vol. 10, no. 6

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. X SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JUNE 1945 No. 6

Discharge for "Confidential" Reasons Reversed

The Industrial Employment Review Board on May 11 decided that the suspension for “con- fidential” reasons of Orlando C. Downing of San Francisco from his job at the Kaiser Shipyards on December 19, 1944, at the request of the Army, was “without sufficient cause,” and that he was accordingly entitled to be paid the amount of the actual monetary loss sustained by him because of his unemployment or change of employment resulting from the suspension. In consequence, Dowing is filing a claim for almost $600, which will undoubtedly be allowed.

This was the second job Downing had lost for “confidential reasons.’’ He worked for the Office of Censorship as a translator from January 17, 1944 to February 3, 1944, but resigned on request. Since he knew nothing in his record to warrant the mysterious charges, he finally came to the ACLU for help.

The Union secured a hearing for him before a representative of the Industrial Employment Review Board. At that hearing he was represented by Ernest Besig, local director of the Union. While the hearing officer was not permitted to reveal the contents of his file on Downing the questioning revealed the following — charges: that Downing, who holds citizenship derivately and was raised in Nicaragua, is related to people who want to bring Nicaragua under Spanish domination; that one of these relatives had written to someone in this country that “the plans” in Nicaragua were not working out; that he had said Uncle Sam was a big fool and a Santa Claus, and boasted of Nicaragua’s greatness; that he had told someone it would be easy to send information or to smuggle things across the Mexican border; and that he had talked about the Nicaraguan government in a “reactionary” manner. Of course, no information was given as to who made the charges and no witnesses appeared against Downing. He denied that he had ever made the statements credited to him, and he declared his ignorance of any plotting by relatives in Nicaragua.

Congressman Franck C. Havenner cooperated — in securing redress in the case.

Veto of Anti-Objector Bill Pending Before State Senate

Governor Earl Warren’s ringing veto of S.B. 407 has not yet been considered by the Legislature, and, at the moment, is resting on the Senate’s unfinished business file. The chances are pretty good that it will be sustained when it comes to a vote.

In its present form, requiring applicants for public jobs to declare whether they are “willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America,” the measure was adopted in the Assembly by a vote of 49 to 18 on April 27. The bill was then returned to the Senate for concurrence in Assembly amendments. There, on May 1, it was adopted by a vote of 28 to 8.

The local branch of the Union urged the governor to veto the bill on the ground that its underlying purpose is “to discriminate against persons because of their religious views.” The Union declared that there was no necessity for the legislation and that it “will simply create problems and difficulties where none previously existed.” It was suggested, too, that as a practical matter the bill would not reach political objectors whom the authors of the measure also had in mind.

‘Marine's Imprisonment Without Charges For 9 Months Brings Congressional Action

The strange case of Pvt. Morton A. Carabel, Marine Corps, who beginning July 13, 1944, was imprisoned for more than nine months before charges were filed against him, and. then only after intervention by the local branch of the Union, was tried at Mare Island last month, while at the same time in Washington, various members of the Senate and House Naval Affairs Committees, in addition to Senator Sheridan Downey and Congressman Franck Havenner, were expressing an interest in the Carabel case and requesting an explanation for the extended imprisonment without trial from General A. A. Vandegrift, Commandant of the Marine Corps.

One Charge Dismissed

The three-day trial ended on May 15, after which the court brought in a “Not Guilty” verdict on one of the charges—that Carabel absented himself nineteen hours without leave from the Oak Knoll hospital. It can be assumed that the court found Carabel guilty on the remaining five charges, since under Naval Regulations the court is compelled to make an immediate announcement of any “Not Guilty” verdicts.

The sentence will be announced by Major W. L. Erdman, Commanding Officer, Marine Barracks, Mare Island, who convened the court, after he reviews the lengthy record, which, the Union is informed, is still being prepared at this writing. The maximum punishment the court can fix is imprisonment for NO MORE THAN TWO MONTHS (Carabel has already been imprisoned for more than ten months), or a bad conduct discharge. Once the sentence is announced the case will still be reviewed by the Admiral in charge of Mare Island, the local legal office of the Navy and finally by the Judge Advocate -General’s office in Washington.

Gen’l Vandegrift Explains Delay

In a letter to Congressman Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee, which the latter forwarded to the Union, General Vandegrift took the position that “there were grounds for believing that Carabel committed several serious offenses while overseas, namely, Impersonation of an officer, Masquerading as a War Correspondent, Traveling far and wide in the combat area without proper authority, and Making false statements as to duty status. The decision as to using these charges could not. be made until the completion of an investigation requiring considerable time. The ultimate decision to try Carabel only on the charges which have been. prepared was based on the difficulty of assembling the witnesses of the other offenses rather than upon his protestations of innocence.”

