vol. 15, no. 5

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Vol. XV

SAN FRANCISCO, MAY, 1950

No. 5

Teacher Loses Job Because

Of Anti-Discrimination Views

A teacher's fight against race discrimination in

housing is costing him his second job-this time

as assistant professor(R) of mathematics at Penn-

sylvania State College. Professor Lee Lorch, who

was dropped last year from New York's City

College after fighting the exclusion of Negroes

as tenants in Stuyvesant Town housing project,

said he has been informed by A. C. Morse, assis-

tant to the president of the Pennsylvania college,

that his contract will not be renewed next year

for the same reason.

Lorch said Morse told him that his action in

permitting a Negro family to live as guests in

his New York apartment was "extreme, illegal,

and immoral and damaging to the public relations

of the college". Morse also told Dr. Ralph E.

Himstead, executive secretary of the American

Association of University Professors which has

offered to mediate the case, that he recently ques-

tioned Lorch about his Stuyvesant Town activi-

ties and had made a report to the college trustees

who then decided not to reappoint him.

Lorch, as vice-president of the Town and Vil-

lage Tenants Committee to End Discrimination in

Stuyvesant Town, was dropped from City College

two months after a majority of the mathematics

~ department's promotion committee had recom-

mended him for promotion from instructor to

assistant professor. Last September, after he was

appointed as assistant professor at Pennsylvania

State College, he and his wife invited Mr. and

Mrs. Hardine Hendrix and their 5-year-old son

_ to occupy their apartment as guests. The Hend-

rixes, first Negro family to live in Stuyvesant

Town, had spent the preceding month as guests

of another family fighting discrimination in the

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's housing

project. A test case challenging the insurance

company's policy because of the state financial

_ aid given the housing project is now being pressed

before the U.S. Supreme Court by ACLU, Amer-

ican Jewish Congress and the National Associa-

tion for the Advancement of Colored People. New

York state courts have held that the state's Re-

development Companies Law, under which the

project was built, did not contain a provision

barring discrimination.

Governor Dewey Vetoes Bill

Banning Picketing of Courts

_New York's Gov. Thomas E. Dewey recently

vetoed a bill prohibiting picketing of courthouses

to influence a trial. In a statement, Gov. Dewey

said that existing judicial powers to punish for

contempt of court plus statutes on disorderly con-

duct "offer broad protection against the disre-

spectful conduct which this bill is really intended

to prevent.

"Freedom of expression is too important a

basic right to.be the subject of badly drafted,

carelessly conceived penal provisions," he stated.

The bill was opposed by the N.Y. State Bar

Association and ACLU. The latter's opposition

was based on the law's scope which "would ban

all picketing, regardless of its effect or intended

effect."'

The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled that

the picketing of a judge's home and the writing

of threatening and insulting letters to him to

express disapproval of his decisions constituted

a "clear and present danger" to orderly admin-

istration of justice and are punishable as con-

tempt. The ruling came in a case involving sev-

eral members of the United Electrical Workers

Union who were found guilty of violating an

injunction regulating picketing during a strike.

The court said: "If a judge is to have hovering

over him the possibility that harm or disorder

are to be a constant threat to his home and

family whenever those who disagree with him

decide to engage in such conduct, then judicial

decorum and dignity are lowered to the cater-

wauling of the ill-mannered and the depraved."

MUNDT-NIXON

BY CIVIL LIE

BILLS OPPOSED

ERTIES AUTHORITY

_ By ZECHARIAH CHAFEE, JR.

Langdell Professor at Harvard University Law School

I am one of the large number of old-fashioned Americans, trying to do their own job as well

as they can, who care a good deal about our Bill of Rights and about maintaining American

traditions of freedom and tolerance. We like the kind of country in which we grew up, and we

want it to stay that kind of country for our children and our grandchildren.

Because we detest totalitarianism, we are

greatly disturbed by proposals, such as the Mundt-

Nixon bill, to copy any of the methods which

totalitarian nations use for keeping a tight con-

trol over the thoughts and expressions of indi-

viduals, over their political activities when they

do not meet the approval of officials, and over

the exchange of views among individuals in pub-

lications and meetings.

