vol. 9, no. 11

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. IX SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER, 1944 No. 11

HEAR ROGER N. BALDWIN SPEAK

Union’s National Director Will Address Tenth Anniversary V leetings In S. F. and Berkeley

Roger Nash Baldwin, national director of the ACLU, will be the principal speaker at two TENTH ANNIVERSARY meetings of the local branch to be held Nevember 27 and 29. The first meeting will be held in San Francisco at the California Club, 1750 Clay Street, at 8 p.m. on Monday evening, November 27, Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons, Chairman of the local Executive Committee, Equality?” branch’s activities during the past ten years. — We “cust that our supporters will help i

Berkeley Meeting The second tenth anniversary meeting will be held in Berkeley at Trinity Hall, Trinity Methodist Church, 2320 Dana Street, at 8 o’clock, Wednesday evening,-November 29. Joseph S. Thompson, Secretary-Treasurer. of the local eranch, will preside. The subject of. Mr. Baldwin’s address is, “What Prospects for Race At both meetings, Ernest Besig, local director of the ACLU, will give a brief report of the every way to make these two meetings successa Tul, not only by their own attendance, but by bringing persons who ought to become acquainted with the Union’s-work. We are sure that all who come will be adequately compensated, hecause they will not only meet the natiort’s outstanding leader in the field of civil liberties, but will find Mr. Baldwin to be a forceful, persuasive and charming speaker. If you heard Roger Baldwin three years ago, we are sure you will be eager to hear him again and to have your friends hear him as well. This is a rare opportunity that may not come again for many years.

Palo Alto Meeting

Mr. Baldwin will be in the bay area only from Sunday morning November 26 until Wednesday evening November 29. This is his fourth trip to the Pacific Coast. Previously he was here in 1926, 1939 and 1941. His present trip will last from November 8 to December 14, covering 19 cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle and Spokane. Our supporters who reside in the neighborhood of Palo Alto are urged to attend the meeting of the World Problem Club at the Parish House, 425 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, on Sunday evening, November 26 at 8:15 o’clock. the subject of Mr. Baldwin’s address is “What Prospects for Race Equality?”

The purpose of Mr. Baldwin’s trip is to meet with officials and local civil. liberties groups, particularly those dealing with race relations and labor problems. He will also make firsthand contacts with representatives of the Union, and with public and private agencies.

Branch’s Tenth Anniversary

The San Francisco and Berkeley meetings will celebrate the tenth anniversary of the re-establishment of the Northern California branch of. the ACLU. It had its beginning in the summer of 1926, following a visit by Roger Baldwin, but it ran into financial difficulties and the office closed after operating for a year. Thereafter, the late Austin Lewis carried on single-handedly with the meager support of a few loyal friends until Chester S. Williams reorganized the branch starting September 14, 1934. Ernest Besig has been local director since June 23, 1935. If you cannot attend either of the anniversary meetings or the one in Palo Alto, we suggest your attendance at one of the other meetings jisted on Mr. Baldwin’s program. (See page 2.) For further information call the Union’s office, EXbrook 1816. will preside. The subject of Mr. Baldwin‘s address is “THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN WAR.” —

WHO IS ROGER NASH BALDWIN?

Roger N. Baldwin, director of the American Cwil Liberties Union, has been active in the many-sided fight for civil liberty since the outbreak of the first World War. He then at once volunteered his services to combating war-time restraints on freedom ef encech, press and con. Science, severing his connections in political reform and social work in St. Louis, Missouri, where he had worked for ten years following his graduation from Harvard. He organized in New York and Washington the National Civil Liberties Bureau, and directed its activities throughout the war.

After the war, the Bureau was expanded into the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been the one national non-partisan agency defending and promoting the civil rights of all persons without distinction. Its only platform has been the Bill of Rights. Mr. Baldwin has directed its varied campaigns and court cases, involving the rights of labor, aliens, Negroes, racial and political. minorities, censorship and academic freedom, and in World War II the issues of war regulations and freedom of conscience.

Besides having acted as director of the Union since its origin, Mr. Baldwin has also been active in many other organizations concerned with civil liberties, with peace and with international relations. He has beena member of the faculty of the New School for Social Research in New York, where he has given numerous courses. He is a member of the Harvard Overseers’ Committee on the Economics Department; and delivered at Harvard in 1938 the Godkin lecture on “Civil Liberties and Industrial Conflict,” published by the Harvard University Press.

