vol. 10, no. 12

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal is the price of liberty.”

Vol. X SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER 1945 No. 12

986 Tule Lake Renunciants File Suits Charging Duress By The Gov't and Seditious Groups

Exactly 986 Japanese residents of the Tule Lake center in Northern California who re- nounced their United States citizenship on November 13 sought release from detention by filing two mass petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the United States District Court in San Francisco, charging they are the victims of duress by the government and seditious groups. Two additional suits by the same persons were also filed seeking cancellation of their renunciations of citizenship, declaration by the court of their United States nationality and an injunction to restrain the Justice Department from carrying out its announced plan of deporting them to Japan as aliens. The suits were filed by Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco as private attorney for the group, with the full support of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Hearings December 20

United States District Judge A. F. St. Sure at once signed an order directing the government to show cause why writs of habeas corpus should not be issued, and the order was made returnable cnDecember 10. In the meantime, | however, it was agreed between counsel to continue the matter until January 10. Incidentallly, Judge St. Sure’s show cause order contains a provision restraining the government from removing any of the 986 renunciants from the Tule Lake Center, pending a decision in the matter.

The suits charge that the renunciations of citizenship were not free acts but were com- pelled both by government duress and by “fanatically pro-Japanese” groups and indivi- duals whom the government knowingly allowed to carry on a campaign of violence, terrorism and sedition which was calculated to force loyal American citizens to renounce their citizenship. Three Japanese nationalistic organizations, the Sokuji Kikoku Hoshi Dan, made up of the older men, Hokoku Seinen Dan, a group of younger men, and a girls’ organization, Hokoku Joshi Dan, were allegedly allowed to operate and to engage in semi-military drill and to carry on ' their seditious program and terroristic activi- ties without any effort being made by the Justice Department to put a legal stop to their criminal activities.

Activities of Seditious Groups

Specifically, these groups, among other things, were charged with the preaching and practice of sedition and openly espousing the cause of Japan; operation of goon squads and mainten: ance of a veritable reign of terror at the centez at the time renunciation hearings were in progress; threatening physical harm to relatives of non-renunciants residing in Japan; the filing of spurious letters requesting applications for re- nunciation and then claiming that the government was demanding that the recipients re- nounce their citizenship; and the maintenance of coaching schools to coach renunciants on false answers they should give at the hearings on their renunciation application.

The government, according to the petitions, was “aware and knew” of these lawless activities, “but condoned the same and was responsible for, and actually aided and abetted the same by permitting such activities and by failing to arrest and prosecute the leaders and active members thereof and to put a stop to their — criminal activities and lawlessness and by failing to invoke the federal sedition and espionage laws or other criminal laws against them and by failing to segregate such criminal elements from the petitioners and other loyal internees and to isolate them.”

Government Duress Charged

The governmental duress against the petitioners was alleged to consist of racial discrimination marked by their “unlawful imprisonment” in concentration camps for three and one-half (3-42) years; denying citizenship rights by classifying and treating the males as aliens under the Selective Service Act; leading petitioners to believe that the government intended to deport their alien parents while detaining them here, thereby disuniting families and impelling alien parents who feared the splitting of their families, to coerce their citizen children into signing renunciation applications; leading petitioners to believe that signing of renunciations was a prerequisite to their right and the right of their families to remain in the protective security of the center and from being — thrown back into communities “where hostility to persons of Japanese ancestry where they feared they would suffer great physical harm and probable loss of life from lawless elements; “and compelling certain petitioners who had been released from confinement (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

Court Reinstates Member Expelled From Trade Union

A railway express clerk expelled from his union two years ago for distributing leaflets in a union election campaign won reinstatement in a decision by the New York Supreme Court on November 3. Michael Gallagher of Brooklyn, expelled from the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks by order of George Harrison, Brotherhood president after he had failed to appear at a hearing in Cincinnati, Brotherhood headquarters, won the judgment. The Brotherhood was ordered by Supreme Court Justice Benedict Dineen to reinstate him as chairman of his local lodge and to pay him damages for the period of his expulsion.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented Gallagher said Justice Dineen’s decision establishes a valuable precedent limiting the power of union officials to violate democratic rights of members.

Noting no reason why Gallagher should not have been tried in New York, Justice Dineen held it was “a great injustice to require a workingman to travel to a distant city with his withesses and counsel to conduct his defense.” President Harrison, who ordered the expulsion after a hearing in Cincinnati at which Gallagher did not appear, was criticized by Justice Dineen for “assuming the right to determine facts without seeing or hearing witnesses,” He held the expulsion void on the ground that even if the constitution of the Brotherhood conferred on the president the power to expel, “the manner in which he attempted to exercise it was repugnant to elementary principles of fair play and justice.” Quoting another New York case Justice Dineen held that any expulsion from a union is void unless the procedure is like “that observed in ordinary judicial proceedings, so far at least “s to promote substantial justice.” Justice Di- neen held that the fact that Gallagher had not appealed to the Union’s grand executive council, ‘vyhich affirmed the expulsion last year, was “immaterial” to the verdict.

reigned and.

