vol. 6, no. 1

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. VI SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JANUARY, 1941 No. 1

OKIE BAN BEFORE HIGH COURT

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Review Marysville Case

The United States Supreme Court on December 16 decided to review the constitution- ality of California’s so-called anti-Okie law which makes it a crime to aid an indigent person to enter the State of California. The question arises in the case of Fred F. Ed- wards of Marysville, California, who on February 17, 1940, was convicted of violating the law in the Justice Court of that city. A six months’ jail sentence was suspended, and an appeal was taken to the Superior Court of Yuba County. Judge Warren Steel on June 24 upheld the law in order to make “possible a further appeal to and review by the courts of higher jurisdiction.’’ The present appeal which has just been allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court resulted.

Unwelcome Okies Deported

‘The law has served as a means of deporting unwelcome Okies and Arkies from Cali- fornia. Enacted in 1933, it remained a dead letter until it was resurrected in Tulare and Kings Counties in November and December of 1939. In a score of cases, dust-bowlers whose only crime had been to give other migrants lifts across the State line in their - ramshackle cars were arrested and convicted in summary fashion. In each case, except the present one, the sentence was suspended on condition that all involved leave the State at once.

The Facts

The facts in the Edwards case are not in dispute. As stipulated on appeal by the at- torneys, they read as follows:

“The Appellant, Fred F. Edwards, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the State of California, left Marysville, California, on December 21, 1939, for Spur, Texas. The object of this trip was to bring his wife’s brother, Frank Duncan, a citizen of the United States and Texas, back to Marysville. Appellant arrived at Spur, Texas, on December 24, 1939, and learned that Duncan then had no job and had last been employed by the W.P.A. Appellant at that time learned that Duncan was an indigent person and at all times mentioned herein, appellant knew Duncan to be indigent. It was agreed between Duncan and appellant that appellant would drive Duncan from Spur, Texas, to Marysville, California, in appellant’s car. Appellant and Duncan left Spur, Texas, on January 1, 1940, entered California from Yuma, Arizona, on January 3, 1940, and arrived in Marysville on January 5, 1940. At the time Duncan arrived in Marysville he was without funds and lived at appellant’s home until he was given assistance by the Farm Security Administration about ten days after his arrival in Marysville. Duncan had no employment after his arrival in California, until after he was given assistance by the Farm Security Administration. Duncan had about twenty dollars ($20.00) when he left Spur, Texas; this money was all spent before his arrival at Marysville.”

The A.C.L.U. has challenged the constitutionality of the law, on the ground, among other reasons, that it abridges the privilege or immunity of citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment of moving freely from one state to another.

Basic Right Involved

The petition on appeal argued that “‘California obviously seeks here to prevent indi- rectly what it cannot prevent directly; it attempts to prevent indigent persons from taking up residence in California by intimidating those who would assist them. There can be no legal objection to a reasonable (Continued on Page 4, Col 3)

State Supreme Court Grants Hearing in Citizenship Case

The California Supreme Court on December 16 granted a hearing in the case of George Bogunovich who was denied citizenship because he subscribed to a Jugoslavian Communist paper in 1932. Oral arguments are expected to be heard at the March term of the Supreme Court. A.C.L.U. Attorney Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco is appearing for Bogunovich.

CALIF. LEGISLATURE FACES REPRESSIVE MEASURES

An unusual number of repressive and red-baiting bills are expected to be introduced at the regular session of the California Legislature that opens this month. As- semblyman Jack Tenney has already announced. that he will sponsor a ‘‘Little Dies Committee” witch hunt, and the American Legion’s program will again include proposals to require foreign language papers to carry translations of every story, and all foreign language radio broadcasts to be rebroadcast in English. Assemblyman Seth Millington is expected to introduce another compulsory flag saluting bill, and some effort will no doubt be made to outlaw unpopular political groups.

The A.C.L.U. will again have Ernest Besig in Sacramento from time to time to oppose any repressive bills that are introduced. The next issue of the ‘News’ will carry a summary of all bills affecting civil liberties.