Mr. Baldwin is also a member of the directing boards of the National Urban League, the India League, the National Audubon Society, and a trustee of the Robert Marshall Civil Liberties Trust. :

In addition to his activities in the United States, Mr. Baldwin spent considerable time in Europe between 1927 and 1935 in connection with international anti-fascist and anti-imperialistic movements, in which he held official positions representing American agencies. His study of liberty and repression in Soviet Russia was published under the title “Liberty under the Soviets.”’ He is joint author of “Juvenile Courts and Probation,” written when he was secretary of the National Probation Association. He is also the editor of a volume of Kropotkin’s “Revolutionary Pamphlets.” So.

Mr. Balwdin was born near Boston, Mass., and educated in the public schools. He is married, and lives in New Jersey. He is an independent in. politics.

CIVIL RULE RESTORED IN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS

Martial law, carrying with it the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, was terminated in Hawaii on October 24, after lasting almost three years. Military rule had been considerably modified at this late date, but it still persisted as a weapon against the 20,000 workers at Pearl Harbor. If they absented themselves from the job or “misbehaved” in any way, they were hauled before Provost Courts where the accused was always guilty and received a stiff fine or jail sentence.

Still pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are three cases testing the legality of martial law in Hawaii. Two of the cases were taken under submission on July 1, and the other about six weeks later. The government could moot the cases, now that martial law has been ended, by suddenly cancelling the orders of detention. In any event, the court’s decision islong overdue.

JAPANESE AMERICAN TEST CASES ARGUED IN SUPREME COURT

THe Us 5. Supreme Court heard on October 11 and 12 arguments in the long-standing test — cases involving the evacuation and detention of Japanese Americans of admitted loyalty. The appeal for Fred G. Korematsu of Oakland, Calif. convicted for refusing to obey the evacuation order and sentenced to five years’ probation, was presented by Attorney Wayne Collins, counsel for the Northern California branch of the ACLU, aided by Charles A. Horsky of Washington, D. C. The appeal of Mitsuye Endo, who seeks release from a relocation center, was presented by James A. Purcell of San Francisco. The government’s position was presented by Solicitor General Charles Fahy. The judges asked many questions both on the technical legal questions and on the facts. Decisions in the cases are not expected for several months.

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Interior Dept. Takes Steps te Prevent Meoting of Endo Case In the course of the recent argument before the U. S. Supreme Court in the Mitsuye Endo case some question was raised both by the government and the court concerning the. effectiveae ness of any order by the U. 8S. District Court in San Francisco to release Miss Endo. Miss Endo kad been transferred from Tule Lake, in Northern California to Topaz, Utah, which is in the jurisdiction of another federal court, leaving the = San Francisco court powerless to order someone : ee eide its jurisdiction to be produced in court. Since this situation reduced the Endo case to an academic question, the Supreme Court would very likely toss the case owt of court as moot.

The day after the argument in the case,, Act- ing Secretary of the Interior Abe Fortas sent a letter to Solicitor General Charles Fahy advising him that if a writ of habeas corpus is issued by the U. S. District Court in San Francisco, the court’s order will be complied with and Miss a Endo will be produced in court in San Francisco. |: A certified copy of the letter has been filed with the Supreme Court. This action by Mr. Fortas may, therefore, prevent the Endo case from being mooted.

Mr. Fortas’ letter to Mr. Fahy follows:

I shall appreciate your advising the Supreme Court of the United. States that in the event that, upon the petition filed in the above-entitled case, a writ of habeas corpus is issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, calling for the production of the corpus of the petitioner, and in the event that the writ should be directed to the Secretary of the Interior; to Dillon S. Myer, Director of the War Relocation Authority, an agency of this Department; to Robert Cozzens, Assistant Director of the War Relocation Authority who has his office in San Francisco, California (within the jurisdiction of said United States District Court); or to any other official of the War Relocation Authority, the corpus of the petitioner will be produced and the court’s order will be complied with in all respects.

preme Court in argument on October 12, 1944, the removal of the petitioner from the jurisdiction of said United States District Court was part of a general segregation program involving the removal of many people and was in no way related to the pending proceeding.

Massachusetts Women Win Right to Hold State Jobs

The right of married women to hold municipal jobs in Massachusetts was upheld recently by the state Supreme Court. Six women employees of Somerville, dismissed in May 1938, had carried their fight against dismissal through the eourts. They were ordered to receive back pay ‘along with their reinstatement.