My main objection to this bill is that I see very

little evidence to support the recital that the

world Communist movement presents "a clear and

present danger .. . to the existence of free Amer-

ican institutions." Let me begin by reviewing the

acts of Congress which now protect our govern-

ment and institutions from attacks through vio-

lence or other unlawful action.

Mundt-Nixen Bills

The Nixon bill (H.R. 7595) is now under consider-

ation by the House Committee on Un-American Ac-

tivities. Prof. Chafee's article was submitted to the

Committee as an argument against the bill. It is

reprinted here with his express permission.

The Mundt-Ferguson-Johnston bill (S. 2311) was

reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Commit-

tee. It is now pending before the Senate, |

Senator Scott Lucas, chairman of the Democratic

Policy Committee, which will determine the sched-

uling of the bill for a vote in the Senate, is being

urged to give it a very low priority number.

There are no substantial differences between the

two versions of the bills. Among other things, they

require Communist political organizations and Com-

munist front organizations to register. The latter

groups must also furnish the names and addresses

of their members.

The bills would make it unlawful to conspire "to

perform any act which would substantially contrib-

ute" to the establishment of a totalitarian dictator-

ship under foreign control. They would require dis-

closure by federal employees of present and past

connections with a Communist organization. Mem-

bers of Communist organizations would be barred

from holding federal jobs and from applying for

passports. All Communist literature and radio broad-

casts would have to be labeled as such. It would

also be unlawful for a federal employee to transmit

classified information without authorization to an

agent of a foreign government or to a member of a

Communist organization.

Illinois Court Upholds

Seventh Day Adventists

The right of parents to educate their children

at home has been affirmed by the Supreme Court

of Illinois which reversed the conviction of Mar-

jorie and Lincoln Levisen for refusing to send

their seven-year-old daughter, Carolyn, to a pub-

lic school in Greenfield, Ill. The parents are Sev-

enth Day Adventists, a faith which prohibits

sending a child to a public school.

. The Levisens were arrested in November, 1948,

and found guilty and fined $10 each by the County

Court of Illinois in February, 1949. They then

appealed their case to the State Supreme Court

which denied a petition by the ACLU to enter the

case as a friend of the court.

In both the original case and the appeal, the

defendants argued that the law requiring children

to attend a public or private school was uncon-

stitutional, violating both the state and the U:S.

constitutions. Specifically, they claimed it vio-

lated the First and Fourteenth amendments guar-

anteeing the free exercise of religion in denying

the parents the liberty of educating their child in

the manner they believed proper for its develop-

ment.

First, a statute enacted in 1861 (United States

Code, new Title 18, Section 2384) punishes con-

Spiracy "to overthrow, put down, or to destroy

by force the government of the United States,

. or to oppose by force the authority thereof,

or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execu-

tion of any law of the United States: ..

This was considered adequate to protect the

government when the Confederate Army was

within 100 miles of Washington. In 1867 it was

supplemented by another statute punishing con-

spiracy to commit any offense against the govern-

ment with any overt act, no force being required

(United States Code, new Title 18, Section 371).

These two statutes kept us safe from any seri-

ous consequences of internal disaffection in time

of peace for three quarters of a century. Without

any Sedition act, we came through the Panic of

1873, the Panic of 1898, the Panic of 1907, and

the Great Depression of 1929-1933. The absence

of any precautions against revolutionists under

either of these laws demonstrates that the sky

has been clear of forcible revolution for a good

many years.

Still, in 1940 Congress wanted more than the

old conspiracy statutes. So it created two new

types of criminal offenses in the Alien Registra-

tion Act.

To begin with, it made the Espionage Act of

1917 applicable in time of peace, so as to punish

anybody who advocated insubordination, disloy-

alty, and so forth, in the armed forces. (U.S. Code,

new Title 18, Section 2387.) This measure was

urged as essential to protect the army and navy

from Communist organizations.

Yet the only reported case under it was the

abortive prosecution of about 30 Fascists and

ee

anti-Semites in Washington in 1944. The fact -

that there is no reported case under this statute

against a Communist proves one of two things.