General Vandegrift also pointed out that Carabel was under observation to determine his mental condition. “It is not the practice of this Headquarters,” said the letter, “to order a man’s trial when evidence indicating that he is not mentally responsible has been received. The final determination that Carabel was responsible for his acts was made by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery on 8 December 1944, when it concurred in the findings of the Board of Medical Survey made on 11 December 1944.”

Union Answers General Vandegrift

Answering General Vandegrift’s contentions, the Union wrote Congressman Vinson that even accepting the statement that the Marine Corps had to wait until Dec. 28, 1944, to establish Carabe]’s sanity, “still no satisfactory explanation is given as to why charges were not brought at that time instead of waiting almost another four months.”

The Union also took the position that the investigation of Carabel’s conduct in the South Pacific was no excuse for delaying prosecution on acts that occurred in July, 1944, and that were fully known at that time. Regulations provide that “offenses shall not be allowed to accumulate in order that sufficient matter may thus be collectively obtained for a trial”, particularly while the accused is imprisoned.

General Vandegrift, in his letter to Congressman Vinson, argued that by reason of the delay “Carabel’s punishment has been reduced rather than increased”, because instead of lumping the six charges in one trial, as was done at Carabel’s — summary court martial, they could have tried him — six different times with the possibility of two months .imprisonment on each of the charges, The Union pointed out to Congressraan Vinson, however, that Navy regulations require consolidation of charges and that it would not be lawful to order separate trials in order to increase punishment of an accused.

Denial of a Speedy Trial V Concluding the letter to Congressman Vinson, Ernest Besig, local director of the Union de-— clared: “We are seriously concerned over the un- reasonable detention and the denial of a speedy trial in this case, and our interest lies in seeking to prevent a repetition of the incident. We contend that under Article 3 of the Articles for the Government of the Navy, Carabel should have been served with specifications (charges). within a reasonable time after the first arrest was made. At least, that is the interpretation placed upon the section by the Attorney General. What is a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances of each case. Since in this case the facts with reference to the charges were fully known at the time of the arrest, no reasonable excuse can be found for the delay.

“It would seem to me that in the light of this case, some provision ought to be made in Navy Regulations setting a time limit for the serving of the specifications (charges) after the first arrest has been made, at least, where the arrest does not take place in a war zone. Here in California, a person must be arraigned within three days, and unless a trial takes place within 60 days a motion for dismissal will be granted.

While I feel that the regulations and adjudicated | cases already require speedy trials, in view of the Carabel case, the requirement ought to be made more specific.”

Always a Prisoner

Up to May 15, 1945, Carabel had spent exactly — ‘223 days in the hospital and 85 days in the brig.

But, Carabel during this entire period was always a prisoner, and in the hospital he was placed in a locked ward and granted no liberties or privileges such as are given ordinary patients. In fact, according to Carabel’s testimony, he spent almost half of his brig time in a cell by himself where he was denied reading and writing privileges and the right to smoke. At the present time, Carabel is hospitalized for acute arthritis. —

The five charges on which Carabel has apparently been found guilty are as follows: that he reported five days late at the Oak Knoll Hospital in Oakland, after being transferred from Hawaii suffering from combat fatirue: that he had a bottle of intoxicating liquor for bevcrasc purposes in his suitcase while at the hospital: that he arrived in this country wearing improper clothing, including a correspondent’s brassard; that he informed a Marine Corps public relations officer that he had received a medical survey out of the Marine Corps; and that in June, 1943,

(Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

ACLU Aids Negro Teachers | In U.S. Circuit Court

Discrimination in pay against Negro school teachers by the Little Rock, Ark. school board is attacked in a brief filed in the U. S. Circuit Court by the American Civil Liberties Union on an appeal heard May 7 in St. Paul, Minn. The Civil Liberties Union brief as a friend of the court supports the appeal of Negro school teachers of Little Rock, represented by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in a suit to force the Little Rock school board to stop discriminating. Both parties agree that discrimination on the basis of race is illegal; but the U. S. District Court for Eastern Arkansas last year upheld the school board’s claim that its salary schedule was based entirely upon individual merit regardless of race.

The Civil Liberties Union brief points out that according to the salary schedules established by the Little Rock board, (1) white teachers are always paid more than colored teachers, (2) experienced Negro high school teachers receive less than inexperienced white elementary teachers, (3) salary increases have been made on a racial basis, and (4) the board admitted that it would never pay a Negro teacher as much as a white teacher in the same category. It concludes that the board is merely “rationalizing in an attempt to conceal discrimination.”