“These women,” the court said, ‘were not re; moved for proper cause because the city ordia nance deprives married women of their constitutional right to equal opportunity for the selection of public employment or service.”

‘Married women may still be barred as school teachers, since as the court pointed out, ‘married women in some public employments may be considered less qualified than unmarried women.’ The ACLU has been interested in the case.

A. committee headed by Judge Dorothy Kenyon has aided the Massachusetts women in their court contest.

Ban On Negro Voting to Be Tested By Government

Plans have been announced by the Departroent of Justice for the first federal prosecution on a charge of prohibiting Negro voting in a primary election. Test cases will be brought either in Florida, Alabama or Georgia. Complaints charging discrimination against Negroes have been received from these states, following the recent primaries.

The U. S. Supreme Court on April 3 ordered ‘Negroes to be allowed the right to take part in the Texas primary election. There was little interference in either Texas or Arkansas, according to reports.

a "Phe Civil Rights section of the Department / of Justice is in charge of the cases. The charges probably will involve a misdemeanor, which does not require grand jury action, and carries a ee maximum penalty of 00@ fine, or one year in . ae ae or beth.

-As you know, and as you stated to the Su

PROVENCE BROTHERS PROSECUTED ER CASE

The three Provence brothers, former Oklahom-ans, were arrested ast month on a charge of murdering Homer Turner, Richmond Negro, and on October 24 went to trial in the court of Superior Judge A. F. Bray in Martinez. As we go to press, the trial is nearing its close and a verdict will no doubt be reached before this issue of the “News” is received.

FLASH!—After four hours’ deliberation, the jury returned a “Not Guilty” verdict.

The murder prosecution comes more than eight months after the killing occurred. The Union intervened in the case -because Negroes were not being accorded the equal protection , of the laws in Contra Costa County.

The incident occurred on February 14, 1944. Three colored men—Homer Turner,Rufus Rob- inson and, Ellis Robinson, were driving a garbage truck in Richmond. Upon reaching an intersection, Homer Turner, driver of the truck, decided to make a left-hand turn after he had gone beyond the middle of the intersection. He backed up his truck and bumped into a car driven by Carl Provence, who-was accompanied by his brother Claude. No damage was done to the Provence car, but Carl pulled his car alongside the garbage truck and an argument ensued. The brothers claim the colored boys “cussed them out” and that Homer Turner threatened them with a small pocket knife. The Robinson brothers claim the whites called them vile names. In any case, the Provence car and the garbage truck went on their respective ways, and the garbage men, proceeded about their duties of picking up garbage.

The Provence boys, however, were not content to let the matter rest but went after their brother Albert and a brother-in-law. The four drove to within half a block of where the colored men were working and. parked ,their car. The three brothers armed themselves with a tire wrench, tire iron and a ‘piece of bumper which™ they found in the -back oftheir car, Then-they. . 2 walked up to the Negroes and a free-for-all fight ensued. Two of the Negroes fled, but the third, Homer Turner, was beaten to death. He died on the spot.

The three Provence brothers were at once booked on murder charges, while the Robinson brothers were held on charges of assault with a deadly weapon. In the meantime, the Coroner’s jury recommended prosecutions against those responsible for the death of Homer Turner. Instead, the original charges were dropped when riot indictments were returned by the Grand Jury against the whites and the Negroes. All were duly acquitted in the jury trial that followed.

The A.C.L.U. complained to Attorney General Robert Kenny against the prosecution of the Ne-. groes, on the ground that the victims of an attack who merely took reasonable measures to defend themselves should not be made to defend themselves in court for their acts. Mr. Kenny thereupon sent an observer from his office to the trial. After the acquittals were returned in the riot trial, the A.C.L.U. sought unsuccessfully to have Mr. Kenny prosecute the Provence brothers for the death of Homer Turner. Under the State Constitution where “any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county,” the Attorney: General has the duty to prosecute, “and in such cases he shall have all the powers of a district attorney.”’ District Attorney Francis J. Healey of Contra Costa county opposed the issuance of warrants of arrest, and, as a result, every local magistrate that was appealed to refused to sign murder warrants. On September 12, Mr. Kenny informed a delegation from the A.C.L.U. and the United Negroes of America that he would not exercise his constitutional powers, but that if murder warrants were secured against the Provence brothers and District Attorney Healey refused to-handle the case, he would provide a prosecutor.