Either Communist activities to demoralize the

armed forces never have amounted to much, in

which event there seems to be no need for more

legislation for the same purpose; or else the 1940

statute has been very successful in putting a stop

to such Communist activities, and if so why do

we have to-have a new law to safeguard soldiers .

and sailors?

The other part of the 1940 statute, commonly

distinguished as the Smith Act (new Title 18,

Section 2385), makes it a serious crime to advo-_

cate the overthrow of any government in the

United States by force, or to be an organizer or

a member of any group of persons which advo-

cates such overthrow. 0x00B0

(Continued on Page 2, Col. 1)

Membership Reaches 1500

During the past month, for the first time in

the 151% year history of the A.C.L.U. of Northern

California, the paid-up membership reached 1500.

In addition, the Union has 275 separate subscrib- (c)

ers to the monthly "News", or a paid mailing list

of 1775.

In May, 1946, or almost four years ago, the

membership crossed the 1000 mark. The 500

mark was attained in 1939. During the past six

years, the Union's membership has more than

doubled.

The membership figures do not include the

almost 200 persons whose memberships expired

since the beginning of the fiscal year on Novem-

ber 1, 1949. If you are one of these persons, may

we urge you to send us your renewal NOW!

LSD

(Continued irom Page 1, Col. 3) ,

This is the first federal peacetime sedition law

since the ill-fated Sedition Act of 1798. It goes

very far toward reaching anybody who belongs

to what the new bills define as "Communist

political organization."

If there were really a clear and present danger

in this country from worldwide com#munism, any-

body would naturally expect thet this Smith Act

would have been invoked again and apain during

recent years. On the contrary we find just three

prosecutions. The first was several years ago-

Dunne vs. U.S., 1388 Fed. 2d 137 (1943) ? ~-

Although there was a good deal of wild talk by the

men who were convicted in this case, their organization

amounted to little more than a small outlaw labor union

and being Trotskyites, they were about as far removed

as possible from the Communist dictatorship of the

Soviet Union, which is described in the pending bill as

the fountainhead of danger to our own country.

The second was the abortive Washington prosecution

of Fascists, already mentioned. Surely Stalin's influence

over American citizens could not have created an over-

whelming peril to our nation when the Smith Act lay

dormant for eight years before any of Stalin's admirers

were thought worth prosecuting.

At last, 11 leaders of the Communist Party of America

were indicted. They were convicted last autumn in New

York City... .

Some have argued that Communist spies make this bill

necessary. Yet the Criminal Code already contains com-

prehensive legislation against espionage (new Title 17,

Sections 701-797)....

If the present statutes against spying are thought to be

defective, the proper remedy lies in amending those

statutes so as to aim directly at spies, and not in roaming

all over the lot against thousands of people, most of whom

would never dream of being spies. ...

Finally, in connection with the registration provisions

in this bill, it is important that we now have two statutes

requiring registration in particularly serious situations.

Anybody who acts as the agent of a foreign govern-

ment must register (except diplomats, consuls, etc.); and

any organization-"`subject to foreign control" must regis-

ter if it is engaged in political activity or if it aims to

control, seize, or overthrow the government of the United

States by force. (22 U.S. Code, Sections 233-233gcent;. new

Title 18, Section 2386.) :

Anybody within these two statutes who fails to register

- before acting incurs severe criminal penalties. Now, if

wie Communist Party of America or any other group in

-~-eilis country really satisfied definition of a "Communist

political organization" (Section 3 (3) in H.7595), then

there is no need of a new law to make it register. :

It can be compelled to do so any day under the existing

statutes just mentioned. The fact that these two statutes

`have not been enforced against the Communist Party or

its leaders indicates that all the talk in Section 2 of the

bill about American Communists creating "a clear and

present danger" of totalitarian dictatorship in the United

States, is like the reports of Mark Twain's death-grossly

exaggerated.

To sum up in two sentences this survey of the present

United States Code: :

If American Communists and fellow-travelers are as

dangerous as the supporters of this bill make out, then

there is enough legislation already with teeth in it to take

care of these people; so no new law is needed.

