L.U. has requested the Regional Office of Price Administration in San Francisco to investigate the action of the Quincy ration board in denying two conscientious objectors at the Belden camp an occupational gasoline ration. According to the Union, the evidence indicates that the men were denied the gasoline because of their opinions, and that board members prevailed upon the men’s employers to discharge them from their jobs in order to make them ineligible for the ration. | oe oo One of the men applied for a supplemental ration more than three months ago in order to permit him to work as an accountant in Quincy. After considerable delay, the board rejected the application. On appeal, however, the Sacramento District Office, on February 13, informed the board that Selective Service Regulations did allow ration.

Thereafter, however, the local board refused to grant the ration unless evidence was presented to it that Selective Service Regulations allow the applicant to perform the work for which the gasoline was needed. Under date of March 6 the director of the camp informed the . board that Selective Service Regulation did allow the applicant to work outside the camp.

Nevertheless, the local board then took the position that “It will still be necessary for us to have a letter from the Director of Selective Service, Washington, D. C. stating that these men are allowed to work outside the camp.” Thereupon, the A.C.L:U., being informed of the matter, filed a complaint with the Regional Rationing Attorney in San Francisco, who had the District office check up on the local board. The local board claimed the matter was closed because the men in question were no longer em- ployed. :

What the local board failed to state, however, was that its members had brought pressure upon the employers of the conscientious objectors to discharge them in order to make them ineligible for extra gasoline. |

The record also discloses that the Quincy Ration Board is discriminating against the conscientious objector camp itself. The ODT issued a certificate allowing the camp 1600 gallons of gasoline for the second quarter of the year. The Quincy Board, however, has refused to:allow more than 75 gallons. It has taken similar action with reference to the camp’s allowance of processed foods and meats.

S. Carolina Paper Says War Objectors. The Buck" in Henry Weber Case

The Judge Advocate General’s Office has rejected a plea on behalf of Henry Weber, conscientious objector whose sentence to hanging was reduced to five years, on the ground that it has no authority to take further action in the case, and that the matter rests solely with the clemency division of the Adjutant General’s Office. Not satisfied with this treatment of the case, the Union has appealed to Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson to make an immediate adjustment in the case before the matter of clemency is considered.

Lewis Hill, the Union’s Washington representative, submitted to the Judge Advocate .General a 36-page memorandum urging commutation of Weber’s five-year sentence, rein- statement in the army and transfer to the Medical Corps. Together with Rep. Charles R. Savage of Washington and Leonard Lazarus of the National Service Board for Religious Ob- jectors, he conferred with the Judge Advocate General on April 16. |

REPRESSIVE MEASURES DEFEATED IN CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

Repressive measures went down to defeat in the State Legislature during the past month. The bill directed against conscientious objectors and the anti-nudist bill are dead, while the bill permitting employers to discharge “subversive workers” was sent back to the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. As we go to press, not one repressive measure gives promise of being enacted.

The major victory was scored on 8S. B. 407%, barring conscientious objectors from holding civil service or elective jobs. Adopted by the State Senate with only five dissenting votes, it reached the Assembly Military Affairs Committee with an amendment limiting its application to objectors who refuse all service in the armed forces, in- cluding non-combatant service.

Dominated by rabid Legionnaires and patrioteers, the committee sent the bill to the Assembly floor after a two-hour hearing in which Ernest Besig, local A. C. L. U. director, Dr, A. C McGiffert, President of the Pacific School of Religion, Prof Donald S. Mackay, representatives of the Quakers and others attacked the bill as-a violation of religious liberty and other constitutional guarantees. General David Barrows sent a letter to the Committee declaring the proposed bill “would I think be true religious persecution.” At the conclusion of the hearing, Assemblyman Lester McMillan of Los Angeles apologized for “discourteous treatment of those citizens who tried, to speak cooly, quietly and dispassionately on their views.” Assemblyman Gannon and Walter Fourt were particularly vicious in badgering witnesses.

Death of the bill came about when the Legislative Counsel handed down an opinion declaring the bill to be unconstitutional. By a vote of 3232 the Assembly declined to print the opinion in its Journal, but shortly thereafter the bill was referred back to Committee with the understanding that it would be replaced by a bill requiring all civil service employees and candidates for elective jobs to declare whether they are willing to bear arms in defense of the country. It would serve merely to embarrass conscientious objectors, and would not interfere with their right to run for office or hold civil service jobs.

‘The bill prohibiting nudism, A. B. 344, was rejected by the Assembly Committee on Crime and Correction after a two-hour hearing. Only the author, Ralph C. Dills of Compton, and a repre

FREE SPEECH FOR N. Y. FIREMEN TO GO TO STATE HIGH COURT

The right of New York City firemen to air their grievances in public will be supported in an appeal to New York State’s highest court by the American. Civil Liberties Union, it was announced April 16, after the Appellate Division in New York City decided against the firemen in a unanimous decision without opinion.