To Permit Smith Meeting

The California Supreme Court on November 27 handed down a 6 to 1 decision ordering the San Francisco School Board to allow “Ham ’n’ Higgs” the use of the Evening High School of — Commerce at 2 o’clock on Sunday afternoon, December 2, for a meeting to be addressed by Gerald L. K. Smith, “free of any requirement that they furnish public liability insurance.”

The board had originally refused a permit for the meeting by a 3 to 2 vote, but after relief was sought in the courts, the board on November 20 reversed itself and granted the use of the auditorium by a 3 to 2 vote, on condition that “Ham ’n’ Eggs” furnish a public liability insurance policy in the sum of $100,000/$400,000. Such a condition would have prevented the meeting, because no insurance company could be found to write the policy. In fact, any unpopular group cduld be excluded from the use of a civic center by the simple expedient of requiring a large public liability bond.

The board’s bond requirement was in accordance with a resolution it adopted on Sep- tember 28, 1943, following protests by the Civil Liberties Union, providing, in conformance

High Court Orders |

with the law, that “heating, lighting, janitorial — or other services” in connection with the use of a civic center “shall be provided for out of school district funds,” but also providing, “That when an auditorium or gymnasium is requested, a public liability insurance policy shall be furnished in the name of the San Francisco Unified School District in the sum of $100,000/

(Contined on Page 3, Col. 1)

Friends and Socialists Protest Denial Of S. F. School for Smith Meetings

The American Friends Service Committee and the Socialist Party last month filed protests with the San Francisco school board against the denial of permits for the use of a school by “Ham ’n’ Eggs” for meetings to be addressed by Gerald L. K. Smith.

While expressing “deep disagreement” with the ideas of Smith, the Friends declared “it is most dangerous to establish precedent for the idea that freedom of speech is to be limited by the judgments of the Board of Education. We believe that the very essence of civil liberties is the granting of the right to be heard to those with whom we most vigorously disagree. Indeed, civil liberties have no meaning if they apply only to those whom we approve.”

“There are many reasons for our conviction,”’ the letter went on to say, “aside from the rather general theory that freedom of speech is desirable. We believe, for one thing, that it is never constructive to drive dangerous ideas under ground by refusing to let them be heard above ground. Secondly, we believe action like that which has been taken will immensely increase the interest in Mr. Smith’s message, partly because of the publicity that is given and partly because of the basic sympathy which many people tend to develop toward an apparent martyr. Thirdly, we believe that those who will suffer most often from the kind of precedent here established are precisely the kind of minorities whom democratic society is committed to protect”

The Socialist Party also declared its opposition to Smith, but declared, “it is nevertheless clear to us that the permission for the meeting should have been granted. .. . Unlike most of those who appeared in opposition to the permit, we support civil liberties as a principle, not merely as a tactic towards the attainment of power, to be then abandoned in the interest of preserving ourselves.”

Page 2

Hawaiian Martial Law Cases Heard By U.S. Supreme Court

Citing the Declaration of Independence among other documents, the American Civil Liberties Union roundly condemned in a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court military trials of civilians in Hawaii during the war as “contrary to the whole spirit and tradition of American life.” The Union brief on two cases argued November 13, noted that the Declaration lists as one of the colonists’ grievances against the King of England that he had “affected to render the military independent and superior to the civil power.”

On the ground of the supremacy of civil power,, the high court is urged to reverse the convictions of Lloyd C. Duncan and Harry EH. White, two residents of Hawaii originally tried and sentenced by courts martial, and to lay down the general rule that military courts cannot try civilians where the civil courts are open, except by “Congressional authorization or in case of dire necessity.”

The Civil Liberties Union brief holds as a fundamental principle of American government that the military should be subordinate to the civil power, saying: “That this supremacy should prevail in war as in peace was illustrated early in our history. In the Revolutionary War itself General Washington never attempted to try civilians by military tribunals except under specific authorization of Congress. During the war of 1812 the courts several times ruled against the military, in one case holding that a declaration of martial law by General Andrew Jackson in New Orleans did not have the effect of displacing civil courts. In the Civil War the U.S. Supreme Court in the Milligan case voided a conviction by court martial in Indiana and held that not even Congress had the power to authorize military trials where the civil courts were open and functioning.”