If, on the contrary, existing statutes are now violated

by what these people are saying or doing, then they can't

be very dangerous so no new law igeneeded. =.

How many Communists are there in the United

States? The United Press said 70,000 in 1947,

`out of a total population of 143,382,000. Thus

Communists form one twentieth of one per cent

of all the people in our country. Remember, too,

that it is not a question of 70,000 dynamiters or

70,000 men with concealed weapons, for then they

would be arrested at once under the ordinary

criminallaws. . -

What have these 70,000 done? They have

learned bad ideas about politics from foreigners

and foreign books, they are thinking bad thoughts

about these bad ideas, they. are telling them to

each other and to any outsiders who are willing

to listen. And hence we are told that without this

new sedition law we are helpless to prevent them

from harming the other 99.95 per cent of us, who

have on our side only the city and state police,

almost every newspaper and school teacher and |

professor and preacher, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, the Army, the Air Force, and the

Navy, never forgetting the Marines:

Shades of Valley Forge and Iwo Jima! If we

no longer want to be the land of the free, at least

let us be the home of the brave.

I fully recognize that the Communist Party in

Czechoslovakia was a danger to the freedom of

Czechoslovakia, and the same is probably true of

Italy and some other countries.

It does not follow that the inclusion of less than

1/20 of 1 per cent of our population in a Com-

munist Party here is a real danger to our institu-

tions and our freedom under the very different

conditions in this country. `

We have a very strong government equipped

with existing legislation and efficient federal po-

lice. Our government does not need any such

novel bill as this in order to deal effectively with

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

rs Aamescte

ale

ses

any actual conspiracy against its existence or any

actual effort toward violent revolution.

Where inside this country are the facts which

justify the establishment of unheard of regula-

tory machinery, the expenditure of large sums of

money in its operation, and the severe punishment

of American citizens because somebody or other

has not filled out a piece of paper?

It is now nearly 30 years since my work as a

student of freedom of speech led me to pay con-

siderable attention to the activities of Commu-

nists in this country.

_ Although they are as detestable as ever, it is

my considered opinion that they are far less dan-

gerous today than they were in 1919-20, soon

after the Russian Revolution. ...

The spiritual health of the nation is far better

than in 1919. We have a much greater immunity

to revolutionary radicalism.

Sometimes I wonder whether the supporters of

measures like this bill have been worrying so

much about Communists that they have forgotten

what freedom-loving Americans are like. They

would be the last people to fall easy victims to the

ideology of a country where nobody can speak his

own mind unless he agrees with the ruling class,

where there is only one party convention and only

one man to vote for at an election, where labor

unions are state-run bureaus, where men can be

grabbed out of their beds in the dead of night

with no charge against them and be hidden away

from their families for weeks, where hordes of

people are moved from their old homes at the will

of some official and ordered to live and work in

some barren place two thousand miles away.

The only possibility of communistic control of

this country, leaving out the chance of foreign

conquest, would come, I believe, from the destruc-

tion of the confidence which the great mass of

our citizens now have in their own future and

that of their children's future. Imagine a pro-

longed period of enormous unemployment; the

dollar buying what a dime buys now, and per-

haps worth a nickel next week, who knows; ever-

mounting taxes; the national revenue heavily .

mortgaged for decades by unwise commitments

to groups of the aged at the expense of active men

and women and their children; voters hating and

despising the men they themselves have put in -

office because they had nobody better to choose

from. That is when communism might grow by

leaps and bounds, not because of what the 70,000

communists say but because of what the hopeless

facts say. Maggots live in rotten meat.

It is up to the gentlemen in the House of Repre-

sentatives and the Senate to make sure that no

such blinding discouragment and financial de-

moralization shall ever threaten us. The safe-

guard against communism and any other sort of

disloyalty is to keep on working hard to make

this a better country to live in.

A further objection to the pending bill is that, .

while it purports to be necessary to preserve "free

American institutions," it gravely impairs some

of the most precious of those institutions-free-

dom of speech, and press, and assembly, which

our ancestors put at the very head of our Bill of

Rights.