Vincent Kane, John P. Crane and three other officials of the Uniformed Firemen’s Association had asked the Appellate Division for an injunction to restrain Fire Commissioner Patrick Walsh from enforcing a “gag order” against them. The firemen were represented by New York Attorney David Savage, with the New York City Civil Liberties Committee filing a supporting brief as a friend of the court. The Civil Liberties’ brief maintained that since firemen are not allowed to strike, picket, or even bargain collectively, Commissioner Walsh’s gag order forbidding them to discuss their working conditions in public reduces the firemen “to the level of abject slaves of tyranny dependent on the favor of berevolent departmental despotism for the preservation of their rights.”

sentative of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors spoke in support of the bill. Chief opposition came from the Civil Liberties Union and organized groups of nudists who turned out in good numbers for the hearing. A motion to table the

bill was made while the opponents of the measure were still presenting their arguments. It carried by a vote of 7 to 2. Assemblyman Dills threatened to ask the Assembly to withdraw the bill from committee, but there seems little chance that he will press the matter.

A. B. 2096, which would permit employers to discharge workers they claim are “subversive”, was sent back to the Judiciary Committee by the Assembly's 41-34 vote, after receiving a favorable 11-2 vote in committee. Ernest Besig, local director of the Union, condemned the bill as opening “the way to witch hunts among workers.”

“Any person who expresses an unpopular idea, or whose politics are not conventional” said Mr. Besig, “may become suspect, lose his job, have his reputation ruined and experience tremendous difficulty securing another job. And, as for the employer—he would be asked not only ‘ to censor his employes’ political views, but to judge what groups advocate the violent overthrow of the government. All of this would be done without allowing the worker any kind of a hearing.”’

Also on the favorable side ofthe legislative picture was the action of the Assembly in withdrawing from its Committee on Governmental Efficiency and sending to the Ways and Means Committee A. B. 3, setting up a State Fair Employment Practice Commission. The so-called “Governor’s bill”, A. B. 1399, establishing a commission merely to investigate racial discrimination, is also in the Ways and Means Committee after favorable action by the Governmental Efficiency and Economy Committee. Supporters of A. B. 3 should write to Chairman Wollenberg, urging favorable action by the Ways and Means — Committee.

The remaining anti-civil liberties bills are bogs | ged down in various committees. A. B. 1698 by Speaker Lyon, which would seriously limit the use of civic centers, has received the most consideration. The bill is now being redrafted by a special committee and may reach the Assembly floor in modified form.

Richmond Pastor Convicted For Holding Religious Meeting in Home

Alvin J. Surrat, pastor of the Jesus Name Pentecostal Church of Richmond, California, was convicted by a jury last month on a charge of holding religious meetings in his home.

‘The prosecution was based on a zoning ordinance which provides that “churches . . . may be located in any part of the city provided a permit has been granted therefor by the Council upon application made in writing to the Council.”” Despite the fact that the balance of the ordinance speaks of constructing a building, the City Attorney has contended that Surrat “Jocated” his church in his home and that he, therefore, required a permit from the City Council. In fact, Surrat did apply for a permit, but he was turned down by the Council when one person in the neighborhood objected.

Surrat is represented by attorney Irving Sugarman, who intends to take an appeal in the event that Police Judge Leo Marcollo refuses to set aside the conviction on the ground that the ordinance as applied is unconstitutional.

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

ACLU Queries Army Use Of Soldiers In Industry

Concern over an “unprecedented” army policy of assigning uniformed soldiers to work in civilian plants owned by the government was expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union in letters to CIO President Philip Murray and AFL President William Green on April 20. The Union said its attorneys were looking into the new policy ‘with a view to its legality,” and asked the CIO and AFL leaders what steps they plan to take.

‘The Union acted on the basis of a letter outlining the new policy signed by Adjutant General J. A. Ulio, in reply to a query by the Union. The letter to Murray and Green said:

“We are advised by the Adjutant General that a system has been set up at Camp Ellis, Illinois, by which ‘men who are not qualified for general military service, but who have left their jobs in essential industry and consequently have been inducted under the work or fight order... will be given four weeks’ basic training before assignment or release to inactive duty. Those who volunteer to return to essential industry may revert to an inactive status. Others who do not volunteer for essential work . . . may be assigned to work—as uniformed soldiers—in government-owned plants needing their skills’. The rest are assigned to the limited army service.