On September 30, Ernest Besig, local diiceior of the Union, conferred with Police Judge Leo Marcollo of Richmond and the latter agreed to issue the murder warrants, despite the fact that he had earlier refused to do so. Possibly Mr. Kenny used his influence to see that the warrants were issued. In any case, new complaints were signed by Mrs. Eura Ennis, the sister of Homer Turner, and Albert, 31, Carl, Claude. Provence, 26, were arrested on October 6.

“The Provence brothers, represented by former District Attorney James F. Hoey of Contra Costa county, waived preliminary hearings when arraigned before Acting Police Judge Claire Horner of Richmond and were held for: trial in: the Superior Court. When District “Rene Healey. refused to prosecute, Attorney General Robert Kenny as-— signed Assistant Attorney General Jess Hession to handle the case, assisted by Deputy Attorney General Arthur Ohnimus and a deputy from the district attorney’s office.

We are not optimistic over the outcome of the trial. It took the prosecution only a little more © than a day to present its case, and the whole business may be disposed of in four days. But, in any case, it is some gain that even a prosecution was achieved.

ROGER N. BALDWIN’S SPEAKING PROGRAM NOVEMBER 26-29

Following is Roger N. Baldwin’s complete speaking schedule during his stay in the bay area, November 26 to 29.

Nov. 26—Sunday afternoon, 2 o’clock, Friends Center, 1830 Sutter St., San Francisco, under auspices of Comm. on Racial Equality and Public Affairs Comm., Y.W.C.A. Subject “Are Race Tensions Increasing ?”

Nov. 26—Sunday evening, 8:15 p.m., World Problem Club, Parish House, All Saints Epis- copal Church, Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street, Palo Alto. Subject: “What Prospects for Race Equality?” .

Nov. 27—Monday evening, 8 o’clock. Tenth Anniversary meeting of the Northern California branch of the A.C.L.U., at the California Club, 1750. Clay Street, San Francisco. Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons will preside. Subject: “The Bill of Rights mm War.”

Nov. 28—Tuesday, noon. Special meeting with the Executive Committee of the Northern Califernia branch of the A.C.L.U., at the aw. C.A., San Francisco.

Nov. 28—Tuesday evening, 8:15 o’clock, Jewish Cemmunity Center, California Street and Presidio Avenue, San Francisco. Subject: “What Prospects for Race Equality?”

Nov. 29—-Wednesday evening, 8 o’clock. Tenth Anniversary meeting of the Northern Cali- fornia branch of the A.C.L.U., at Trinity Hall, Trinity Methodist Church, 2320 Dana Street, Berkeley. Mr. Joseph S. Thompson will preside. Subject: “What Prospects . for Race Equatity?”

‘SLEEPY LAGOON’ CONVICTIONS UPSET

Charges sbuinae twelve: Mexican Americua boys in the “Sleepy Lagoon’? murder case in Los Angeles were reversed on October 14 by the California Court of Appeals, marking what appears to be the end of one of the most bizarre cases in recent history. Widely headlined as “zoot suit” murderers, twenty-two lads of Mexican descent, clad in the customary “zoot suit” garb, were tried in Los Angeles in 1942 for the death of another young Mexican American in the “Sleepy Lagoon” district. The trial lasted thirteen weeks based on 66 separate charges.

The Southern California Branch of the ACLU entered the case on appeal with a brief as friend of the court. Ten of the convicted boys had been paroled and did not appeal.

The “Sleepy Lagoon’. case became a West Coast symbol of the struggle of the Mexican American minority to free itself from racial discrimination and police intimidation. Various charges of police brutality were made during the trial on grounds of racial persecution. , The Appeals Court cleared the boys of the assault charges against them, and heavily scered the presiding judge for prejudicial conduet of the case. “The record is devoid of-any evidence showing that any of the defendants committed an assault upon the decedent,” said the Appeals Court. It went on to say, ‘We are satisfied that 24, and the trial judge injured noticeably the defense of © appellants by the character of rebukes he administered in the presence of the jury when, in most instances, not even a mild rebuke was Geserved.

the exercise .by labor 2:

the 38 year age limit, was ‘camp for conscientious objectors and later de

‘AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

The U. S. Supreme Court on October 10 heard reargument in the appeal of R. J. Thomas, President of the United Automobile Workers of America, found guilty of contempt of court for violating an injunction prohibiting him from soliciting union membership at Houston, Texas, without first obtaining an organizer’s card as required by Texas law. Argument in the case was first heard last spring by the Supreme . Court. Reargument was set in order to permit the Department of Justice to answer free speech questions raised by the Court.