The brief for the Civil Liberties Union is signed by St. Louis attorneys Luther E. Smith and Victor Harris, and New York attorney Nanette Dembritz.

Federal Power Over Local Officers Upheld, But Court Orders New Trial

A five to four decision of the U. S. Supreme Court on May 7 ordering new trials for three Georgia law officers who beat a Negro prisoner

this case.”

to death was lauded by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for establishing the constitutionality of the use of federal law against local officials. The decision was, however, criticized for “a narrow application of the law to Claude Screws, Sheriff of Baker County, -Georgia,. policeman Frank Jones, and special deputy Jim Kelley had appealed to the high court against a conviction under a federal law passed in reconstruction days providing $1,000 fine or a year in jail for anyone who under color of law “wilfully” deprives a citizen of his constitutional rights. They were convicted after having beaten to death Robert Hall, a handcuffed prisoner.

Justice Jackson for the majority held that “to convict it was necessary for the jury to find that the petitioners had the purpose to deprive the prisoner of a constitutional right.” In view — of the word ‘wilfully,” he said, the jury should have been “further instructed that it was not sufficient that the petitioners had a generally bad purpose.”

In a separate dissent Justice Murphy held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the three officers. Justices Frankfurter, Roberts -and Jackson held that the officers should not have been indicted at all, since the federal law applies only to “deprivations of federal rights by State law and was not extended to breaches of State law by its officials.”

Civil Liberties Union attorneys say the decision is important because it will permit the Civil Rights Section of the Department of Justice to continue its efforts to deal with lawlessness by local officials, and indicated that it should not be too difficult to prove “wilful” . intent. The new interpretation of the law will probably meet its first test on the retrial of the three officers in Georgia.

ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP FOR ALIEN PACIFISTS MAY GO TO SUPREME COURT

Whether a pacifist who refuses to bear arms in defense of the country can be admitted to citizenship is the question at issue on an appeal scheduled for hearing in the U. S. Circuit Court in Boston in the near future. The government is appealing from the decision of the Federal District Court at Boston on August 1 last year admitting to citizenship James Girouard, a Seventh Day Adventist, who refused to take an oath implying willingness to bear arms. The American Civil Liberties Union is supporting Girouard in the Circuit Court, and will aid in carrying the case to the Supreme Court in the hope of reversing the high court’s decision in the Macintosh and Schwimmer cases during the 1920’s, in which the court held 5 to 4 that aliens refusing to bear arms could not be admitted to citizenship.

CONVICTION REVERSED IN FIRST TREASON CASE EVER REVIEWED BY SUPREME COURT

By a 5 to 4 vote the U. S. Supreme Court recently reversed the conviction of Anthony Cramer, German-born naturalized citizen, in the first treason case ever to be reviewed by the high court. Cramer. was convicted in the lower courts of having given aid and comfort to two of the eight Nazi saboteurs who landed in the U. S. in June 1942, and sentenced to forty-five years and $10,000 fine.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Jackson and supported by Justices Roberts, Frankfurter, Murphy, and Rutledge, pointed out that a conviction for treason requires that two witnesses establish an overt act. It stated that two FBI agents had testified that Cramer met two of the Nazi agents on different occasions in public bars and engaged in long conversations with them. It continued: “This is the sum of the overt acts established by the testimony of the two witnesses. There is no two-witness proof of what they said nor in what language they conversed. There is no showing that Cramer gave then any information whatever of value to their mission, or indeed that he had any to give. No effort at secrecy is shown, for they met in public places. Cramer furnished them no — shelter, nothing that can be called sustenance or supplies.”

A dissenting opinion written by Justice Douglas and supported by Justices Black and Reed as well as Chief Justice Stone, held that “The grossest and most dangerous act of treason may be, as in this ease, and often is, innocent on its face.”

The only other treason conviction in this war to reach the Supreme Court was that of Max Stephen, Detroit restaurant keeper, which the Court declined to review. His death sentence was commuted by President Roosevelt to life imprisonment.

ACLU TO URGE REPEAL OF ORIENTAL EXCLUSION ACT

Repeal of the oriental exclusion act rather than piece-meal exemptions of different oriental nationalities will be promoted by the American Civil Liberties Union, according to a decision by its Board of Directors. A bill to repeal the act is being drafted and efforts will be made to introduce it in the present session of Congress for consideration with other post-war immigration legislation now under consideration by the House Immigration Committee.