No. 1

Gov. Olson Pardons 6 More C. S. Victims

California’s Governor Culbert L. Olson on December 24 granted full and unconditional pardons to six more victims of the criminal syndicalism law, bringing to twelve the number pardoned during 1940. Six others secured their pardons on June 26, 1940. Ten of the twelve filed their applications with the assistance of the A.C.L.U. In each case, the Governor acted on a favorable recommendation of the Advisory Pardon Board. “

The latest recipients of the pardons are Hagbard Edwards, Henry Matlin, Fred W. Thompson, John G. Wieler, Robert Woods and Peter Wukusich. All six were convict-ed in the early ’20s and have been out of prison for approximately Loeuearc, A

bership in the Industrial Workers of the World, and he was convicted for membership in the Communist Labor Party.

‘In addition to the foregoing cases, the Advisory Pardon Board on October 29, 1940, acted favorably on the pardon application of Bernard Kyler who was convicted on C. 8. charges for membership in the I.W.W. in 1923. The case now awaits action by Governor Olson.

About to be filed with the Governor is a pardon application on behalf of Thomas Connors, who was convicted of attempting to influence a juror in a criminal syndical- ism trial. The nature of that ‘“‘offense”’ is clearly indicated in the following letter filed by Mr. Connors with the Governor:

“The crime of ‘attempting to influence a juror’ of which I was convicted on June 2, 1925, is supposed to have been committed when I was Secretary of the California Branch of the General Defense Committee. Said committee was supplying legal defense, bail, and prison comforts for several hundred workingmen being prosecuted under the ‘California Criminal Syndicalism Statute.’

“At the time I had prepared many leaflets and circular letters with a dual purpose in mind. First: To aid in raising funds with which to carry on our work. Second: To create a public opinion that would assist us in our endeavors.

“Much of the distribution of these circulars was accomplished with the aid of local labor union committees in several California cities. Some of these committees used mailing lists derived from phone books, voting lists or other easily acquired address records. I had no control over this phase of circulation.

“However, one potential juror in Sacramento, where cases under the Criminal Syndicalism Statute were pending, did receive a leaflet via mail. It mentioned a case on trial in Sacramento. That leaflet may have been mailed from any of a score of sources, I have never been able to ascertain where. I did serve two years in San Quen- tin Prison for its activity.”

“cept WukuSich were convicted for mem

Page 2

Bees the A.C.L.U. Intervene In Cases of Injustice?

Apparently the notion is current that the Union is prepared to aid those who feel that they have been ill-treated in one way or another. On numerous occasions we have been faced with the question, “Will the A.C.L.U. help or attempt to secure redress for anyone who has suffered an injustice?”

Quite often, for example, persons having difficulty in establishing or maintaining their relief status come to use for advice. Or, John Doe at the State prison is eligible for parole but can’t get the necessary job to secure his release, and wants us to help him. Just last month a San Quentin inmate serving a murder sentence wanted our help in securing a parole on account of his poor health. Not infrequently people who have been defrauded of their property turn to us for relief.

The answer to such appeals is, of course, that regardless of what merit there may be in the specific claim of injustice, unless the ease lies within the civil liberties field, the A.C.L.U. cannot undertake to intervene. Even on the part of our members and friends, there is occasionally confusion as to the Union’s function. At various times the question has been raised why the A.C.L.U. is not participating in the defense of some poor unfortunate who has gotten into difficulties with some agency of the government. The same answer holds good here. Unless the facts show that a specific civil liberties issue is involved, it is neither the duty nor the province of the A.C.L.U. to enter the case.

Likewise, we have been reproached for not affiliating with organizations which make the defense of civil liberties an integral part of their program and work. Again the answer is that while we may be sympathetic to much of their work, we cannot as an organization undertake direct support of a program which goes beyond the scope of our work. For example, the members of the A.C.L.U. no doubt approve

ian countries. As an organization, we are prepared to help refugees should they be- come victims of governmental oppression or racial bigotry once they are here. But, as an organization we could not devote our funds or efforts to the problem of bringing them here or caring for them..