Concluding that a decision on this issue “is important not only in relation to acts of the army in time of war, but also as to acts of the militia in relation to threatened internal disorders in time of peace,” the brief asks the Supreme Court to declare that “martial law does not automatically permit trials by military courts. Military necessity justifies no interfer-| ence with the liberties of the citizens when not authorized by Congress, and even then not unless the action proposed has a direct and necessary relation to the conduct of the war.” One of the appellants, Harry E. White, a stockbroker of Honolulu, was originally convicted of embezzlement by a military court in Hawaii in August 1942 and sentenced to five years. The other, Lloyd C. Duncan, was convicted of assault on a military guard in a similar court in March 1944 and received six months’ sentence. Both men were granted writs of habeas corpus by the Federal District Court in Hawaii on the ground that the military had no jurisdiction. On appeal ‘by the Army the Circuit Court at San Francisco unanimously reversed the District Court. The Supreme Court is bein asked to sustain the writs.

“ALLEGED TERRORIST GOES TO TRIAL IN ALAMEDA COUNTY JANUARY 7%

Robert Franklin Hailey, 36, farm tractor driver, charged with firing shotgun blasts into ‘the homes of Motonosuke Motozaki and Toshiaki Idota in Alameda county on September 16, will go to trial in the Superior Court on January 7. Hailey has pleaded ‘Not Guilty” to two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of attempted murder. Hailey is free on $3000 bail. He is represented by Attorneys Frank W. Creely and J. Reagan Talbot.

A.C.L.U. Financial Statement For Fiscal Year 1944-1945

The following statement indicates how your mouey was, spent by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California during the fiscal year ending October 31, 1945:

General Receipts -.......-.---.....--..------$6336.68 | Expenditures Salaries 6.452009 $4,015.00 Printing and Stationery 929.74 Rent 6 471.50 Postage =o. 264.49 Telephone and Telegraph 200.06 Mravene 2 6 177.90 Miscellaneous .............-.--91.82 Taxes and Insurance ........ 60.94 Publications 15.00 Total Expenditures ..............-.--$6,226.45 ‘Surplus $ 110.23

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

RELEASES FROM CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE BEGIN

Without an announcement of policy, Selective Service has begun to release the first few conscientious objectors from Civilian Public Service. Men over 38, and those who have served for four years are due to be out by Christmas, and men with three years’ service will begin to be discharged in January. It is understood that the original plan of demobilization by a point system similar to that in the Army was abandoned by General Hershey following protests from veterans’ organizations. Efforts to speed demobilization of Civilian Public Service have proved so far unavailing.

The Quakers have served notice that they will withdraw from the maintenance of their camps on March 2 next. It is understood that the government will take them over.

Efforts are being continued by the National Committee on Conscientious Objectors and other agencies to speed up both discharges from CPS and. releases from prison where over three thousand objectors, three-fourths of them Jehovah’s Witnesses, are still held.

Conscientious Objectors on Hunger Strike at Waldport, Ore., Camp

At this writing six out of twelve conscientious objectors who went on a hunger strike at the Waldport, Oregon, Civilian Public Service Camp, operated by the Brethren, are still going without food. The fast started on November 20.

It started as a protest against the intention of the Brethren Service Committee to continue serving as an agent in the government’s conscription program. According to a press release from the strikers, ‘This is considered as a violation of the tradition of separation of church and state and a reversal of the Church’s traditional unequivocal opposition to war and war measures.” .

The strike is also in protest against arbitrary assignment of the men to other camps, and against the government’s slow demobilization policy.

Last month the American Legion at its national convention adopted a resolution opposing discharge of conscientious objectors “until six months after the return of the last combattant soldier.”

Thank You!

The office is taking this means of thanking its 310 supporters (a record number) who last month sent in contributions toward our $7000 budget for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1946. We appreciate your continued support.

We hope that those who have not yet contributed will do so without delay. Also, about 90 of the 300 persons whose memberships expired last month have not yet gotten around to sending in their renewals. Please do it NOW!

HOUSE UN-AMERICAN COMMITTEE SCORED ON RADIO SCRIPT INQUIRY

Rep. John S. Wood, chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities was scored by the American Civil Liberties Union last month for wasting time with investigations of radio commentators and movie stars when there are “obviously more profitable fields of Un-Americanism than attempts to interfere with freedom of speech on the air or the screen.” Arthur Garfield Hays, counsel for the Union, in a letter to Rep. Wood urged that “such lines of inquiry be at once abandoned, since such inquiries inevitably tend to curtail freedom of speech on the air and intimidate Sections of the motion picture industry.” Mr. Hays informed Rep. Wood that the action of the House Committee in calling for scripts of radio commentators and making inquiries in Hollywood “war- rants the protest of all citizens devoted to the American tradition of freedom of speech.”