The Union noted the failure in Congress of bills to exempt East Indians and Koreans from the oriental exclusion act following the repeal of the Chinese exclusion laws and concluded that piece-meal action in Congress is politically unlikely, and furthermore unfair in singling out particular nationalities. The chances for repealing the entire act, according to the Union, are -as good as action to exempt individual countries. An exception has been properly made, according to the Union, in the case of the Philippines because of its special relationship to the United States. A bill to admit resident Filipinos to Am-erican citizenship has passed the House and is pending with fair prospects in the Senate. A ype quota of 100 was fixed in previous legisation.

Review of State Legislation Affecting Civil Liberties

In addition to the anti-objector bill, the only suppressive measure that presently threatens in the State Legislature is 8.B. 629, introduced by Senators Tenney, Burns, and Dilworth of “Little Dies Committee” fame. That bill would prohibit the use of civic centers by so-called subversive . elements, and, for the purpose of determining the character of applicants, school boards would be permitted to require affidavits “stating facts showing whether or not such person or organization is a subversive element.” A “subversive element”’ is defined as an individual or organization which advocates or has as one of its objects the violent’ overthrow of our present government. Since the use of civic centers is already denied to such individuals and groups, the only new element in the proposal is the affidavit that may be required of applicants. The bill was adopted in the Senate by a 27-0 vote on May 1. At this writing, it is still pending before the Assembly Education Committee.

Senator Hugh M. Burns of Fresno on May 19 introduced S.B. 1293, amending the Alien Land Law. It would ban “dual citizens” ineligible to naturalization from holding real property by extending the prohibitions of the existing law to “any person of Japanese ancestry or other ancestry ineligible> to citizenship under the naturalization laws of the United States who owes any allegiance to any foreign government, emperor, prince or potentate .. .” It is highly doubtful whether the measure will get very far.

The Fair Employment Practice Commission bill, A.B. 3, is still pending before the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, with little or no chance of being adopted. Before the same committee is A.B. 1399, which sets up a commission to investigate racial discrimination. Even that bill, which has administration support, is marking time.

Supreme Court Denies Review In ‘Friends of Progress' Case

The California Supreme Court on May 24, by a 4 to 3 vote, turned down the petition of Attorney General Robert W. Kenny to review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeals in setting aside the convictions in 1942 of nine members of the Friends of Progress, including Robert Noble and Ellis O. Jones, for failing to register under the Subversive Organizations Registration Act. The Third District Court, while expressing ‘grave doubts” as to the constitutionality of the law, reversed the convictions on the ground that the evidence against — the defendants was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Chief Justice Gibson and Justices Trayor, Carter and Schauer voted against reviewing the case, while Justices Shenk, Edmunds and Spence voted to grant a hearing.

The Northern and Southern California branches of the Union, which had appeared in the District Court as amicus curiae, filed a brief in the Supreme Court opposing the granting of a hearing.

“The conviction of the defendants,” said the brief, “constitutes the sole war casualty to the Bill of Rights suffered in the California state courts during this war. Prosecuted hundreds of miles from their homes, without friends and funds, the conviction of the defendants represents the results of a trial by prejudice rather than a judgment comporting with the elementary principles of due process or the rudimentary demands of American fair play.

“This court ought not te dignify, what has at all times been an unwarranted and uncon- scionable prosecution against persons solely because of their opinions, by granting a hearing, and thus requiring further litigation on the matter.

Attorneys A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles and Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco signed the brief.

Separation of Church And State Argued In N. J. Case

The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals in Trenton was urged to declare unconstitutional a 1941 New Jersey law permitting the use of public funds to pay transportation to denominational schools, in a brief filed recently by the American Civil Liberties Union The case was argued May 12. The ACLU brief as a friend of the court supported a suit by Arch Everson of Ewing, New Jersey, to prevent the Ewing Board of Education from paying transportation for pupils attending parochial schools in Trenton, New Jersey.

The Civil Liberties Union brief holds that the | case could be decided merely on a provision in the New Jersey Constitution forbidding the use of educational funds. “for any purpose whatsoever save for the support of free public schools.” It adds that a more important constitutional issue is involved since the 1941 law violates the “traditional American principle of separation of church and state”.