“Tn all the years since its origin, the Union has steadfastly maintained its single purpose of defending the principles of the Bill of Rights without compromise, favorit- ism or partisanship. .

“Its interpretation of ‘civil liberty’ covers the right to organize, to conduct propaganda, and to engage in all sorts of economic and political activities short of violence, attempted violence, personal libel or obscenity. Its guarantees forbid discrimination on the ground of religion or race. They exclude all advance censorship of publication or distribution.”

Our job, then, is to help keep open the avenues of free speech, and to defend the other liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As an organization, the Union is interested in cases of injustice only so far as they involve violations of the Bill of Rights.

FINGERPRINTING PRACTICE TESTED IN LOS ANGELES COURT

A test case to determine the legality of fingerprinting of persons arrested and charged only with the violation of a local ordinance is pending in the Los Angeles Municipal Court. The suit, sponsored by the Southern California branch of the Civil Liberties Union, was brought against former Police Chief David A. Davidson, in behalf of Frank Walsh, arrested when he delivered a speech in Pershing Square Park.

Charged with a violation of the ordinance prohibiting loitering, Walsh was acquitted. The court action seeks damages on the grounds that fingerprinting under such cir- cumstances constitutes an infringement of civil liberty.

emmeitaorimittees set up in this COW; -veT™Raf exugees from the totalitar

THE RIGHT

Among the guarantees of our Federal and State constitutions is that of an accused in a criminal proceeding “‘to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.’ In California the Constitution is implemented by a statute which provides that the magis- trate must inform an accused of his right to the aid of counsel in every stage of the proceeding.

All this seems simple enough and open to no misunderstanding, yet every now and then a case arises in which the contention is made that the right was abridged. Indeed, following a decision of the U. 8S. Supreme Court in May, 1938, upholding the right and sending a case back to the lower -eourt to determine whether the right had been waived, 105 petitions for writs of habeas corpus were filed in the Federal Court in Northern California, of which 74 were filed by prisoners at Alcatraz, just during 1939.

The Case of Frank Connor

Frank S. Connor, who has been serving a term as a second offender at Folsom prison, is one of the most recent to claim abridgment of the right. There is no dispute that he was not represented by counsel at his jury trial. After the first witness was examined by the prosecution, the defendant was asked whether he wanted to eross-examine him. Thereupon he de-. manded to know, ‘‘Where is my lawyer, Judge?” The court answered that he was appearing for himself, but Connor insisted, “T don’t know nothing about talking.’”’ The judge then declared that Connor had waived his right to counsel.

Of course, there is no law compelling a man to have an attorney defend him, and he may defend himself or appear in propia persona, as the lawyers say. In this case, the trial judge claimed that Connor had elected to appear for himself, and the trial having started he would not be permitted to change his mind. Nevertheless, Connor time after time during the trial vigorously but unsuccessfully reiterated his request for an attorney. The jury found him guilty and he was sent to Folsom, first as a parole violator to serve out his prior sentence, and then to serve a term for his second offense.

Cavalier Treatment By Calif. Courts After serving his first sentence, Connor, with the assistance of fellow-prisoners skilled in the law (of which Folsom has a few), filed an application for a writ of. habeas corpus. The case received cavalier treatment by the California courts, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted a hearing and appointed eminent counsel to represent Connor. At this point, the California Attorney General had the case referred back to the State Supreme Court. The A.C.L.U. was asked to help Connor, and Attorney Wayne M. Collins appeared on his behalf. Then the court, on December 17, handed down a long decision again refusing to release Connor.

First of all, the court rules against Connor because it claims the question should have been raised by appeal and not by a writ of habeas corpus. At the same time, it recognizes that our federal courts ‘permit amore extended inquiry in habeas corpus,” but even after such inquiry it comes to the conclusion that Connor failed to show that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right.