The Civil Liberties Union has announced that it is not yet joining with other groups calling for the abolition of the House Committee, Said the Union: ‘While we are opposed to many of the methods of the present Committee, we do not think the evidence as yet strong enough to justify its total abolition, as was the case with the Dies Committee.”

The present House Committee is reported to be reading scripts by seven radio commentators with an eye to hearings on their political views. The seven are William S. Gailmore, Raymond Gram Swing, Johannes Steel, Sidney Walton, J. Raymond Walsh, Cecil Brown, and Hans Jacob.

“Subversive” Employees Win In Court of Claims

Three federal employees dismissed in 1943 by act of Congress after Dies Committee allegations that they held ‘‘subversive”’ political views, won vindication in a decision of the U.S. Court of Claims handed down November 5. The Court granted back pay claims made by Robert M. Lovett, former assistant to the Governor of the Virgin Islands; Goodwin B. Watson and William E. Dodd Jr. both former executives of the Federal Communications Commission. Their suit was conducted on a joint basis by the U. S. Attorney General and Charles S. Horsky, Washington counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, who maintained that Congress’ action in passing a rider to the Deficiency Appropriation Bill of 1943 specifically barring the payment of salaries to the three men was unconstitutional.

The opinion of the court by Chief Justice Richard S. Whaley, however, deliberately con- fined itself to the question of back pay claims, refusing to take up the question of the constitutionality, although President Roosevelt originally condemned the Congressional Rider of 1943 as an unconstitutional “bill of attainder.” Justice Whaley held that it was unnecessary to go beyond the fact that the Congressional provision was an attempt to tie the hands of a Federal disbursing officer, which made the ap- propriation measure contradictory and invalid. Congress was severely raked over the coals, however, in separate concurring opinions by Justices Benjamin H. Littleton and J. Warren . Madden. 0.

"S. F. NEWS" SUPPORTS TULE LAKE RENUNCIATION SUITS

Under the title, “The Japanese Suits,” the San Francisco News on November 14 carried the following editorial concerning the Tule Lake suits to set aside renunciations of citizenship and prevent removal to Japan:

Thoroughly democratic is the step taken by Japanese-Americans interned at Tule Lake to test in the courts the validity of the regulations under which they are held for deportation. They have the right to use our American instruments of justice to establish their claims. And every American should be anxious to see them fully protected in that right...

-JIt must be recognized that the position in which they were placed by their sudden removal to relocation centers in 1942 created artificial and temporary conditions for them far from normal, Under the stress of these conditions it doubtless was hard, if not impossible, for many of them to reach sound decisions. If any act of our own Government led them to wrong decisions they certainly are entitled to make that known in orderly legal procedure.

The whole question of their removal from their homes on the Coast is shrouded in considerable legal fog. Perhaps their move will result in court decisions that will clear away some of the doubts and establish a new basis of precedent to guide future actions, if perish the thought, a similar emergency should arise again.

WOMEN’S EQUAL PAY BILL SUPPORTED AS SENATE HEARINGS OPEN

Support for a Senate bill to provide equal pay for equal work regardless of sex was urged by the American Civil Liberties Union as hearings on the bill opened before a sub-committee of the Senate Education and Labor Committee. In a letter to Senator James E. Murray, committee chairman, the Union said ‘“discrimination solely on the basis of sex without any relation to a purposeful end is as much a violation of civil liberty as any other unreasonable or arbitrary discrimination. Women have civil rights no less than men. The principle of equal pay for equal work therefore merits our ap- proval. S. 1178 (the Equal Pay bill) has been carefully drawn to avoid abuses.”

The Union’s letter was signed by former Judge Dorothy Kenyon, chairman of the Union’s Committee on Discrimination Against Women in Employment. The bill was supported at the hearings by Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach, representatives of the AFL and CIO, and numerous other organizations.

MODESTO MEMBER QUITS D.A.R. BECAUSE OF RACE DISCRIMINATION

Miss Esto Broughton, Merced attorney and former member of the State Assembly, resigned as a member of the Major Hugh Chapter of Daughters of the American Revolution, when that group twice rejected resolutions protesting limitation of D.A.R.’s Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. to “white artists only’. Miss Broughton is former regent of the chapter.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page 3

High Court Orders Board To Permit Smith Meeting

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 3)

$400,000, except that the requirement for said policy may be waived for organizations, clubs cr associations organized for general character building, welfare purposes, or in connection with the national war effort.”

The court held that this regulation is in conflict with a requirement of the Civic Center Act providing that “The use of schoolhouses, property, and grounds . . . shall be free,” and another section of the law providing that “Lighting, heating, janitor service .

and other necessary expenses, in connection with the use of public school buildings . shall be provided for out of the county or special school funds...”