“It seems to us extraordinary that the army at this late date should so handle men who have left their jobs in essential industry.. We assume that the presence of uniformed soldiers among workers in civilian plants would create precedents of considerable concern to the trade union movement, as they are to us. Will you be good enough to advise us what inquiry you may have -mnade concerning this procedure and what steps you have taken or plan to take in regard to it.”

Marine Jailed Nine Months Without Charges Being Filed

| Following an inquiry by the A.C. LL. U. as to why Private Morton A. Carabel, U. S. Marine

re Corpss, had beén held in detention at Mare’ Island for over nine months, without being charged with any offense, he was suddenly awarded a summary court martial which will convene on May 1. The maximum punishment the court can fix is 90 days in jail and a dishonorable diseharge. Private Carabel has been in detention since July 18, 1948, or almost ten months.

The specifications of offenses were not served upon Carabel until April 24. It is claimed that Carabel, a fatigue patient who served in the South Pacific, was 5 days late in reporting as a patient to the Oak Knoll hospital; that he was absent without leave from the hospital for 19 hours; that upon arrival in the United States he was not wearing the proper uniform and that : he was not entitled to wear a brassard marked with the word “Correspondent”; that he arrived at the hospital with a bottle of liquor in his suitcase; that he represented he had received a medical discharge, and that he had falsely represented in June, 1943 (almost two years ago) that he was a graduate of Georgetown University. It is doubtful whether most of these charges can be supported.

The local office of the Marine Corps could offer no reason for the delay in bringing charges against Carabel. Their only excuse is that the matter was in the hands of Washington. A letter has been written to the Commandant of the Marine Corps requesting an explanation as to why Carabel was held in jail for over nine months without any charges being filed against him.

UNION’S LOCAL BRANCH SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW IN THE BURALL CASE

Last month, the local branch of the A. C. L. U., through Attorney Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco, requested the U. S. Supreme Court to review the case of Louis Burall, an Alcatraz prisoner. The case raises two questions: 1. Whether a federal judge to whom a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is presented may refuse to take any judicial action whatever thereon and refer the case to the District Court for assignment to any member of the court; and, 2. Whether a defendant is entitled to representation by counsel at his preliminary hearing before a U. S. Com missioner.

The appeal is taken from a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ‘affirming an order of the District Court denying Burall’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

OPPOSE ANTI-LABOR LAWS BEFORE SUPREME COURT

Florida and Alabama state laws imposing restrictions on trade union activity were opposed last month before the U. S. Supreme Court as “unconstitutional limitations of freedom of speech and assembly” by the American Civil Liberties Union in friend of the court briefs supporting AFL appeals against the laws.

The Alabama law was opposed by the Civil Liberties Union for requiring unions to file copies of their constitutions, lists of their officers, complete annual statements of their financial transactions, and for barring any “executive or supervisory” employee from membership in a union; the Florida law for requiring union representatives to obtain a license from the state as a condition for doing business.

The Civil Liberties Union brief on the Florida law says in part: “The vice of the statute here and of similar attempts at legislative control over the internal affairs of labor unions is that they weaken the autonomy and independence of the unions, and in so doing threaten to destroy a most important democratic force in American life. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute on the theory that labor unions are business organizations operating for profit, differing essentially from religious bodies, chambers of commerce and like institutions, and that hence they are subject to regulation.

“The American Civil Liberties Union rejects this view. While unions have certain business aspects their most important function is social; to obtain for working men and women higher and better standards of life and in stabilizing industrial relations. In the Thomas case the Court indicated that a line might be drawn between the public aspects of a labor union which could not be restricted and its commercial aspects which might be regulated by the state.” The Civil Liberties Union goes on to point out that both the Florida and Alabama laws are not concerned with the purely business aspects of unions, but attempt to regulate all their activities, and should therefore be rejected as unconstitutional limitations on freedom of speech and assembly as was a similar Texas law in the case of R. J. Thomas, president of the United Automobile Workers.

HAYS OFFERS TO DEFEND JERSEY CITY GRAND JURORS AGAINST LIBEL CHARGES

Following appeals from two members of the 23-man Hudson County, New Jersey Grand Jury, recently sued for libel for $4,600,000 by Mayor Frank Hague’s Hudson County prosecutor, the American Civil Liberties Union announced that Arthur Garfield Hays, counsel, and long-time opponent of Mayor Hague’s Jersey City dictatorship, had offered to appear in court for the jurors. The libel suit against the Grand Jury was instituted by the Hudson County prosecutor after the jury had found that the prosecution and sentencing to three years of Hague opponent John Longo in 1943 was “for political purposes”, and had condemned the prosecution’s methods. Longo himself is now free on bond pending the outcome of an appeal to the New Jersey Court of Appeals against his conviction for falsifying voting records. New Jersey Attorney General Van Riper, himself under indictment on another charge by the Hague machine, has appointed Mark Townsend, Jersey City Republican, special deputy attorney general to defend the Grand Jurors. Roger Baldwin, ACLU director, said: “It is our guess that the libel suit is as political as the Longo trial, but will never be tried. It is unprecedented to thus attack a grand jury whose reports are privileged documents not subject to damage suits. No court is likely to consider it.”

FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP BILL PASSES HOUSE: UP TO SENATE IMMIG. COMM.

A bill granting citizenship to Filipinos resident in the United States passed the House unanimously April 17. The bill had been supported both in the last Congress and the present by the American Civil Liberties Union as granting “elementary justice to a valiant ally.” The bill now comes before the Senate Immigration Committee. Members and friends of the Union are requested to write Senator Richard B. Russell, chairman of the Senate Committee, urging an early and favorable report on the bill (H. B. 776). The bill has been endorsed by the State and Justice Departments, the American Legion, and representatives of labor. The bill in effect extends the exemption from the oriental exclusion act already granted the Chinese. No quota for immigration is included since that was covered in previous legislation, providing for the admission of 100 a year.

Review Of Mutiny Conviction Urged On Sec'y Forrestal

Review of the court martial conviction in San Francisco last fall of fifty Negro sailors accused of mutiny after they had refused to load ammunition has just been urged on Secretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal by Arthur Garfield Hays on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ‘court martial record is now before the Navy Judge Advocate General in Washington. In a letter to the Secretary, Mr. Hays says: “As this is the first mutiny trial in this war and the largest trial in navy history, and especially in view of the fact that those charged are all members of a racial minority whose status in the navy has only recently been ameliorated, may we urge the most careful re-examination of the entire case?”

Mr. Hays said that three circumstances raised “grave doubts” as to the justice of the court martial. First, the difficulty of securing justice for defendants in a mass trial, “especially where the defendants were all colored, where they were charged with the most serious offense of mutiny, and where the attendant publicity was prejudicial.” Second, there is “grave doubt that the facts proved constituted the offense of mutiny. There was no evidence that the defendants sought to challenge military authority. The most that can be said is that some of the defendants refused to obey a lawful order.” Third, “the conduct of the trial indicates that the Judge Advocate’s main purpose was to arouse racial antagonism in the minds of the court.”

The fifty Negro sailors were court martialed after they had refused to load ammunition on the U. S. S. San Gay at the Mare Island naval ammunition depot on August 8, last year. Several gave as reason that they were frightened as a consequence of the explosion at the docks on July 17 in which several hundred seamen were killed

SOLDIER GETS 10-YEAR SENTENCE FOR ANTI-WAR REMARKS

' Hugh Callan of New York, naturalized Irishman whose ten-year court martial sentence for remarks critical of the war and the President, was sustained by the U. S. Circuit Court in New — Orleans April 6, has sought assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union in an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. He alleges that he never took the oath of induction, and therefore was not subject to court martial. The Civil Liberties Union will not participate in the appeal since another case involving refusal of a con- scientious objector to take the oath, is scheduled for hearing before the Supreme Court in the near future. ;

The Civil Liberties Union announced that it would support an appeal for clemency if the Supreme Court turned him down. “Save for the technical question of the oath, the military was probably within its rights in disciplining Callan,” Roger N. Baldwin, ACLU director said, “put a ten-year sentence is far too long for any private expression of views.”’ :

Callan, 39 years old and a resident of the Bronx, served one year of his sentence when a Federal District Court granted him liberty on the ground that he had not been inducted, a decision reversed by the Circuit Court on April 16. He was reported sentenced for having written a letter to his draft board and spoken privately to soldiers attacking the war, the President, the Jews and the capitalists.

NEW YORK LEAFLET DISTRIBUTION CASE HEARD BY SPECIAL SESSIONS

Dismissal of the charges against two New Yorkers for distributing leaflets advertising a meeting of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade last January was urged on April 19 in the Court of Special Sessions by Emanuel Redfield, counsel for the New York City Committee of the ACLU. The two defendants, Jack Rand and Rosario Pagnotta, were charged under a city ordinance which prohibits the distribution of “Commercial and business advertising matter.” ‘

Attorney Redfield argued that the ordinance did not apply to the leaflets which announced that. tickets could be bought for a meeting to discuss “breaking relations with fascist Spain.” He held that selling tickets for a meeting does not make it a commercial enterprise, pointing out that tickets are sold for church meetings. He added that the distribution of such: leaflets “is a part of the right of public assembly with- out which freedom of speech would be impaired.” The brief in the case was signed also by Osmond K. Fraenkel, ACLU counsel.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page 3

Branch Files Brief In Redding Labor Case

The Northern California branch of the A. C. L. U. on April 16 filed an amicus curiae brief in the State Supreme Court in the case of James Porterfield, a union business agent, who was convicted under an ordinance of the City of Redding for soliciting members in the General Laborers Union. The ordinance provides that a license to solicit members in any organization shall be granted only after a hearing before the City Council which “shall receive evidence and determine whether said applicant is of good moral character, and is likely to use force, violence, threats, menace, coercion, intimidation or ee means in his proposed work of solicitaion.