Was Connor Informed of Right to Counsel?

While there was no reporter’s record of any court ever informing Connor of his con- stitutional right, the Supreme Court relies upon a printed record in the Municipal Court when Connor was first brought before a magistrate after his arrest. That printed entry on the court’s docket sheet, declares that the defendant was informed of his right to counsel. That the judge ever told it to the prisoner is merely presumed. Nevertheless, the court decides that the printed docket entry alone refutes Connor’s claim that he was denied counsel.

At his subsequent preliminary hearing in the. Superior Court the District Attorney asked Connor whether he had an attorney. He replied, “I don’t need any.”’ Although our California law requires the judge to inform a defendant of his right and to ask him whether he desires counsel, the Supreme Court has now held that if the District Attorney asks the accused, “Have you an attorney?,” that satisfies the statutory requirements, and constitutes a sufficient waiver of counsel at future stages of the proceeding.

When the trial opened the judge asked, “Who represents the defendant?” The proscutor answered, ‘‘He has no counsel.” The court then asked Connor, ‘‘Who is your attorney? Have you an attorney?’’ Connor stood mute and the judge with a declaration of “I am on to you,” proceeded with the trial. Then, after the first witness was examined by the prosecution, Connor put. in his first vigorous demand for an attorney.

Time Limit Placed On Right

Says the California Supreme Court: “The right to the assistance of counsel guaran- teed by the constitutional and statutory ‘provisions, like any other legal right, may be invoked only in the course of: orderly procedure. A defendant who, with an intelligent conception of the consequences of his act, declines the aid of counsel prior or at the commencement of his trial, is not entitled thereafter to interrupt and delay the hearing at any stage he deems advantageous merely to interpose a demand for legal assistance. ... ‘When the petitioner stated at the time of his arraignment that he did not need an attorney, the court was justified in taking him at his word. His attitude, both at that “fime and at the commencement of the trial was equivalent to a final declination of counsel and precluded him from again raising the question when the trial was well under way.” Of course, the court readily finds sufficient evidence to establish that the waiver was made “intelligently and competently,’”’ that is, that he understood what he was doing. : ; This important case will, no doubt, make another trip to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, it becomes California’s landmark on the right to counsel.

FLAG SALUTE DECISION IN. MASSACHUSETTS FAVORS RELIGIOUS SECT

An outstanding victory for the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses was scored at Fall River, Mass., where Superior Court Judge Connelly exonerated the father of a 13year-old boy dismissed from the Fairhaven schools last April for failure to salute the flag on religious grounds. Joseph Sugarman, counsel for the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Committee, handled the case.

The boy’s parents had been indicted un“der a statute punishing anyone in control of a child for not compelling his attendance at school. The court found:no evidence that the child’s absence from school was due to any guilty act of the father, but to the boy’s own conscience. :

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS UPHELD FOR JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN LOUISIANA

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently upheld the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses to distribute their literature without interference, in a case arising from the seizure of the automobile and stock of pamphlets belonging to a member of the sect. The Louisiana League for The Preservation of Constitutional: Rights, which cooperates with the Civil Liberties Union, filed a brief amicus curiae in behalf of the religious group.

Socialist School Case

Swift action was taken during the past month in the Socialist School case. Following arguments before Superior Judge Thomas M. Foley, A.C.L.U. Attorney Wayne M. Collins requested the court to. sustain a demurrer filed by the San Francisco School Board, without leave to amend, in order to secure an interpretation of the Civic Center Act from an appellate court. The court obliged and an appeal will be filed in the District Court of Appeal early this month.

Attorney Irving Breyer of the School Board contended that the Board quite properly excludes political meetings from the schools because the right to use the schools as meeting places is merely “permissive.” On the other hand, Mr. Collins pointed out that the statute expressly sets aside public schoolhouses as places where “organizations .. . formed for . ... political purposes ---may meet and discuss, from time to time, as they may desire, any and all subjects and questions which in their judgment may appertain to the... political interests of the citizens of the respective communities in which they may reside.”