The court thus placed its decision on statutory grounds. ‘Since the board cannot require the furnishing of a policy of public liability insurance as a condition for the use of a school ’ auditorium under the Civic Center Act,” said the court, “it is unnecessary to consider petitioners’ arguments that the exemptions authorized in the regulations are unreasonably discriminatory and would enable the board to act as a censor by imposing the requirement arbitrarily upon those groups whose views it dis- approves.” The majority opinion was written by Mr. Justice Traynor.

A concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Carter held that the bond regulation was discriminatory and therefore in violation of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly. “It may be true,” said Justice Car ter, “that the Legislature was under no constitutional obligation to dedicate school buildings as civic centers in which citizens and groups may hold public meetings, but once the Legislature made that dedication, the use to be made by the people in conducting public meetings at such civic centers may not be subject either to censorship, arbitrary action or unconstitutional restrictions by the governing boards of education.”

Mr. Justice Edmonds wrote a brief dissenting opinion, in which he held, while ignoring the statutory provision for free use, that the bond requirement was a reasonable regulation, and that it does not violate the right of free speech, because the latter “is subject to certain limitations.” Apparently, Mr. Justice Edmonds is of the opinion that the right can be denied ' in this instance because the doctrines Smith preaches are dangerous.

NISEI TO BE ADMITTED TO NAVY

Exclusion of Japanese Americans from service in all branches of the Navy and the WAVES came to an end with public announcement November 15 that Secretary of the Navy Forrestal was revoking the policy. The change came after repeated representations by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Japanese American Citizens League, the American Veterans Committee and others, urging that the ban be revoked. Last month the Japanese American Citizens League made public a letter from Admiral Chester W. Nimitz saying that he was not opposed to the . admission of Nisei to the Navy, in view of their fine record in other services.

Judge Threatens to Resign Rather Than Accept Bail, but Changes Mind

A novel issue involving the U.S. Commissioner in Oakland was recently decided out of court. The Commissioner refused to accept $2000 in U.S. Treasury bonds as bail in the case of a conscientious objector, on the ground that the bonds were too troublesome for him to handle; that if the bondsman insisted upon presenting them, he would raise the bail to a point where it could not be provided, and, in any case, he would rather give up his job than accept the bonds. The Union induced the Commissioner to accept the bonds, and, so far, he has not resigned.

re

Xmas Shopping Tip!

Give your friends a subscription to the NEWS.

¥ SAVES TIME... ¥ SAVES WORRY... 8 ¥ SPREADS THE NEWS. 3 # SPECIAL XMAS OFFER— ‘

6 subscriptions for $5. Include a gift to your local library. (Regular subscription rate—$1 per year)

San Francisco School Board Reverses liself and Allows G. L. K. Smith

The San Francisco Board of Education last month reconsidered its refusal to grant a permit to the Payroll Guarantee Association (Ham ’n’ Eggs) to use a civic center for a meeting to be addressed by rabble-rouser Gerald L. K. Smith, and, by a vote of 3 to 2, granted the use of the Commerce High School auditorium for Sunday afternoon, December 2, if the Association posts a $400,000 public liability bond.

Previously, the Board had voted 3 to 2 against granting the permit for December 2, and the Association at once filed a petition in the State Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandate compelling the granting of the permit. An alternative writ issued and was made returnable on November 21. The day before the court hearing, the school board met and, following the report of its attorney, Irving Breyer, at first voted 3 to 2 against a motion to deny the permit on the ground that threatened rioting might result in damage to the school property. Thereafter, a motion was made and adopted, 3 to 2, that the permit should be granted, if a $400,000 bond is posted, Dissenting board member Mrs. Coonan then took the trouble to point out that Mrs. Dinkelspiel and Dr. Schaupp, both of whom had previously voted against granting a permit for a Smith meeting, were absent, and their votes would result in denying the permit by a vote of 4 to 3.

Even so, it was pointed out to the Board that the Association could not use the auditorium because the condition of a $400,000 bond could not be fulfilled. No surety company in the area (including Lloyd’s) would write the bond, so the effect of the board’s action was to allow a surety company to determine who may use an auditorium under the Civic Center Act.

Moreover, the Act provides specifically that “The use of schoolhouses . . Shall be granted free,” and “Lighting, heating, janitor service, ... and other necessary expenses, in connection with the use of public school buildings . . . shall be provided for out of the county or special school funds of the respective school districts ... .” San Francisco is the only school district that requires posting of a public liability bond, and evidence has been secured showing that since July, 1948, such a bond has been required no more than a half a dozen times, although civic centers have been in use on thousands of occasions.