Mr. Thomas, announcing his intention to test the constitutionality of the license law, addressed a meeting of workers of the Humble Oil Co. at Houston on September 23, 1943 and solicited membership in the oil workers union. A ‘preliminary restraining order was issued the day previous to the announced meeting. Mr. Thomas ‘was sentenced to three days imprisonment and $100 fine. The Texas Supreme Court upheld the ‘conviction on the ground that the regulation of lJabor unions is a proper exercise of the police power of the state.

Filing a brief as friend of the court, the American Civil Liberties Union contended that the injunction restraining Mr. Thomas from ‘unien organizing was an unconstitutional attempt to prevent the free discussion of labor problems and industrial relations protected by the 14th Amendment. The brief, signed by Arthur Garfield Hays, Walter Frank, Paul O’Dwyer and Carl Rachlin of the New York Bar and George Clinton Edwards of the Texas Bar pointed out: “The present case illustrates the dangers which are inherent in legislation of the .. kind here under attack visions of the act are an open. invitation to its” . The injunction promisuse by the authorities to limit free speech. It is an attempt to do indirectly what cannot be done directly . . . We think the purpose and effect of this law is to hamper free speech and its constitutional rights.”

SUPREME COURT FORCES ILL. COURT TO REVEAL RECORD OF PACIFIST LAWYER

Clyde W. Summers, Illinois lawyer, refused admission to the bar on the ground of his religlous pacifism, on October 9th won from the U. S. Supreme Court the right to have his record furnished by the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Court had refused to reveal in the lower courts its reason for denying him admission. Summers, graduated from the University of Illinois in 1942, passed the required bar examimations that summer. The Board of Law Examiners refused him a license to practice law, following the advice of the Committee on Character and Fitness. They based their refusal on the ground that opposition to the use of force was inconsistent with the duties of an officer of the court. The Ilinois Supreme Court refused to disturb the decision of the Board.

Last July, Julian Cornell, counsel to the National Committee on C.'O.’s, appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, explained that one of the procedural difficulties involved was the refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to certify the record. The Illinois Court had declared that it did not consider it to be in the public interest to have such a record in a public file, where it could be read to the embarrassment of the applicant. Summers is teaching law at the University of ‘Toledo.

“CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR WINS WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

George Reeves, formerly director of the Wash‘ington office of the National Committee for Conscientious Objectors of the ACLU and granted a writ of habeas corpus by the Federal District Court in Oregon on the. ground that Reeves’ classification was made in violation of due pro-.. cess of law. Reeves, although within a month of “railroaded’”? to a

nied the right to appeal his case. He was sent to Lapine, Oregon by Selective Service where he filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus issued by Judge Fee. .

Every member and friend of the Northern California branch of the A. C. L. U. is urged to con= tribute NOW in order to carry on our work during the fiscal year ending October 31, 1945, Letters: and pledge cards have been sent separately urging almost seven hundred persons to contribute the money to meet a budget fixed by the local Executive Committee at $5150, the largest in our ten-year

NAVY CAPITULATES IN ONE BLACKLISTING CASE

Arbitrary blacklisting of machinists in bay area plants operated by the Navy received a setback last month” when the Navy capitulated in the case of Martin A. Joos, who had been fired and denied all job referral rights because as shop steward he told the Superintendent at the Bodinson Manufacturing Company that certain work should have been done by machinists’ helpers instead of structural steel workers.

Legal action was brought in Mr. Joos’ behalf, but, at the suggestion of U. S. District Judge Michael J. Roche, an administrative appeal against the denial of referral rights was filed ‘with the War Manpower Commission. Instead of appearing at the scheduled hearing on October 9, the Navy sent a letter to the War Manpower Commission cancelling its order to the latter denying Mr. Joos job referral rights, on the ground that -Mr. Joos had been adequately punished. Said the letter, ‘The Officer in Charge has reviewed the Joos case and adheres to his opinion that Mr. Joos was properly discharged . . and should not be employed in any government operated plant. On the other hand, today marks the end of the fourth week since Mr. Joos was discharged and denied a release. The Officer. in charge feels that inability to obtain a referral for a period of four weeks is an adequate applieation of the sanction under all the circum- stanees of Mr. Joos’ particular case: In this. ,,4 manner, the Navy escaped examination of ts: arbitrary and capricious action in the Joos case.