' Every other Board of Education throughout the State permits political meetings in school houses except San Francisco. It is, of course, more important that the right be enjoyed in smaller communities than in the large ones because they usually do not have adequate halls available for the discussion of public issues. But if San Francisco can evade the clear intent of the law, other communities can and very likely will do like- wise.

The law has never been interpreted by an appellate court, except on one occasion when the District Court of Appeal held that dancing was a recreation, and hence came within the Civic Center Act which permits the use of schools for recreational purposes, The most recent case under the law occur- red in Visalia a couple of years ago when . the School Board refused a permit for a Mooney meeting because the subject of the: meeting was “controversial.’”’ The Superior Court granted an order requiring issuance of a permit.

Jehovah's Witnesses Children Reinstated In Rochester Schools

After an unusual decision by Probate Judge Arthur E. Moore at Rochester, Michigan, 19 children of Jehovah’s Witnesses suspended from school for failure on religious grounds to salute the flag were recently reinstated after reaching an agreement with school officials suggested by Judge Moore. Under the agreement, the children may substitute for the flag salute an oath of allegiance to the United States which omits mention of the flag. The Civil Liberties Union, which has long been defending the religious group in flag salute controversies, characterized the agreement as “‘a workable solution.”

In his opinion, Judge Moore considered it “unfortunate and unnecessary that any American child be torn between love of his God and allegiance to his country.”

“We shall respect your religious convictions that ‘to salute the flag is to bow down before a graven image,’ ” Judge Moore told members of the sect, “‘but only so long as you do not impede the moral and Christian objectives of the government of this nation.

“Each of these children may harmonize his religious faith with his love of his coun- try by merely omitting the words ‘The Flag’ and pledging his allegiance to the United States.”

The court instructed the children to subscribe the following pledge: “I pledge al- legiance to the ... United States of America ... one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The school board accepted the pledge, now given by Jehovah’s Witnesses after the other students have saluted the flag.

Page 3

Appeal To Be Taken in Court Holds Los Angeles AntiParade Law Unconstitutional

The Los Angeles ordinance giving police the power to prohibit parades has been held unconstitutional by a three-judge department of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which granted a preliminary injunction against the chief of police restraining him from interfering with the right of the American Peace Mobilization to parade. The Southern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union supported the peace group in challenging the ordinance.

The injunction suit was filed in behalf of the peace group when the Police Commission disapproved-the purposes of a proposed parade in the Negro section. The demonstration was to protest discrimination against Negroes in the national defense program and particularly by the aircraft companies of Southern California.

The Police Commission had ordered an investigation of the various peace groups in the city to determine which of them were radical or Communist. A protest by the A.C.L.U. Southern California branch was overruled by the Commission.

In its opinion, the court held the law invalid on the ground that it “delegated ar- bitrary and uncontrolled authority to deny a permit.”

-“Parading is a fundamental right, not of grace,” the court ruled. “The exercise, of that right cannot be made subject to an uncontrolled discretion, and a law or ordin- ance which purports so to do is invalid.

“By the recent and controlling decisions of the United States Supreme Court a line is drawn between business activities and the field in which lie the rights of free speech, free press and assembly, and the latter are declared to be more vital and important to the maintenance of liberty than the others, so that their exercise cannot be subjected to the arbitrary or uncontrolled discretion of any official board or person or to any sort of previous restraint which amounts to censorship... .

“All the decisions on parades place them in the same field in which lie the other rights to express ideas and opinions, and they are subject to the rules which govern in that field. For some purposes, such as preventing conflicting parades, providing proper police protection and arranging traffic control, it is necessary that the authorities have advance information regarding a parade and some power to control its time and place and perhaps other physical features of it. But on account of the nature of the right it cannot be the subject of complete prohibition or arbitrary control. A permit system is, we doubt not, a proper mode of dealing with the problems presented; but it must be based, not on a delegation of arbitrary and uncontrolled authority to deny a permit, but on some rule of action related reasonably to the necessities of the situation. This ordinance is not of that kind and must be held void.”’