Despite the clear language in the Act, providing that all necessary expenses shall be paid by school districts, the attorney for the board contended that the bond requirement was permissible under a section of the Act which provides that “The use . . . is subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the’ governing board of the district prescribes ... .”

The question of the legality of the bond requirement is still pending before the State Supreme Court at this writing. If the legality of the bond is upheld, we venture to say that such a decision, plus the one previously rendered by the Court, will successfully emasculate the Civic Center Act. It should be obvious to everyone that in order to prevent an unpopular minority from meeting in a schoolhouse, .all a board has to do is to require a large public liability bond and the insurance companies will then exercise a censorship in accordance with their prejudices.

Such a decision would be in line with the court’s unfortunate 6 to 1 decision of November 9. In that case, the San Francisco board contended that the requested use would interfere with evening school classes, not because of any acts of the assemblers, but because of a possible disturbance resulting from threatened picketing by opponents of Smith. In effect, the court granted the opponents of any applicant the right to censor or stop such meeting on a school night by a mere threat to picket.

“Speakers who express their opinions freely,” said the court, “must run the risk of attracting opposition; they cannot expect their opponents to be silenced while they continue to speak freely. If a. speaker in a school building or the opposition that he aroused attracted so much attention as to disturb school activities, it would not be for the police to curb those who incident-. ally caused the disturbance so long as their activities were lawful, but for the board to prevent the occurrence of such a disturbance. Neither a speaker nor his opponents are thereby stilled; they may express themselves fully and freely in school buildings as elsewhere whenever their activities do not bring in their wake a disturb-: ance of the regular school program.” The court therefore held that. the board acted within the terms of the Act providing that any meeting shall “in nowise interfere with the use and occupancy of the public schoolhouse and grounds as is required for the purposes of the public scnools of the State.”

Justice Carter wrote a strong’ dissent. He pointed out that the Legislature has made school buildings available for public assemblies “for the exercise of those cherished rights, freedom of speech and assembly,” and that these rights are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. “The Board in refusing permission is not exercising its judgment,” said Justice Carter. “It is bowing to the threats or conjectured conduct of third persons. In the one case it is picketing and in the other the possible refusal of the pupils to attend classes. If it is permitted to base its action on such grounds there is nothing left of the cherished rights of freedom of speech and assembly and of the declared right to use school buildings for that purpose. If the republican party desires the use of a school building to hold a meeting the board may refuse permission upon the assumption or threat by the parents of students of democratic persuasion that they will not attend — classes. If any meeting of any character by any group is proposed and it is opposed by only one person or many persons attending the school a denial of permission might follow. ... . The reasoning upon which the majority opinion is based makes it possible for any school board to deny the use of school buildings to anyone who may apply when the proposed use is for a purpose which may be even slightly controversial, as it will not be difficult to find those who will object and threaten, This is all that is required to deny permission for such use under the rule of the majority opinion. This places in the hands of school boards, especially in those communities where there is only one school building available for such uses, the power to deny permission for the use of such building to anyone whom a majority of the board dislike. Discrimination and favoritism are bound to result, and the obvious purpose and object which the legislature -had in mind in enacting the so-called Civic Center Act will be frustrated.”

A petition for a rehearing was filed with the — Supreme Court on November 23, requesting “not only that a rehearing be granted, but that they (the petitioners) be permitted thereafter to file an amended petition seeking the order of this Court directing the Board to follow its directions in determining petitioners’ rights under the Civic. Center Act.”

The petition points out that “Under the Court’s decision it would be possible for a timorous board to deny the right of free Speech upon the ground that an organized group has threatened to distribute pamphlets outside the school for a week prior to the meeting which they wish to prevent, or to parade pickets outside the school for a week prior to the meeting which they wish to prevent, or to parade pickets outside the school for an indefinite period prior to the date of the meeting. The means for destroying the right of free speech, under this Court’s construction of the Civic Center Act, in other words, are as varied as the forms of lawful heckling which an ingenious opposition can devise to disturb school functions lawfully. In such a situation: it is Inconceivable that a minority group could ever hold a meeting under the Civic Center Act in any community where its views were unpopular. This amounts to a destruction of the Act as an instrument for freedom of speech in California, and this Court is urged to reverse the construction of the statute which makes this possible.”

The petition also points out “that the right conferred upon California citizens under the Civic Center Act is co-extensive with the right of free speech guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions. The constitutional guarantee of free speech has been implemented in California by a statutory right which can be denied to a proper — group only upon grounds which have been sanctioned as grounds for the denial of the constitutional right also, that is, the violent overthrow of , the government.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition for a rehearing. “. . if all that is threatened by the opponents of the applicants for the use of a civic center is peaceful picketing,” says the brief, “there can be no disturbance of school activities.