In the meantime, the case of Arthur B. Burke is pending before Paul McNutt, Chairman of the War Manpower Commission. Burke was discharged from his job as a machinist at the National Motor Bearing Company in Redwood City because, aS a shop steward, he had told a machinist that he should stop doing tool and die work until such time as he became a toolmaker, which work receives a higher rate of pay.

A hearing was held before a special Regional Hearings Panel to ascertain the facts in the Burke case, and that body, made up of labor and management representatives, found that the difficulty in question had existed long before the Navy took over the plant and “that no great effort was made by the Company to correct” the situation. At the same time, the panel found that Burke “took action beyond the ordinary duty of a Shop Committee representative, but it was not proved that he acted with intent to vio‘late the Executive Order (empowering the Navy to take over the plant) or existing Statutes.” The panel then made the following recommendation to McNutt, which is not binding upon him:, “Accordingly, it is the panel’s recommen‘ dation that the refusal to grant clearance or referral for an indefinite period of time, was improper. The War Manpower Commission should immediately grant clearance and referral to Burke”

On October 8, it will be two months since Burke was discharged and blackhsted for an indefinite time. During that time, and possibly longer, he is denied the right to make a living and to provide for his family. Unless he can secure assistance from friends or from public or private charities, the Navy’s blacklisting is ‘tantamount to an order of starvation.

Maybe Mr. McNutt will eventually provide relief by ordering that the job. referral rights of Mr. Burke be reinstated. But such an administrative remedy is hardly adequate if it takes a couple of months or longer for a final decision to be reached. |

But that is not the only damage done by the Navy’s blacklisting technique. Its actions have served notice on machinists in the bay area plants operated by it that they had better not object about working conditions or they will receive the same treatment as Joos and Burke.

Such threats of blacklisting really mean that the workers have been reduced to involuntary servitude.

| from coercion by the majority, and insists on | goes to providing opportunity for the spiritual | | development of the individuals who constitute | | since at times what at first seems folly turns | J out to be wisdom. Like the fasting of monks, |

history.

As usual, we remind our supporters that the branch is committed to the policy of NO EMERGENCY APPEALS. If you contribute NOW for the year’s work, you may be assured you wilk receive no further appeal for funds for another year. What’s more, you not only enable the organization to be placed on a business-like footing, but you help us to concentrate our fund — raising activities so that there is a minimum of interference in handling civil liberties issues. |

The Northern California branch of the A.C. L.U. is not a Community Chest agency, nor is it subsidized by any foundation or the Union’s national office. Every dollar used in the work must be raised from our supporters in Note Cale fornia.

How Much Should I Give? How much should you give? Figure it out for. yourself! We have 747 members in good stand‘ing. In order to raise our budget, we need an average contribution of about $7. Since'a lot of people give less than the average (some cam afford only the minimum dues of $2 a year), we hope that many of our supporters will give MORE than the average contribution. Indeed, weneed some $100, $50, $25 and many $15 and $10 contributions, if we are to meet our budget.

In making your contribution, we trust you. will bear in mind that it has been necessary to increase the budget, and that it stands at about 27% more than our pre-war budget, which is not: out of line with the increased cost of living. IF ‘possible, won't you please make a — increase in your: subscription.

We have tried not to solicit donations From = persons who have made recent contributions.

Please excuse it if you receive one of our letters: “by. mistake.

Sending as much as your pledge as is conve— nient, or the entire amount, will save us the cost of future billing.

The Budget

Poloume is the budget adopted by the Executive Committee for the fiscal year enditg October 31, 1945:

Salaries: Director = $2700 S Half-time Secretary ..............-..... 840 $3540 Printing and Stationery...........-.-..-..... 75) Rent 9 33D Postage: ¢ 0 2 17 Telephone and Telegraph 0. 100 Pravee TD) Taxes and Insurance... Bb Miscellaneous ........---.-..Se Publiedtions 2 2 oe 2D TOTAL “$5150

Finally, (and this is perhaps the most im| portant touchstone to distinguish democratic: from dictatorial leadership) the democratic | leader protects minorities within the group | their right to attempt, by discussion, to con| vert, themselves into a majority and even to | displace him from his position of leadership. : Such forbearance is difficult, especially in | small groups, yet it is vastly important, since the attitude displayed toward dissident minorities is the primary test of whether or not the | group is primary or whether the precedence | the group. Freedom of speech is the hair shirt } worn by-every democratic society. Suppression | | is so easy; patience is so difficult. The demo-| cratic doctrine of civil liberties reflects an‘) ascetic determination to suffer fools. gladly, | it is.an act of abnegation designed to toughen | the spiritual muscles of every member of the community.