The case reached the Court of Errors and Appeals on appeal taken by the school board from a 2 to 1 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court last fall which held the 1941 law unconstitutional. signed by Joseph B. Tyler, Trenton attorney. —

The Civil Liberties Union brief was | AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page 3

Pacifist Lawyer's Appeal Heard In U. S. Supreme Court

The refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to admit a pacifist lawyer to the bar was scored as an “unconstitutional attack upon religious liberty’ in a recent argument before the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Clyde Summers. Applying for admission to the Illinois bar in 1943, after he had been classified as a conscientious objector by his draft board, he was turned down by a Committee on Character on the ground that peceem unfitted him. The finding was upheld y the Illinois Supreme Court. Julien Cornell, New York attorney and counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. 4

Maintaining that the main question was whether the state can “penalize a person for holding an unpopular religious belief by denying him the right to practice law’, he continued: “In matters of conscience the state has no powers of regulation and may not interfere with the sacred right of the individual to recognize and follow a duty which is higher than his duty to the State”. He pointed out that the Illinois Supreme Court was not only penalizing Summers for religious belief, but depriving him of followae calling for which he was admittedly qualiied.

The brief for Summers was signed by Illinois attorneys Alfred T. Carton, Francis Heisler and Charles Liebman, and New York attorneys Charles Finch, Clifford Forster and Arthur Garfield Hays.

porting Summers was submitted by Prof. Zechariah Chafee, Jr., of Harvard University and Harold Evans, Philadelphia lawyer, on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee. —

ACLU Raises Issues of Race And Religion in Federal Aid for Schools

Two Senate bills providing federal aid to the states for the support of schools were criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union in letters to the Senate Education and Labor Committee on May 25. Hearings on the bills, 8S. 181, and 8. 717 have been concluded, but they have not yet been reported out. The ACLU said it was “wholly opposed” to a provision permitting federal aid to private schools, as the “separation of church and state demands that no public money be appropriated for private religious schools. This is the traditional position throughout the country, buttressed by all but a few state constitutions and statutes.”

Noting that provision is made in both bills for aid to racially segregated schools, the ACLU said: “We deplore the policy of racial segregation, and would urge that the federal government should not be a party to it by assisting a system which inevitably provides inferior schooling for minority races. But we appreciate the great need for additional school funds, and that as a practical matter the abolition of segregation will be a lengthy process in law and custom. We are not, therefore, opposing the bill on that ground.”

Dealing with opposition to federal aid on the ground of interference with states’ rights, the ACLU observed: “Such pleas seem to us wholly specious in view of federal aid to the states in so many other fields which has not had the effect of impairing local autonomy. No federal control of teaching or teachers is implied and the states and school districts would obviously be zealous to preserve their rights.”

“DEWOLF ADDRESSES ACLU MEETING ON WORLD FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

Francis C. DeWolf, chief of the Communications Division of the U. S. State Department, was the chief speaker at a luncheon meeting on “World Freedom of Speech and Press,” under the auspices of the ACLU at the Town Hall Club in New York May 16. The meeting was presided over by Rev. John Haynes Holmes, chairman of the ACLU Board, and heard addresses by James Lawrence Fly, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Arthur DeBra of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America; Cranston Williams, general manager of the American Newspaper Publishers Ass’n.; and Morris L. Ernst ACLU counsel.

The meeting was called to discuss proposals for freedom of communications between the nations of the world in relation to the United Nations Conference in San Francisco, with special stress on the right of American audiences to read, see, and hear all news and opinion from abroad by cable, radio, mail and films, Discus‘sion followed the speeches. The proceedings were broadcast over station WNYC in New York.

A brief as a friend of the court sup

Conscientious Objectors

TEXT OF GOVERNOR WARREN'S VETO | MESSAGE TO LEGISLATURE ON S. B. 407

May 15, 1945 To the Honorable Members of the Senate, State of California, Sacramento, California:

GREETINGS: I am returning herewith, without my approval, Senate Bill No. 407, entitled: “An act to add Section 1225 to the Government Code, relating to public office and employment,” first, because in my opinion it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California; and second, because it would accomplish no public purpose. To many people a casual reading of the bill would not disclose these defects, and I will therefore give my reasons for vetoing it somewhat in detail.

The bill as originally introduced provided that all conscientious objectors who claim and are granted exemption from military service during World War No. 2 are ineligible thereafter to any State or local office or employment. The constitutionality of the bill was ¢estioned and the Legislative Counsel, by his »pinion which appears in the Senate Journal of April 23, 1945, confirmed the objection. The bill was then amended in the Assembly in order to accomplish the same purpose and at the same time avoid the constitutional objection. As finally adopted, it provides that every candidate for public office, every appointee to public office, and every applicant for employment by the State or any political subdivision, municipal cor-. poration or public district or corporation shall be required to answer in writing and file his answer to the following question: “If necessary, are you willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America?”