The Union attacked the ordinance as an invalid restriction on freedom of speech, and also contended that the test to be applied before a license is granted violates the Fourteenth Amendment as being arbitrary and unreasonable. “The City Council of Redding,” says the brief, “by going into the applicant’s propensities and his background for the purpose of determining how he will act in soliciting, has the arbitrary power and discretion to grant or refuse a license to the applicant.”

The case is scheduled for argument before the State Supreme Court in San Francisco on May 1.

Race Discrimination in Armed Forces Curbed in Decision on Seabees

An encouraging victory against race discrimination in the armed forces was seen by the American Civil Liberties Union in the decision of a Naval Board of Review sitting in Washington, D. C., revoking on April 2 dishonorable discharges given fourteen Negro Seabees in October, 1943 for criticizing Jim Crow conditions at their . Caribbean naval base. Nineteen Seabees were originally discharged after they had made their criticisms at a private meeting on invitation of their commanding officer. Four of them took no appeal; fifteen participated in the appeal heard by the Board of Review last December 11, of whom fourteen will receive discharges “under honorable conditions.’ The fifteenth lost his appeal. | 3

‘The American Civil Liberties Union, together with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the CIO War Relief Committee, and the Lynn Committee to Abolish Segregation in the Armed Forces, all supported the Seabees at the board hearing in December, which was held under the provisions of the “G. I. Bill of Rights.” Arthur Garfield Hays, ACLU counsel, represented the Seabees, and Herbert DeVarco, of New York City, the ACLU.

In a bill of particulars presented by the Navy at the hearing the Negroes were charged among other things with “participating in seditious meetings, refusing to obey orders, giving vent to radical ideas, attempting strikes, and threatening sabotage.” Testimony showed, however, that only two of the nineteen discharged had been previously punished for any infractions of discipline, among them the one whose discharge the board refused to change. At the hearing four of the Seabees testified that they had not only lost their mustering out pay and other veterans’ benefits through their dishonorable discharges, put had difficulty subsequently in obtaining employment.

REHEARING OF INDIAN LANDS CASE REFUSED BY U. S. SUPREME COURT

Petitions to the U. S. Supreme Court to rehead the Shoshone Indian lands case decided 5 to 4 on March 19 were rejected by the court on April 9. The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Congress of American Indians, the Department of Justice and the Indian Committees of House and Senate, had all filed briefs asking rehearing. The ACLU brief, signed by Judge Richard H. Hanna of New Mexico and Arthur Garfield Hays, Osmond K. Fraenkel, and Alfred S. Julien of New York, urged that the majority opinions by Justices Jackson and Black, avoided the question of whether the Shoshone Indians were due the $15,000,000 they claimed by treaty, by maintaining that the Indians could get money from Congress in any case. The ACLU said this view failed to recognize that “it makes a difference both to the Indian and the community whether he gets money as a dignified right or as a patronizing allowance.” The court’s action will stop the move to settle through the courts many outstanding Indian land claims based on treaty provisions, and will throw the whole issue into Congress, which has so far refused to act.

2

United Nations Conference

FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION AND MINORITY RIGHTS URGED BY UNION

The American Civil Liberties Union has just urged the American delegates to the United Nations Conference to create international arrangements for freedom of communication and minority rights. The letter follows:

We address you in behalf of international arrangements for freedom of communication and minority rights which directly affect the interests of the American people. We are of course aware that the United Nations conference cannot deal with the wide range of problems which arise in these two fields, but we submit that machinery should be now created by which they can be dealt with internationally. The significance of both freedom of communication and of minority rights to world peace needs no argument.

I. The methods for extending the principles of liberty present two major aspects:

(1) The arrangements between nations, of common concern to all of them; and

(2) Internal practices affecting freedom of speech, press, assembly, racial and religious equality, minority rights, and gurantees to defendants in the courts.

We submit that the immediately desirable approach internationally is the first, in the area where the nations have a common concern in freedom of communication and the protection of minority righs. The internal practices, which obviously can only be gradually realized, would necessarily follow some such pattern as that already established by the International Labor Office, adopting standards to be recommended to the nations of the world.

II. Standards of practices between nations can be achieved by definite agreements binding upon them all. Most important of all, we submit, is freedom of communication by radio, cables, news films and printed matter, with freedom of travel by their representatives and of all agencies engaged in gathering and transmitting information of a public character.