—From an address by Lynn T. White,.} Jr., President of Mills College, at the | Fifty-first Commencement of Pomona College, April 24, 1944.

Page 4

Ten Cents per Copy.

-DEP'T. OF JUSTICE REFUSES

Pook

American Civil Liberties Union-News Published monthly at 216:Pine Street, San Francisco, 4, . Calif., by thé Northern California Branch of the — American Civil Liberties Union. : Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG ........fe Editor Hintered as second-class matter, July 31, 1941, at the Post Office at San Francisco, California, under the Act of March 3, 1879.

Subscription Rates—Seventy-five Cents a Year.

-AID TO “TROTSKYITES"

Pardon Attorney Daniel M. Lyons advised the American Civil Liberties Union last month that the Department of Justice would not support petitions for executive clemency for the eighteen ‘members of the Socialist Workers Party convieted of conspiracy under the peace-time’ sedition act. Fhe refusal to do so was based on the rule that the President will not “ordinarily review applications for pardon unless accompanied py a favorable recommendation from the U. S.

Attorney or the trial judge.’ Mr. Lyons added that, “our study of the application fails to disclose a justification for submitting these cases as an exception to that rule.”

Petitions for Presidential pardon bearing thousands of signaturés collected by the Civil Rights Defense Committee were filed last August. The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed both the peace-time sedition law and the prosecution as unwarranted, supported the pardon petitions. The U. S. Supreme Court had three times refused to review the convictions.

The Union in deploring the Department of Justice’s refusal to recommend pardons, stated:

“The refusal of the Department of Justice to recommend commutation of sentence or pardon for the Socialist Workers Party prisoners was mot unexpected. It was known that the trial prosecutor and judge would not recommend it, out it was hoped that the Department of Justice which originated the case might think better of its decision in the light of the record.

The case is without precedent in being the only peace-time conviction for sedition in federal law. The case involved only speech and publications, not a single overt act.

“The whole record is a shameful reflection upon our professed loyalty to freedom of speech and press. If justice were done, the men should we released with an apology and the law under which they were convicted should be ‘repealed or voided by the courts. Not the least important aspect of the case was the fact that it was instituted by a rival union which invoked the federal government to.serve its own ends.

“The men will all be released by next January. They and their associates on the Civil Rights Committee which has fought a valiant battle against great odds, should have the sympathy and commendation of all defenders of civil liberHes.

‘CONSUMERS UNION WIN S BIRTH CONTROL CASE AGAINST POST OFFICE

The U. S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia recently in an unprecedented decision in a birth control case reversed a lower court order upholding a P. O. department ban against the mailing of a pamphlet entitled “A Report on Contraceptive - Materials” prepared by the Consumers Union. The pamphlet was distributed to married members only on receipt ‘of a writ- ten order accompanied by a physician’s certifi- cate.

The Appeals Court decision expressed the opinion that Congress did not intend to authorize the Post Office Department to “exclude from the mails properly prepared information intended for properly prepared people.” Associate Justice Miller stated: °

“In view of what we have said, we conclude -that a proper interpretation of the statute permits distribution of the material here involved for informational purposes; that it vitally concerned the lives and health of those to whom it was directed. In fact, the publication of information by the appellant in the present case, far irom. being designed to encourage the sale or distribution of contraceptive drugs and contriv- ances, was rather inclined to discourage their sale or use by indicating that most of them were either useless or dangerous.”

The case when heard by the Circuit Court had been before the courts for more than three years. Osmond K. Fraenkel, N. Y. attorney and member of ACLU’s board, argued the case for the Consumers Union.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS COURT RULES MOTHER'S RELIGIOUS VIEWS UNFIT HER TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN

Merely because. Kathleen B. Cory subscribes to the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which she shares with her two small children, they have been ordered removed from her custody for nine months of the year and will be turned over to the care o ftheir father, from whom she secured a divorce on April 138, 19438. That is the recent decision of the Superior Court of Sacramento county, in modifying an interlocutory decree of divorce.

One child, James, is six years old, while the other, Barbara, is only three. Since the court found that neither child will be greatly influenced by the mother’s teachings until they reach the age of six, the youngest child will continue to remain with the mother for the next three years.