It is obvious, therefore, that in final form the bill seeks to accomplish by indirection what it could not constitutionally accomplish directly. That is to say, instead of prohibiting a conscientious objector from holding public office or employment, it compels him to publicize his minority religious beliefs in a manner which would as effectively prevent his election or appointment thereto.

The main question in determining the desirability of such legislation is whether it conforms to the letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing to every American freedom of worship according to his own conscience. Particularly is this true when we are in the middle of a terrible world war wherein people of all religions are joined together under the banner of the United Nations for the preservation of the Four Freedoms, among which is the Freedom of Religion—not just your religion and mine, but all religion. Bearing on this subject is the first sentence of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States (Amendment I) reading as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * *”. More specifically, however, the Constitution of California, in its “Declaration of Rights,” Article I, Section 4, provides that “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this State * * *’. Article XX, Section 3, further provides: “Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation. ‘I: do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of = according to the best of my ability.’ And no other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.”

In the spirit of the Bill of Rights, Congress has, -in all of the important wars, made provision for those having religious scruples against nearing arms. In this war it has provided in the Selective Service Act, Subdivision “g” of Section 309, Title 50, that “Nothing contained in this ‘act shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” It then further provides for such persons other types of service in furtherance of the war effort. As a result, many of them are today serving on battlefields in am| bulance units, as stretcher bearers and on other dangerous missions of mercy.

Shall persons who thus exercise their conStitutional and statutory rights in connection with their religion be held up to public scorn — merely for doing so? I cannot believe that it is in the interest of the public welfare to so punish them. By this I do not imply that I share their beliefs. My own religion and my sense of loyalty to my country impel me to bear arms. I did so in the last war and would willingly do so now. My only son of military age, according to his own desires and to my great satifaction, is now bearing arms in the Pacific. It is difficult for me as an individual to understand how others cannot conscientiously do the same thing. On — the other hand, I am convinced that there are people who do so believe and whose beliefs are as sincere as my own and those who agree with me. Happily, from my point of view, they are decidedly in the minority, because otherwise we might not have achieved victory over the cruel Nazis. I am told that fewer than one in a thousand registrants have asked for and received such exemptions.

In the last analysis, the question resolves itself into whether we shall punish throughout their lives those who hold such beliefs. I am Satisfied that the people of our country do not find it in their hearts to do so, and I would regret seeing California, which has always been distinguished by religious tolerance, initiate a type of legislation which might degenerate into “witch-hunting.” From such a statute might flow efforts to require applicants for the public service to answer other questions concerning their religions and consciences. I am sure the proponents of this bill have no such designs, but flood-gates opened carelessly occasion the same damage as if they were opened intentionally. I believe the sponsors originally intended to keep out of the public service, not those who are serving as stretcher-bearers and medical attendants on the field of battle, but those who refuse to bear arms for their country under the guise of religious belief against war and without actually having such conscientious scruples. Such persons, of course, are fakers and deserve the contempt of all people. On the other hand, there are also those who from the same base motives and without just reasons claim exemption from military service on the grounds of — dependency, occupation, physical disability, etc. But we should not taint all who have fairly exercised their rights under the statutes merely because of the derelictions of a comparative few.

I cannot escape the conclusion that this bill would operate only against the person of true religious conviction because he would be the only one to answer the.question truthfully when seeking a public position. The fakers and the subversives would lie to accomplish their ends. It would therefore serve no useful purpose.

I trust that on consideration of this veto message the Legislature will bear in mind the great objectives of the war and the things that are making it possible for us to win. To my mind one of the most fundamental things we are fighting for is to retain the right we have always had in America to believe and live according to our religion and our individual consciences. We have been successful in this war beyond imagination and almost entirely because we have achieved unity—the unity of people of all races and of all religious beliefs—a unity that would be shaken, if not shattered, by legis- lation of this character.

Respectfully submitted, EARL WARREN, Governor

U. S. SUPREME COURT REFUSES HEARING TO WAR OBJECTOR IN ARMY

Review of the case of a conscientious objector in the U. S. Army sentenced to prison by a court martial, although he had refused to take the oath of induction, was refused by the U. S. Supreme Court on April 30. The court denied a petition by the National Committee on Conscientious Objectors for Antonio Catavolo of Suffolk County, Mass. Catavolo was sentenced in a Louisiana army camp, and appealed for release on the ground he had not become a soldier. The U. S. District Court in Louisiana freed him, but was reversed on the government’s appeal, the Circuit Court holding that he had become a sol- dier by receiving army pay.