There are two ways in which freedom of communication between nations can be achieved:

(1) By the establishment of a commission by the United Nations conference to tackle the problems, or by referring them to a commission created by a world charter, or

(2) By separate later international agreements unrelated to a world charter, covering each specific field of communication. Such agreements would be reached presumably by the same process as those of the International Postal Union, and of the conventions affecting the maintenance of lighthouses.

It is possible that the practical political and economic problems will require both approaches. But for either means a general statement of principles embodied in a resolution by the United Nations conference would appear desirable. We note that such general resolutions have already been adopted by the Congress of the United States and by the Inter-American Conference at Chapultapec, Mexico.

III. The immediate problem next in importance, between the nations, appears to us to be that of political, racial and religious refugees and displaced peoples, and together with it, the protection of minority rights by international agreement. Some international authority is obviously needed to handle it. The United States is direct- ly involved through the presence of thousands of temporary refugees, who under American law will be subject to deportation to their home countries after the war, but who, in the absence ‘of international protection, might be sent back to face political, racial or religious persecution.

IV. The rights of native peoples in countries or islands under American or allied control after the war, especially where there are naval bases and partial or complete military government, should be protected by international agreement, under civil authority. These problems can hardly be separated from the status of colonial peoples generally, and might appropriately be dealt with by a special international commission or entrusted to a division of the world authority.

V. The realization of standards of democratic practices within nations—often loosely referred to as an International Bill of Rights—should be the long-range objective of an international commission analogous to the International Labor Office. We urge its creation, or the specific reference of the whole range of human rights problems to the Economic and Social Council, if created as recommended by the Dumbarton Oaks agreement. But we desire to observe that effective steps to more democratic internal practices in communications would be taken by agreements — affecting freer communications between nations. Similar effects may be expected from international arrangements for refugees.

VI. To sum up, we urge:

(1) A declaration by the United Nations con— ference for world-wide freedom of communication between nations, with reference to a special or general commission of the problems to be worked out through international agreements. Or, failing that, a declaration of principle with recommendations that special conventions be arranged between the nations, analogues to those of the International Postal Union.

(2) The reference to a special or general commission of the problems of political, racial and religious refugees, displaced peoples and the proie of such minorities in their home counries.

(4) The reference to a special or general commission of the future status of the rights of native peoples on island bases and elsewhere under contra of the United States or any of the United ations,

(4) The reference to a special or general commission of the development of standards for democratic rights within nations, analogous to the methods of he International Labor Office.

We address you as American delegates to the United Nations conference in the belief that you will concur in our view that these matters deserve the most searching attention from the view-point of the liberties and responsibilities of the American people. We shall be glad to respond to any request for further information or more precise suggestions on any or all of these proposals.

Congress Failure To Indians Rapped At Collier Dinner

Criticism of Congress for denying appropriations to the “more creative and lifegiving parts of that Indian program which is Congress’ own” was voiced by John Collier, retired U. S. Commissioner on Indian Affairs, at a dinner in his honor at the Town Hall Club in New York City April 10, under the auspices of the American Association on Indian Affairs, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Home Missions Council, and the National Congress of American Indians. He stated that “the Indian adult education program has been largely ruled out, the land acquisition program has been stopped dead, and the Indian Service and the Indians are being forced to operate range and timber lands on an appropriation only one-sixth as large as the Forest Service receives for similar operations.”

Collier called for the settlement of Indian tribal claims, increase in education, and the end of individual allotments of land, urging that a “huge push by the Indians and all their friends is needed if the great Indian race is to march on to complete, effective freedom, and if the many tribal societies are to be integrated with the American commonwealth while still not being despoiled and corrupted.”

Virgin Islands Contempt Case Won In Philadelphia Circuit Court

Freedom of the press in the Virgin Islands was forcefully sustained in a recent decision by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia on an appeal by two Virgin Islands newspaper editors against a conviction for contempt by a Virgin Island Federal District Judge. The two editors, Canute Broadhurst, and Paul E. Joseph, were sentenced to ten days in jail in May of last year by Federal District Judge Herman E. Moore, after they had published an editorial criticizing the judge for acquitting without a jury trial a white native accused of having shot and killed a Negro. Both the editors and the judge are Negroes.

The decision of the Circuit Court held that “the action of the District Court cannot be supported upon the theory that the publication was obstructive of its processes and therefore within its inherent power to punish as contempt. The judicial proceeding which the publication criticized had been terminated by acquittal five days before the article appeared, and obviously would not have been obstructed by it.” The appeal was handled by the Virgin Islands Civic Association, an organization composed of Virgin Islanders resident in New York, assisted by attorneys for the Workers Defense League.