Without bothering you with an extensive dis-

cussion of the meaning of those freedoms, I

merely point out .. . that the American tradition

of freedom of speech and press and assembly is

that words as such shall not be punished or re-

stricted, however objectionable the ideas they

express.

Peaceable language should be left alone by law,

for the proper remedy for it is peaceable language

on the other side. An especially strong claim to

immunity is possessed by speeches and publica-

tions concerning political issues and candidates

for office, because they are an essential part of

the process of self-government.

The only words which may properly be made

unlawful are either (1) immediately injurious

like libel and obscenity, or (2) closely connected

with commonly recognized wrongful acts, e.g., an

incitement to murder or to desert from the armed

forces.

The present bill is not limited to the two excep-

tional situations just mentioned. Let me: run

through it rapidly to bring out this point.

Section 4 punishes any person who agrees with

another to perform "any act" which would "sub-

stantially contribute to the establishment in the

United States of a totalitarian dictatorship."

There is no requirement of the use of force or

other unlawful method at any time. The "act"

may be wholly peaceable. It may be one of the

commonest political activities, like nominating a

candidate for office who is pledged to the speci-

fied policy.

Section 6 keeps a man within this country be-

cause of his association with men of specified

political views, with no consideration of his own

unfitness to travel abroad and with no reference

to any unlawful act. The denial of a passport may

amount to a severe penalty on a person with bona

fide reasons for going abroad. ;

All the registration provisions relating to a

"Communist political organization" restrict nor-

mal political processes without regard to any un-

lawful act.

The registration provisions for `"Communist-

front organizations" have no relation to any un-

lawful act, but are imposed because of the expres-

sion and exchange of opinions. .. .

My next objection is drawn from the past ex-

perience of the nation. This is not the first time

when fears of the infiltration of revolutionary

radicalism from Europe has led earnest men to

demand drastic laws against speeches and pub-

lications.

A hundred and fifty years ago patriots, terri-

fied of the French Revolution, got your predeces-

sors to enact the Sedition Act of 1798. It is com-

monly regarded as one of the greatest follies in

our history. Happily it expired in two years by

its own terms.

Again, after the First World War, Congress was

repeatedly urged to pass a new peacetime sedition

law.

Revolutionary groups were much more vocal

than now. Violent acts occurred like a bomb ex-

ploded near the house of the attornev general.

Still Congress refused to do anything, and nobodv

now regrets that refusal.

The years that followed proved that the law

which eminent men said was indispensable to save

the country was not needed at all. The names of

the men who supported the bills of 1798 and 1919-

20 have long ago slipped into oblivion, but we

remember Jefferson, Holmes, Hughes, and Al

Smith for their courageous insistence that we

must trust open discussion to bring us safely

through.

That courage, we are now told by proponents

of a bill like this. is out of date. The United

States never had to face Stalin before. But in

1798-1801 it had to face the French .evolution

and Napoleon. And in 1919-20 it had to face

Lenin. His army was not so bie as Stalin's, but

he was a far abler master of revolutionary tactics.

_ The lawvers who drafted the Sedition Act of -

1798 and the judges who enforced that law were

firmly convinced that they were stampin= out a

foreign menace fully as dangerous as the foreign

menace which confronts us today.

Indeed, they used much the same arguments as

those urged for these bills now, with France the

villain instead of Russia and Switzerland replac- .

ing Czechoslovakia as the victim to forecast the

fate of our own republic if we do not save our-

selves by passing a sedition law. Everybody

agrees now that these fears of subversive organi- .

zations in 1789-1801 and 1919-20 were much ex-

aggerated. Probably this is just as true of the -

fears expressed today.

Every great war, especially a war accompanied

by revolutions, is followed by a difficult settling

down period. The anxieties and strains of war

do not die out the moment hostilities stop. People

go on being worried because they have been wor-

ried so long, and all sorts of economic and. social

adiustments caused by the dislocations of war

bring new reasons for anxiety.