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 i American Civil Liberties Union. : Phone: EXbrook 1818

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.

NEW MASSACHUSETTS LAW AIMED TO EASE BOSTON CENSORSHIP

A Massachusetts law signed by Governor Maurice Tobin on May 8and8 providing for civil actions against allegedly obscene books may abolish the unofficial censorship under which numerous best-sellers have been banned in Boston, but it may also, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, substitute an easier cen: sorship in law. The ACLU characterized the new law as “adding a civil obscenity action against books to the already existing criminal obscenity action against booksellers. It will ' probably be easier to get a jury to convict a book than a bookseller.” On this ground the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union declined to support the bill, backed by the Boston booksellers and the Massachusetts Library Associa tion. 2

Boston censorship has been based on an understanding between the police and booksellers that books complained of would be removed from sale to avoid prosecution. Few booksellers could be found to challenge the system. One in Cambridge sold “Strange Fruit,” and is now before the State Supreme Court on appeal from a conviction.

The new law provides that any questionable book may be brought into court by a district attorney, and banned from sale by a temporary order, based on the old obscenity law. A subsequent trial on appeal, with right to a jury, would determine the final action, subject of course to possible appeal to the State Supreme Court.

COURT UPHOLDS FREE SPEECH . FOR TRADE UNIONISTS |

5

Freedom of speech for members of trade unions was affirmed by the Delaware County, Pa., Common Pleas Court in a decision handed down recently in the suit of Philip L. Trainer of Chester, Pa., for reinstatement in the Motion Picture Operators Union Local 116 (AFL). The decision, however, resulted in Trainer’s expulsion from the union for the second time, sincé the court held that it could not. pass on his reinstatement until he had exhausted all his remedies inside the union. Roger N. Baldwin, Union director, commented that “the decision upholds Trainer’s rights in theory and deprives him of them in fact.”

Trainer was expelled in 1937 and reinstated in 1938 after he had signed an agreement waiv: ing his right to “voice and vote” in the union: The Delaware County Court voided the agree/ment on the ground that “all members of unions must be permitted to participate freely in the government of the union. . . . The agreement before us is subversive of the very purpose of the union and in consequence detrimental to the public interest.” Voiding the agreement leaves Trainer an expelled member. Since the Motion Picture local has a closed shop in Trainer’s area, he will not be able to obtain employment there.

The ACLU filed a brief as a friend of the court and will support him in any appeal to a higher court.

CHICAGO CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE DISAFFILIATES FROM NATIONAL ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union announced recently the withdrawal of the Chicago Civil Liberties from affiliation with the national organization with which it had been associated since its origin twenty years ago. The action of the Chicago Committee follows an attempt by the national office of the Union to conduct an inquiry into dissensions within the Committee based on charges of political partisanship. According to a circular announc: ing the disaffiliation sent to members of the American Civil Liberties Union in the Chicago area, “the Union was unable to secure the cooperation of the Chicago Committee in any inquiry at all.” The Chicago Committee concluded that it could “serve the cause of civil liberties more effectively if it is entirely free of the restraints imposed by such affiliation.”

Marine's Imprisonment V rings Congressional Action

For 9 Months B ithout Charges

(Continued from Page One)

in a written application for officer’s training he had falsely represented that he was a graduate of Georgetown University.

Prosecutor’s Recommendation Rejected

The prosecutor or recorder, as he is known in Naval parlance, recommended against a finding of guilt on two of the six charges, but the court accepted only one of the recommendations. Carabel was apparently found guilty of neglecting to report to the Oak Knoll Hospital for five days. after arriving at Treasure Island by air on July 5, 1944. But the prosecution’s own witness, the Secretary to the Hospital’s commanding officer, testified that Carabel had telephoned to her twice a day from July 5 to July 8 in an effort to get into the hospital, until she became annoyed at his persistence. She also testified that she had advised him they had no orders to accept him, refused him transportation and generally discouraged him from coming. He was finally admitted after she discussed the matter with the Commanding Officer, who had been absent on the occasion of the previous telephone calls. When he did arrive at the hospital, Carabel, although only a private, was assigned to Sick Officers Quarters, on the strength of a letter he presented from Capt. Sears, head of the Naval Hospital in Hawaii. It would seem from the court’s action, however, that in order to abide by his orders Carabel was expected to blast his way into the Oak Knoll Hospital.

There is also a serious question whether the accused was mentally reponsible for any offenses with which he is charged. Shortly after his arrest two of the doctors who examined him came to the conclusion that he was a manic depressive. Subsequently, however, a medical survey decided he was sane, but that conclusion was not reached until five months after the alleged offenses were committed.