Page 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

American Civil Liberties Union-News Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, San Francisco, 4, i 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, under the Act of March 3, 1879.

Subscription Rates—One Dollar a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

Bridges’ Deportation Opposed In High Court

The deportation order against Harry Bridges, west coast labor leader, should be held void as a “dangerous and unconstitutional attack on free speech”, according to a brief filed in the U. S. . Supreme Court by the American Civil Liberties Union in support of Bridges’ appeal, which the court heard April 3. Signed by eight prominent attorneys from California and New York the brief attacks the Congressional act of 1940 pro| viding deportation of aliens for membership in subversive organizations, holding that the pro- vision making deportation mandatory for past membership was aimed at Bridges specifically.

Signing the brief are Attorney Bartley C. Crum of San Francisco; and Los Angeles attor- neys: A. L. Wirin; John Packard; Carey McWilliams, former Industrial Commissioner of California; Lester William Roth, former Superior Court judge; Herbert Ganahl, prominent Legionnaire; and Isaac Pacht, chairman of the California State Board of Prison Directors; as well as New York attorneys, Arthur Garfield Hays and Osmond K. Fraenkel.

The brief maintains that while citizens cannot be punished for their political beliefs, aliens can be punished by deportation under 1940 Congressional act. If the act is sustained and Bridges deported a precedent will be set for the penalty of “banishment for political belief’, which could easily be extended to citizens.

The brief makes three main points: (1) that aliens in this country should enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights, since they are pros pective American citizens, and hence the act of 1940 which bars them from joining organizations which American citizens are allowed to join ought to be held void; (2) the proposed deportation of Bridges is based upon his alleged membership in the Communist Party before 1940 when the law was passed, and hence is unconstitutional because based on “after the fact’ legislation; (3) there is no “present danger” to the government in Bridges’ alleged affiliations, since he no longer belongs to the Communist Party, if he ever did. Since no present danger exists the deportation is ‘only punitive, and cannot be applied to past offenses.”

The brief points out that two attempts to deport Bridges, one in 1934 and the other. in ’ 1939 collapsed when it was found that Bridges was not at the time a member of the Com- munist Party, in the latter case after an exhaustive hearing before Dean James M. Landis. In June, 1940, however, Congress adopted the amendment to the Alien Registration Act extending the grounds of deportation to include membership in a subversive organization at any time during an alien’s residence in the United States. After another hearing before Judge Charles Sears, Bridges was ordered deported; the order was reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals in January, 1942, and then in May, 1942, reaffirmed by the Attorney General.

The Civil Liberties Union maintains that no aliens should be deported for “mere opinion or membership in an organization, whatever its character.” Briefs as “friends of the court” were also filed by the National Lawyers’ Guild and the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born.

S. Carolina Paper Says War Objectors No Better Off Than Slaves

Taking notice of the fate of some 8,000 conscientious objectors now at forced labor in Civilian Public Service camps and hospitals, where they receive no pay, no compensation for accidents, and no allowance for dependents, the Columbia, South Carolina, State commented editorially on March 17: “Many a farmer and other operator of a business would more than gladly take over a group of workers under these con- ditions. In fact, we believe that the Negro slaves of the South fared about as well in compensation as is indicated here. They got lodging, clothing, all they could eat, and in many cases, some spending money, besides small parcels of land to work for their own benefit.”

"FRIENDS of PROGRESS" CONVICTIONS REVERSED BY THIRD DISTRICT COURT

The Third District Court of Appeal at Sacramento on April 24 reversed the convictions of nine member of the Friends of Progress (a native Fascist organization) for failing to register under the Subversive Organization Registration Act. While expressing “grave doubt” as to the constitutionality of the statute, the court merely held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the convictions.

The Southern and Northern California branches of the A.C.L.U. appeared on the appeal as friends of the court and were instrumental ‘in October and November, 1943, in securing the release on $2000 bail each of six of the accused. Of the remaining three, F. K. Ferenz remained at San Quentin and Robert Noble and Ellis O. Jones, leaders of the group, are still serving federal terms for conspiring to violate the sedition act.

Prosecuted in Sacramento

The defendants were all residents of Los Angeles county, but were prosecuted in Sacramento. The trial took on the appearance of a political prosecution and heresy hunt. All of the defendants were convicted after a 3-month trial and received maximum sentences of five years imprisonment.

The act under which they were convicted was adopted in 1941 as a proposal of Senator Jack B. Tenney, Chairman of California’s “Little Dies Committee.” 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. Tenney aimed his law at the Communists, but the only victims thus far have been the Friends of Progay No organizations have registered under the aw.