Deportation of Relief Family in N. Y. Appealed To Federal Court

Reopening the case of Rosario Chirillo, Westchester County cobbler ordered deported with his family to his home state of © Ohio because they had been on relief, the New York City Committee of the Civil Liberties Union has asked leave to submit a brief as friend of the court in proceedings in the U. S. District Court. Attorneys for Chirillo are seeking an injunction to restrain enforcement of the county court order upheld by the Court of Appeals last July.

The brief, Fraenkel, counsel for the New York City Committee, contends that the decisions of the state courts upholding Chirillo’s deportation ‘“‘constitute a serious and unwarranted interference with the rights of citizens freely to move about from place to place, a right guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clauses of the original Constitution and of the 14th Amendment.”

Assailing the section of the New York State Public Welfare Law under which Chirillo was ordered to leave the state, the A.C.L.U. brief declares that “the state can certainly not justify a policy of excluding persons from other communities merely because such persons might become public charges.” If a state had such power it could exclude if it wished, persons settling in it to benefit from lenient income and inheritance taxation, or criminals convicted in another state, the Union contended.

APPOINT ISLAND GOVERNORS WITH CIVIL LIBERTY SYMPATHIES, A.C.L.U. URGES

Appointment of new governors for the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico who are sympathetic with the civil liberties of the islanders has been urged upon Secretary of the Interior this week by the Civil Liberties Union in a letter by the Rev. John Haynes Holmes, A.C.L.U. board chairman.

Lawrence W. Cramer recently resigned as Governor of the Virgin Islands and Admiral William D. Leahy was recently appointed ambassador to France. Dr. Holmes’ letter to Secretary Ickes declared:

‘“‘We have noted with regret the resignation of Governor Cramer of the Virgin Is- lands, whose record in support of civil liberties, particularly through his efforts for submitted by Osmond K. .

Nieland Criticizes Gov. Olson's Handling of His Dismissal

In the December issue of the ‘‘News’? we published an account of Governor Olson’s belated action in the Nieland case. The article set forth, 1, how Nieland had been ousted as S.R.A. director of Butte county for introducing a speaker at a public gath- ering, citing the letter of Douglas Chisholm, S.R.A. representative, complaining of Nie- land’s ‘‘activities’; 2, Chisholm’s subsequent lame explanation that Nieland had “placed the wrong interpretation on my letter,” and declaring Nieland was not quali' fied for his job in the first place; and, 3, the Governor’s letter accepting Chisholm’s explanation and regretting that statements had been made which could be construed as violating Nieland’s civil rights. —

The A.C.L.U. now has received a copy of a letter Nieland recently sent to Governor Olson criticizing his handling of the complaints arising out of the dismissal. Says Mr. Nieland, ‘‘By the acceptance of Mr. Chisholm’s attempt to squirm out of an em- barrassing situation, it is apparent to me that the administration does not condemn, but merely denies, the violation of civil rights.” :

Mr. Nieland attributes his dismissal to the activities of reactionary interests in Butte county. “I can see clearly,” says Mr. Nieland, “Show my particular case fits in with the tendency of our once liberal administration to appease the forces of greed and selfishness and lead the people of California into the quagmire of reaction and hysteria which is relentlessly sucking in the entire nation.”

the passage of the Organic Act, has won the admiration of those who have followed events in the island. We trust that a successor will be appointed as sympathetic as Governor Cramer with the civil liberties of ‘Virgin Islanders, and as well disposed as he toward a high degree of autonomy in the conduct of their own affairs.

“May we take this occasion to express our hope that in the appointment of a Governor of Puerto Rico to succeed Admiral Leahy, careful consideration will be given to the selection of a Puerto Rican? The arguments for so doing are fairly obvious to anyone who has followed the course of events in Puerto Rico in recent years.”

Page 4

American Civil Liberties Union-News Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, San Fran- cisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union.

Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG Editor PAULINE W. DAVIES.........----------------- Associate Editor

Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year. Ten Cents per Copy.

Work Projects Ordered For Conscientious Objectors

Quakers, Mennonites, Brethren and the Fellowship of Reconciliation have been au- thorized to organize work projects of national importance for conscientious objec- tors under the draft law. At the same time, Thomas E. Jones, president of Fisk Univer- sity, Nashville, Tenn., has been appointed to direct the activities of the projects that are established.

The National Committee on Conscientious Objectors has suggested that appeals be di- rected to Attorney General Robert H. J ackgon to establish a uniform policy of dealing with non-registrant conscientious objectors.

The National Committee, which was organized by the A.C.L.U., also suggests that the Department of Justice be urged to release for useful service all objectors guilty merely of technical violations of the law, and that ministers and theological students specifically exempt by law be paroled to return to their occupations.

“Conscientious objectors who have refused to register on prescribed forms but who have identified themselves at local draft boards, have been prosecuted and in many cases sentenced with a degree of severity which we feel is quite unwarranted, says the Committee. “The example this afforded seems likely to become the settled practice.

“Sentences have varied from three months to eighteen months. This is in large part due to the fact that the Department of Justice has apparently left the handling of the various cases to the sole discretion of the local prosecutors and judges. The De partment has declined to intervene except to direct release before trial without bail and to ask for no sentences beyond a year and a day. The purposes of the law would seem to be served by probation In cases of this type, without any prison sentence whatever, and the man could then apparently be registered under court supervision.

“We understand that regulations are about to be adopted under which the Federal Bureau of Prisons will have the authority to release men So sentenced and to assign them to alternative service not under military authority.” :

All Sikons convicted under the Selective Service Act are guilty of felonies even Le sentence is suspended or a mere fine imposed. The effect of such conviction 1s that the defendant loses many of his civil rights. Conviction under the present law, unlike convictions under the Draft Act of 1917, thus entails far more severe penalties. The maximum penalty under the 1917 Draft Act was a year in jail, thus making it a mis- demeanor without loss of citizenship rights under state law.

NEGROES WIN DISCRIMINATION SUIT IN CALIFORNIA

In a noteworthy decision striking at discrimination against Negroes, an all-white jury at Santa Monica, Calif., last month brought in a verdict against owners of the Wilshire Theatre charged with violating the state Civil Rights Act by means of a segregated seating arrangement for Negroes.

In a trial that lasted seven days, Judge Clarence M. Hansen of the Superior Court awarded $100 to two Negroes who complained that the theatre manager refused to permit them to sit anywhere but in the segregated section. The owner denied the charge. An unusual aspect of the case was the fact that all the witnesses for the theatre management were white and all witnesses for the Negroes were colored ; the jury chose to believe the Negroes.

A. Wirin, attorney for the Southern California branch of the Civil Liberties Union, aided counsel for the Negroes.

A.C. LU. To Assist In Oklahoma Syndicalism Case Appeals

Higher courts will eventually reverse the : recent convictions in Oklahoma of two Communists on criminal syndicalism charges, it is predicted by Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has announced it is assisting in the appeals by filing briefs as ee of the court in the defendants’ bealf.

In a statement outlining the Union’s position in the case, Mr. Hays declared: “The conviction of two members of the Communist Party under the Oklahoma criminal syndicalism law merely for the possession of Communist literature is wholly out of keeping with the decisions of the higher courts. In view of United States Supreme Court decisions and those of state courts, including Oklahoma, it is highly unlikely that the convictions will stand. The Civil Liberties Union will assist in the appeals by filing briefs as amici curiae and will render every possible assistance to see that the convictions are reversed.

“Oklahoma is the only state in the union where such convictions have been obtained in over five years, though Communists sell such literature everywhere. Most of it is available in any library or through any bookstore.

“To punish men with ten year sentences merely for possessing and selling literature which goes legally through the United States mails is an affront to democratic in- stitutions. The proceedings serve no practical purpose save to enable certain of- ficials to make political capital out of prosecuting ‘Reds.’