“If conduct more disturbing than peaceful (Continued on Page 4, Col. 2)

Page 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

American Civil Liberties Union-News Published monthly at 216 Pine Street, San Francisco, 4, Calif., by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Phone: EXbrook 1816 “ERNEST BESIG ....... .. Editor Entered as second-class matter, July 31, 1941, at the Post Office at San Francisco, California, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Subscription Rates—One Dollar a Year. Ten Cents per Copy. 151

Tule Lake Renunciants File Habeas Corpus Suits

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2)

to make the choice of an involuntary banishment from the United States in order to preserve the unity of their families.

The nearly 1000 renunciants who have brought suit are among the 4300 who renounced their citizenship between January and March of this year under a statute enacted a year ago which for the first time in the history of the country permits citizens resident in this country to renounce their citizenship during wartime, if in the opinion of the Attorney General such renunciation would not interfere with the national defense. While the Department of Justice expected only 1000 persons to renounce their United States citizenship, the seditious activities of the Japanese nationalistic groups, alleged governmental coercion and the mass hysteria which swept the Center resulted in an unexpected 4300 renunciations. Every renunciation has been approved by the Attorney General, even in cases where the petitioners sought to eancel their applications prior to approval. The 4300 renunciants include hundreds of boys and girls between the ages of 18 and 21. These children, it is asserted, were coerced into renouncing by their alien parents who were led to believe they would he deported, and thus separated from their citizen children. Today, those aliens are permitted to leave the Tule Lake Center “and return to their former homes while the government holds their children.” It is claimed that the government was without authority ,to accept renunciation of citizenship from minors. The Justice Department has announced that all of the renunciants will be deported to Japan, and that the deportation program will start on November 15. The present suits have been filed at this time in order to prevent those who suffered from duress from being deported.

Many Hardship Cases

Besides the cases of children separated from their parents, the suits allege there are many ‘other hardship cases among the 4300 renunciants, “including those of our soldiers of Japanese ancestry returning from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific who have parents, wives, sisters, brothers, or children interned in said Center and scheduled for deportation to Japan.” A letter attached to the petitions claims, among other things, that the Justice Department even accepted renunciations from insane persons.

The suits challenge the constitutionality of the statute permitting renunciation of - citizenship during wartime, as well as the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 under which the government seeks to deport the renunciants, and which has never been passed upon by the Supreme Court. The latter law is attacked particularly because it makes no provision for a hearing of any kind or even a notice of deportation, and also on the ground that it is not applicable after hostilities have ceased.

Problem of Stateless Persons

One of the most important questions raised by the petitions is the affect renunciation has upon the nationality of a person who renounces his citizenship. The petition asserts that even “if it should be held that the renunciations are valid, “none of the petitioners thereby became an alien enemy within the meaning and provisions of the Alien Enemy Act but became a mere inhabitant of the country and a stateless person entitled to remain here . . . and to be free from detention under the Act.”

Named as respondent in the habeas corpus proceedings is Ivan Williams, as Officer-in- Charge of the Tule Lake Center for the Justice *Department. In the other suits, besides Ivan Williams, the respondents are Tom Clark, Attorney General, Frank Hennessy, United States Attorney, James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State, Fred Vinson, Secretary of the Treasury, Ugo Carusi, Commissioner of Immigration, Irving M. Wixon, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, James Markham, Alien Property Custodian, and Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior.

Government Official Admits 80% of Tule Lake Renunciations Resulfed From Duress

Under date of August 6, 1945, ABE FORTAS, Under Secretary of the Interior, stated as follows in a letter to Ernest Besig, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California:

“. , , they resorted to intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence in coercing residents to join the organization and participate in their demonstrations. It was primarily due to the pressure of these organizations that over 80 per cent of the citizens eligible to do so applied for renunciation of citizenship this past winter. When the Department of Justice representatives arrived at Tule Lake to conduct hearings on applications, the organizations stepped up their demonstrations and their pressures on the applicants. Undoubtedly many of the applicants were in the grip of the emotional hysteria created by these organizations, or actually acting under fear of violence, in confirming their desire to renounce citizenship during the hearings. The general uniformity of the answers given indicated that the applicants were well coached.