In attacking the constitutionality of the statute, the Union’s brief, signed by A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles and Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco, contended that it conflicts with the federal registration act, sweeping beyond the “carefuly devised, comprehensive and integrated federal system” into a field in which ‘Congress intended to assert both exclusive and comprehensive jurisdiction.” In addition, the brief contended the defendants were deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the “act is so vague, indefinite and uncertain” as to “impose criminal guilt without setting up any reasonable standard of guilt.”

While pointing out that it held no sympathy with the views of the appellants, the Union in its brief characterized 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.”

In a summary of the evidence against the defendants made by former State Senator J. M. Inman of Sacramento, appointed by the Superior Court to represent three of the defendants, he stated :

Ex-Senator Inman’s Opinion —

“I say, in all seriousness, that not one scintilla of evidence was offered at the trial that any of these persons were either members of such an organization (as prescribed by the law) or were members of any governing body, but on the contrary, it was shown clearly that one man and one only was in control, to wit, Robert Noble. Robert Noble leased the premises in his own name where the meetings were held. He paid the rent on the premises, arranged the programs, arranged for speakers, etc. Whatever brains there was, was the brains of Robert Noble. The people whom I represented were mere hangers-on. Not one of them was shown to have committed an overt act. None of them is more dangerous to the United States than a rabbit. Not one of them was shown to have brains or initiative enough to run anything.

“There was not one word of proof that this so-called organization advocated the overthrow of this government by force or violence, and that contention was not urged by the state, but their entire case was based upon the theory that there was some connection with a foreign government. That theory was based upon the actions of one Ferenz. Whether the proof was ‘sufficient to connect Ferenz need not be discussed. But not a word of evidence was presented to show that any of these defendants © had the faintest connection with the acts of Ferenz.

90% Guilty Before Trial

“I realized from the beginning that when a person is charged with this type:of crime, with a war raging and the public mind in a turmoil, he is ninety per cent guilty before the trial commences. I feel, for this very reason, that we should. be doubly on guard to see to it that every safeguard should be thrown around those charged with this type of crime. Had these people been charged with any other crime, or had they been thus charged in normal times, no jury, in my opinion, could have been found to convict them.

“These people were kept in jail for many months before being brought to trial, in spite of our attempts to secure that speedy trial provided by law.”

"Jim Crow" Unions Lose Standing With Manpower Commission

The War Manpower Commission last month notified all shipyards and regular Boilermakers local unions that it no longer recognizes auxiliary or “Jim: Crow” unions, and that they may no longer be used as authorized referral agencies under the Northern California Employment Stabilization Program.

This step was taken in consequence of charges by Ernest Besig, director of the Northern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, that the War Manpower Commission, through the U. S. Employment Service, was helping “Jim Crow” unions collect dues. The A.C.L.U. complaint cited the case of Bersie Coleman of San Francisco, who was refused a new job by the U.S.E.S. until he received approval of his job clearance by the Boilermakers Auxiliary. Such approval, however, was conditioned on payment of back dues, which Coleman refused to pay, on the ground that Auxiliaries deny full union rights to colored people. In addition to withdrawing recognition from the Boilermakers Auxiliary unions, the War Manpower Commission, in a circular letter signed by Sam Kagel, State Manpower Director, also notified all unions acting as referral agencies that “the Northern California Stabilization Program cannot be used for purposes of collect- ing dues or other financial obligations of a worker.” Workers desiring to leave the jurisdicion of a union, “when they have a proper War Manpower Clearance Certificate, are entitled to receive from the union immediate referral to the U. S. Employment Service, without regard to whether they have any financial obligations to the union,” Mr. Kagel declared.

Memphis Bans "Brewster's Millions" — Because of Its "Racial Mixtures"

A ban by the Memphis, Tenn., City Board of Motion Picture Censors on April 6 against the United Artists’ picture “Brewster’s . Millions” was scored by Elmer Rice, chairman of the committee on censorship of the Civil Liberties Union, in a telegram to the United Artists Corporation offering to contest the ban in the courts. The Memphis board barred the picture on the ground that it presented “too much social equality and racial mixtures.” Mr. Rice joined with Rev. John Haynes Holmes, chairman of the Board of the Civil Liberties Union, in telegraphing Edward Rafferty, president of the United Artists, offering the legal services of the ACLU. The producer is reported to be considering action. The Union also telegraphed representatives in Memphis to cooperate with any local exhibiwho might be interested in contesting the an.

The Union acted on press reports that Lloyd T. Binford, chairman of the Memphis board, had stated that the board considered the picture “inimical to the friendly relations between the races now existing here. We believe it presents too much familiarity between the races. It has Rochester in an important role. He has a much too familiar way about him, and the picture presents too much social equality and racial mixture. We don’t have any trouble with racial problems here and we don’t intend to encourage any by permitting movies like this one to be shown. “Rochester” is the stage name of Eddie Anderson, a Negro actor.