“It is gratifying to note that there is a strong movement of opposition to these prosecutions in Oklahoma and that champions of civil liberty all over the country have rallied to the defense. The sober judgment of higher courts cannot sustain these preposterous sentences on such flimsy grounds.”

Of the twelve persons held after police raids in Oklahoma City last August, two have been convicted: Robert Wood, state secretary of the Communist Party, and Alan Shaw, Oklahoma City secretary of the party. Each have been sentenced to ten years and $5,000 fine. All of the twelve defendants are now out on bail.

DISMISSALS OF TEACHERS DEFYING N. Y. PROBE OPPOSED

The New York City Committee of the Civil Liberties Union has urged the Board of Higher Education to take no action at this time against the twenty-five teachers and college professors who have refused to testify at the private sessions of the oneman legislative committee, represented by State Senator Coudert, which is investigating educational activities in New York.

you ma contributions to the Union.

AN OLD STORY

The job we dislike most of all in this struggle for civil liberties is the begging for money that must be done to carry on. If we had a choice in the matter, be sure we’d content ourselves with a brief statement that we needed $4000 during 1941. And that would be all!

Yes, that would be all! It would be the end of the Union, too. Because we have found that most people must be reminded several times about their annual To the 285 faithful who have thus far responded with pledges and contributions for 1941 we express our gratitude and apologize for intruding another reminder. Please ignore it; it’s not directed to you.

It is directed to more than 360 supporters still unheard from at this date. If you are one of these, now that the holiday demands have subsided, won’t you please respond without any further reminders?

Pledge cards and return envelopes again accompany your ‘‘News”’ if you have not yet contributed. Send what you can. And, if you can’t afford anything, just now, we’ll be glad to keep you on our mailing list until you can.

NEEDS A HAPPY ENDING

‘OKIE BAN BEFORE HIGH COURT

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

requirement of a fixed period of residence within the State as a pre-requisite to eligibility for relief. That State may not, however, bar one whom it may consider a potential relief recipient from entrance; and similarly it may not make him who aids his entrance a criminal. This case presents a question which affects a most basic of American rights; the right of American citizens to move without let or hinderance throughout the country. So peculiarly national a question calls for determination by the one court which speaks not for one State or section but for the whole country.”

L. A. Tried a ‘‘Bum Patrol’’

Back in 1986 Los Angeles sought to bar migrants from entering the state by estab- lishing its famous ‘bum patrol,” but it was abandoned in the face of legal action and widespread protests. Then, at the 19387 session of the legislature a “Border Patrol bill,” designed to exclude indigents, passed the assembly only to be defeated in the senate. And, at the 1939 session of the legislature a similar bill failed in committee after Governor Olson voiced his opposition thereto.

A.C.L.U. Attorneys Philip Adams and Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco have represented Edwards in the proceedings in the California courts and in preparing the appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. Attorney Samuel Slaff of New York City, acting for the A.C.L.U., will argue the case in Washington.

DISMISSAL OF WPA COMMUNIST IN MASSACHUSETTS APPEALED

An appeal is being taken to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the test case of William T. Parry, member of the W.P.A. Writers Project, dismissed last July under the act barring from W.P.A. relief rolls — members of the Communist Party and Nazi Bund. The Massachusetts Civil Liberties Committee brought an action in Parry’s behalf for an injunction to restrain the W.P.A. administration from dismissing him.

Dr. Parry, a former Harvard instructor, admitted membership in the Communist Party in reply to the question put to all W.P.A. workers. Arguing before the Superior Court, Attorney Joseph Sugarman of the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Committee attacked the law’s constitutionality.

He contended that the act barring Communists and Nazis from the W.P.A. was vague, indefinite, and failed to specify that the objection was to persons belonging to organizations which advocated overthrow of the government “‘by force.”’

The Civil Liberties Committee has announced its intention of carrying the case to the U. 8S. Supreme Court if necessary.