No charge was made that the mother in any way neglected her children, or that she is not a morally fit person to care for them. Indeed, the court specifically found that “the mother of said children is a4 moral person.” The only trouble seems to be that like all Jehovah’s Witnesses, the mother is opposed to flag-saluting and to participation in war. The father, on the other hand, desires “that said children be reared as loyal Americans to respect and salute the flag of their country and to defend it when called upon to do so by the Government thereof.” At the same time, the court carefully refrained from mentioning that Mrs. Cory is a Jehovah’s Witness and that the teachings to which it objects are those of that religious society. The court has also found “That the said teach ing of plaintiff (Mrs. Cory) will not only pre— vent the said minors from becoming loyal American citizens, but will prevent them, should they later in life desire to: join, from joining any of our leading character building groups and organizations, as well as all the leading fraternal organizations and fraternities. That such character building organizations tend greatly to prevent delinquency in children who otherwise might be drawn into such class, and they also. teach other matters which are invaluable throughout life to their members. That plaintiff, if given the exclusive custody of said children, will deprive said children of the benefits of the teachings of such groups as above mentioned, and will tend to prevent said minors from assoclating with loyal Americans.”

Consequently, once the children attain the -age of 6 (and the boy is already six), the father is granted custody of the children during nine months of each year, while the mother is granted custody of the children for the remaining three months, “namely, the vacation months out of each year.” . : Attorney Clarence E. Rust of Oakland is un- dertaking an appeal to the Third District Court in behalf of the mother. The ACLU is cooperating.

Navy Admits Negro Women Into ‘Waves’

Another step in the fight to end discrimination against Negroes in the U. S. Navy was taken on October 19 when President Roosevelt approved a plan for acceptance of Negro women . in the Women’s Naval Reserve. Two. years ago the Navy began to accept Negro men for general service, breaking the tradition that confined them to the mess service.

Plans call for, immediate commissioning of a limited number of Negro women qualified to serve as officers to supervise the scheme.. The first women will enter training on January 1 at the “WAVE” officer schools which have been used for training white women.

The announcements of the new service do not state whether the new units will be racially segregated. Nor were there any disclosures on the attitude of the Coast Guard and the Marine Corps, both units of the Navy which bar Negro women. The announcement has been widely acclaimed by Negro leaders and the Negro press.

High Court Refuses Review Of Couchois Sedition Case

A merchant seaman sentenced to five years imprisonment under the war-time espionage act for remarks made to a naval gun crew lost his appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court on October 16 when the Court refused a review. The seaman, James Orville Couchois, charged with attempting to incite insubordination, was aided by the ACLU which entered the case after his conviction in Mobile, Ala., in August, 1943, where he was forced to trial with a lawyer appointed by the court, and with only a few hours for preparation.

The seaman was alleged to have made dis-— loyal statements aboard the SS. West Nohno, on which he sailed for Egypt in 1942. His motive was apparently a desire to promote the interests of the National Maritime Union, of which he was a member. The union refused to defend him.

BOOK NOTE

PREJUDICE, by Carey McWilliams. A study of Japanese Americans: Symbol of Racial In- tolerance. Little, Brown and Co., Boston.

This books is the first full-length study of the relations of the population of Japanese ancestry to the war. No man is better qualified to write it than the author of “Brothers Under the Skin,” a native Californian, a practicing lawyer, a scholarly researcher, and a man of balanced judgment.

McWilliams does not confine his study to the tragic story of the evacuation and ‘detention. He is primarily concerned with the future of our relations in the Orient and the future solution of ell race discrimination in the United States.

STATUS OF PHYSICALLY DISQUALIFIED C. 0. TAKEN TO FEDERAL COURT

Whether a conscientious objector physically disqualified for non-combatant army service can still be required to work in a civilian camp is the question .put before the Federal District Court in Knoxville, Tenn. by James Randolph Smith, an assignee at the C. P..S. camp at Gatlinburg. Smith requested induction for non-combatant service, but was turned down by the med ical, authorities. He then claimed release from | - civilian service on the ground he was physically disqualified by a 4F classification. When the C.P.S.° authorities refused he took his case to court, aided by the ACLUHis release was ordered by the presiding judge pending a final hearing in December. Smith ig a farmer, with a wife and child.

Attorneys for the National Committee for Conscientious Objectors regard the case as a precedent in relation to a number of objectors refused release from camp when they are found to have physical disqualifications for non-combatant service.

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-Chairmen Joseph S. Thompson Secretary-Treasurer Ernest Besig Director pe Philip Adams a Hi. 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 Rabbi Irving F. Reichert Clarence E. Rust Dr. Howard Thurman Kathleen Drew Tolman