It took over ten years for us to get back to

normal after our own Civil War. The constant

tension breaks out in all sorts of queer ways, and

one frequent manifestation of it is fear of internal

disaffection. The English went through a ter-

rible period of this sort after the lone `Napoleonic

Wars: then enacted any number of suppressive

statutes and soldiers shot down workmen who

were attending a peaceful meeting at Peterloo.

We experienced the same kind of thing in a milder

form after the First World War during the so-

called "Red Menace." In such times of distur-

bance and anxiety. sedition laws were demanded

as indispensable, but soon the tension began to

relax, the fears proved unwarranted, and the

country went on safely with its traditional free-

doms.

We are going through such a settling-down

process today. It is particularly difficult for all

sorts of causes-the magnitude of the devasta-

tion, the delav in the peace treaties, the diverse

character of the victorious nations. the unprece-

dented formation of a world-wide permanent

union, and so on.

We have plenty of real worries, and it is quite

natural that they should be reflected in some

false worries as well. All the more reason for

`keeping our heads....

I have read a good many regrets that particular

sedition laws were passed. Never, given the lapse

of two or three years, have I known anybody to-

regret that a sedition law was rejected.

The principles which Jefferson used to allay

(Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page $3

_ Start Test of New Jersey

a 8

Teacher's Loyalty Oath Law

ACLU started another test of New Jersey's

Sweeping anti-subversive law, recently, part of

which has already been invalidated by the New

Jersey Supreme Court. ACLU attorney Emil Ox-

_ feld filed an appeal March 20th with the state

board of education in behalf of George B. Thorp,

instructor dismissed from his teaching post in

the Newark College of Engineering March 9th

under the still-effective section of the law calling

for special anti-Communist loyalty oaths for

school teachers.

The New Jersey supreme court invalidated sec-

tions of the Tumulty-Mehorter bill, passed at the

last state legislative session, which called for

sweeping loyalty oaths for all state political can-

didates. The original test was brought by James

B. Imbrie, Progressive Party gubernatorial can-

didate, who contended that the legislature had ex-

ceeded its authority since the state constitution

specifically provides an oath of allegiance.

The ACLU appeal asserts that Thorp, a mem-

ber of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a non-

Communist pacifist organization, could not "in

good conscience" sign the loyalty oath which vio-

lates both his state and federal constitutional

rights. The oath calls for affirmance of non-

belief in use of force or violence to overthrow or

change the state or federal government, rules out

teachers belonging to organizations pledged to use

such tactics, and forbids "allegiance to any for-

eign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty'.

ACLU is contending that the oath constitutes

a violation of free speech, press and assembly, and

due process, and constitutes a bill of attainder or

penalty without judicial trial. The appeal also

contends that it constitutes an unlawful amend-

ment to the state constitution by unilateral action

of the legislature.

New York's Feinberg Law

Constitutionality Upheld

The constitutionality of New York's Feinberg

Law was upheld March 27 by the Second Depart-

ment of the Appellate Division, the state's inter-

mediate court, reversing the decision last Dec. 16

of Supreme Court Justice Hearn in Brooklyn who

~ held that the statute designed to rid public schools

of subversive elements violated the "due process"

clauses of the state and federal constitutions and -

established guilt by association. :

The Appellate Court held that it was "patently"

within the power of the state legislature to pro-

mulgate laws that would. "protect the public serv-

ice' from persons advocating the overthrow of

the government by force as well as from those

holding membership in such groups.

The Feinberg Law, enacted in 1949, contains a

legislative directive to the Board of Regents to

prepare a list of subversive organizations for the

enforcement of section 12a of the Civil Service

Law which prohibits employment in public service

of persons advocating the overthrow of the gov-

ernment by violence or unlawful means.

In another case of anti-subversive legislation,

the U.S. Supreme Court refused to halt the opera-

tion of Maryland's Ober Law by denying an ap-

peal for review March 13. a

Under the Ober Law, a special attorney general

is to direct investigations of organizations and

individuals he terms "subversive". Jail sentences

of 20 years and fines up to $20,000 are established

in the law which also calls for automatic dismis-

sal of government workers failing to sign "loyal-

ty" oaths.