Deprived of Fair Trial

In arguing for dismissal of the charges, Carabel’s counsel declared that in the nature of | things he was deprived of a fair trial. Through no fault of his own, four of the witnesses for the defense were no longer in the area, and their . testimony could have been secured only by deposition. That would have meant a further delay of months, and since the maximum incarceration Carabel faced was two months it did not seem right to prolong his imprisonment. It was also obvious at the hearing that with the passage of time the memories of witnesses become dimmed and evidence disappears. Curiously enough, the prosecution was unable to produce the bottle of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes which the accused was charged with having in his possession at the hospital. In short, the denial of a speedy trial resulted in denying Carabel a fair trial.

Carabel has been in the Marine Corps for over two years. Until he was arrested in July, 1944, he had never been in any trouble and had built up an excellent service record. In civilian life, Carabel was a newspaperman and: lecturer. During the time he was in the Marine Corps he entered into a contract with Doubleday, Doran and Company to write “a non-fiction book based on life in the Marines,” all with the consent of his commanding officer.

, The members of the court were Major Thad T. Taylor, Capt. William O. Craddock and Capt. Lloyd G. Wathem. The prosecutor was Capt. Warren Olney III of Berkeley, former deputy Attorney General of California

UNION SUPPORTS BILL FOR VOTE ON PUERTO RICO'S FUTURE

A bill introduced by Senator Millard E. Tydings of Maryland on request of all political parties in Puerto Rico to permit the people of the island to determine their future political status was hailed as the “obvious common sense solution” by the American Civil Liberties Union in a letter to the senator on May 25, asking to be represented at hearings before the Senate Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs. The bill provides that the Puerto Ricans may choose between independence, statehood, or dominion status, or reject them all.

The bill provides that in any event there will be guarantees of civil liberties, military bases for the United States, and economic aid to insure the island’s self-support. The bill expresses for the first. time an agreement among all the lead- ing political parties of Puerto Rico, as well as the unanimous sentiment of the legislature. It is understood that only the small Nationalist Party, led by Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos, now virtually exiled in the United States, is demanding immediate and unqualified independence.

It is unlikely that hearings will be held on the bill until the return of Senator Tydings from the Philippines. Efforts are being made to arouse widespread support in the United States, with particular reference to the relation to the Good Neighbor policy of a solution of the Puerto Rico problem.

A delegation from the island’s legislature, headed by Senate President Luis Munoz Marin, presented the bill to Senator Tydings and addressed a Senate sub-committee.

C. O. Dependency Case Appealed To United States Circuit Court

Release from detention in a Civilian Public Service camp for Shirley Bodenstein, conscientious objector whose wife and child are on public relief, is urged in a, brief filed in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, at Philadelphia by the National Committee on Conscientious Objectors in a case set for June hearings. The brief maintains that conscientious objectors are entitled to deferment in dependency cases in view of the fact that they receive no pay and no dependency allowance from the government, and hence have no way of providing for their families when drafted. The appeal is from a decision denying Bodenstein a writ of habeas corpus by the Western Pennsylvania Federal District Court earlier this year.

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT OF PACIFIST TEACHER’S CASE IS DROPPED

An appeal to the U. 8S. Supreme Court against the decision of the Florida Supreme Court upholding the dismissal of Edward Schweitzer, Dade County, Fla. school teacher after his draft © board classified him as a conscientious objector, © has been dropped by the National Committee on Conscientious Objectors for technical reasons. A petition for a Supreme Court hearing was scheduled for filing early this year, when a review of the record of the case in the lower courts revealed that the constitutional issues had not been properly raised.

The appeal to the high court of Clyde Summers, Illinois lawyer refused admittance to the bar because he was pacifist, heard on April 26, may settle the issue raised by the Schweitzer case.

Executive Committee Northern California Branch American Civil Liberties Union

Hon. Jackson H. Ralston Honorary Chairman Sara Bard Field Honorary Member Rt. Rev. Edw. L. Parsons Chairman Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn. Helen, Salz Vice-Chairman Joseph S. Thompson Secretary-Treasurer Ernest Besig Director Philip Adams John H. Brill H, C. Carrasco Wayne M. Collins James J. Cronin, Jr. Rev. Oscar F. Green Morris M. Grupp Prof. Ernest R. Hilgard Ruth Kingman Ralph N, Kleps Dr, Edgar A. Lowther Mrs. Bruce Porter Clarence E. Rust Rabbi Irving F. Reichert Dr. Howard Thurman Kathleen Drew Tolman