“On January 19, 1945, Mr. John Burling, special representative of the Attorney General conducting renunciation hearings at Tule Lake, addressed a letter to the heads of the two principal organizations setting forth the position of the Department of Justice toward the activities of the organizations . . . In that letter Mr. Burling speaking for the Attorney General, strongly condemned the activities of the organi- zations and stated that they must stop. Despite this letter, which was widely circulated in the center, the activities of the organizations did not

Deportation of Germans Held Up By Court Action

The fate of over 1,000 alleged Nazi sympathizers brought here from Latin America dur- ing the war and now scheduled for deportation to Germany hung in the balance last month as more than sixty held at Ellis Island for immediate deportation brought suits in the New | York Federal District Court for their release. The suits were held up temporarily pending conferences between Federal Judge Knox and representatives of the State and Justice Departments concerned in the deportations, previously scored by the American Civil Liberties Union as involving “possible grave injustices.” — According to the Civil Liberties Union some of the men scheduled for deportation are not German citizens at all. The return of others has been requested by the Latin American countries from which they were taken under a U.S. policy of guaranteeing hemispheric security, while a third group contains Germans who left Germany long before Hitler and were never Nazis. Many of them have native families in Latin America. Protests by the Union to Secretary of State Byrnes against the proposed deportations en masse brought some results last month, with reports that hearing would be granted by the Department before deportation, with the right of representation by counsel. The Department was reported ready to review all cases within three months, beginning with those who claim Latin American citizenship. In cases where deportation to Germany is decided against, the men will be sent back to the Latin American countries from which they came. Aside from the sixty held at Ellis Island the remainder are interned at Fort Lincoln, North Dakota.

S.F. School Board Reverses Itself; Allows Smith Meeting

(Continued from Page 3, Col. 3)

picketing is threatened, it is the duty of the authorities to prevent such conduct rather than allow the abridgment of the rights of free speech -and assembly. This is true even though the legislature might have entirely denied. the use of school buildings, because when that. right was granted conditions on its exercise allowing the abridgment of that right by private groups or local school boards would be unconstitutional.” At the court hearing in San Francisco on the public liability bond issue, Wayne M. Collins of San Francisco and A. L. Wirin of Los Angeles appeared for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and Southern California respectively.

abate. In order to maintain peace and order, protect the Tule Lake residents who were loyal to this country or who disagreed with the aims and objectives of the organizations, and to stop the subversive activities of these groups, two steps were taken. One was the transfer of the know alien leaders of the organizations (including persons who had renounced their citizenship) to internment camps. The other was the adoption of the special project regulations prohibiting the overt demonstrations which were fundamental to the organizations’ programs.”

In a letter from John Burling of the Department of Justice, dated January 18, 1945, to Masao Sakamoto, Chairman, Sokuji Kikoku Hoshi Dan, and Tsutomu Higashi, Chairman, Hokoku Seinen Dan, it was said: “Many people . . came here to be with their families or for other reasons unrelated to loyalty to Japan. Thus, it is incorrect to say that this is a camp exclusively for Japanese patriots and that proJapanese activity is therefore permissible. .. . No one .. . has the right to engage in proJapanese demonstrations and parades or to publish pro-Japanese newspapers or to wear a semimilitary uniform bearing the emblem of the Rising Sun on it. What is even more important, no one loyal to Japan has the right to seek to convert others to that loyalty. I am well aware that your two organizations have put pressure on residents of this Center to assert loyalty to Japan and that in a number of cases physical violence was employed. There is no more right fo engage in Japanese patriotic ceremonies or to publish a pro-Japanese paper in this Center, where some loyal Americans still live, than there is anywhere else in the United States. It is as treasonable to coerce others into asserting loy. alty to Japan here as it would be outside. All these activities will cease.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN — Abuses of the freedom of speech ought to be repressed, but to whom dare we commit the power of doing it?

The Equal Rights Amendment

Editor:

“It is too sweeping” that is the newest slogan of the people who are opposed to the Equal nd They have for some time been resorting to slogans, as that seems the best argument they can muster. How about— just for the sake of comparison—the Declaration of Indepence. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal—”’ The National Board of the Civil Liberties Union would like us to change those words, to, “That all men, but not women, are created equal.”

It never occurred to our forefathers to say ‘We'll work these rights out one state at a time—one right at a time. ‘What a mess of things that would have made! If they had planned first to make Massachusetts free and equal, and then New York, it would still be unfinished today, and instead of one nation there would have been thirteen separate states. Now, if the problem had been, say, a matter of hours and the law had said, no man in these United States shall work after seven o’clock. Would that have been .passed?‘ That, I admit is too sweeping, because it interferes with personal rights, but that is what they have done to women, and now they say, “If the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, that ‘protective legislation’—can you beat it? —will be wiped out, and women, will have to compete on an equal footing with men.” Well, they always have had to work under a handicap, and they are asking that the handicaps be removed. Shall the American Civil Liberties Union be one to enforce these inequalities. It is out of character for them to even consider it.

Yes, it is very sweeping, but until some such law, is made to include in its breadth the whole world, we shall have such conditions as we are struggling with today.

Let us say it again.—“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, that among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That is not too sweeping, it it! :

Olga K. Robinson.