The law has been declared unconstitutional by

Judge Joseph Sherbow of the Baltimore Supreme

Court bench when tested by a group of 10 citi-

zens. The Maryland Court of Appeals, reversed

the decision on grounds that none of the plain-

tiffs had been personally affected by the bill. That

Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the

law, nor did the U.S. Supreme Court by refusing

to review that decision.

Pat Malin Visits S. F.

June 19-23

Patrick Murphy Malin, who succeeded

Roger N. Baldwin as national director of

the A.C.L.U. last February, is planning a

Pacific Coast trip in June to become ac-

quainted with branches in this area. He ex-

pects to arrive in San Francisco on the eve-

ning of Monday, June 19, departing for

Portland Friday evening, June 23.

Mr. Malin will confer with the director

_ and the Executive Committee concerning or-

_ ganizational problems. It is hoped that he

will also consent to appear at a public meet-

ing where the membership may become ac-

quainted with him. The June issue of the

"News" will furnish definite information as

The American Civil Liberties Union of North-

ern California, in a letter to the San Francisco

Board of Education declared last month that

"The Pacific Heights School does not reflect that

racial pattern of the district and has, in effect,

become a segregated school." It urged "an in-

vestigation of the racial distribution of school

children in San Francisco ... to the end that,

as far as possible, a more balanced apportionment

of racial minorities among the schools may be

achieved."

In reply, Dr. Herbert C. Clish, Superintendent,

of Schools, promised that all of the facts would

be gathered for

Education.

The Union's letter to the Board follows:

Our Committee recently considered the problem

of racial minorities in the San Francisco public

schools. In particular, we had before us the situ-

ation at the Pacific Heights School where during

recent years the nature of the enrollment has

changed so that today, we understand, the regis-

tration is approximately 60% Negro, 20% Japa-

presentation to the Board of

_ hese and 20% White. The normal Negro popula-

tion in that school, it appears, has been aug-

mented by the transfer of fifth and sixth grade

children from the Emerson School, which is essen-

tially colored. At the same time, in the neighbor-

hood of 125-150 white children have been per-

mitted to transfer out ofthe district to attend

the Grant School. As a result, the Pacific Heights

School does not reflect the racial pattern of the

district and has, in effect, become a segregated

school. y

We do not know what prompted all of the par-

ents to request transfers of their children to the

Grant School from Pacific Heights, but we do

know that the racial factor has not been entirely

absent. Neither do we know all of the considera-

tions which led to the colored children at Emer-

son being sent to Pacific Heights rather than to

some other school such as Grant, which apparent-

ly has room to accommodate a substantial number

of transfer students. And, whether the problem

affects other schools on the fringes of our colored

sections, we also donot know.

In view of the situation at the Pacific Heights

to any public appearances by Mr. Malin.

U. S. Supreme Court Will |

Hear Loyalty Order Case

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitu-

tionality of the Attorney General's listing of sub-

versive organizations without a hearing will be

forthcoming as the result of its decision to hear

the case of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Com-

mittee. The Committee, in losing battles in the

lower federal courts, has argued that its inclusion

on the subversive list has caused it to lose repu-

tation, "business and patronage," its tax exemp-

tion status, as well as to disgrace its members

"to their economic injury'. Asa result of the

listing, it claims, it has also been denied meeting

places and facilities necessary to conduct their

activity. 4

ACLU, which has long opposed the Attorney

General's blacklist, filed a brief in support of the

-JAFRC in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

charging that the list impaired free speech, press

and assembly, involving guilt by association, and

that the listing without a hearing was a violation

of due process.

Two other recent court decisions upheld the

constitutionality of the loyalty program. In one

test brought by Dorothy Bailey, former employee

of the Federal Security Agency dismissed last

year on grounds of questionable loyalty, the D.C.

Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against her complaint

that the entire loyalty program was unconstitu-

tional. The majority held that a government

employee could be discharged from a non sensi-

tive position without a hearing which included

the right of cross-examination and confrontation

of accusers.

In a strong dissent, Judge Henry W. Edgerton

_ said: "Without a trial by jury, without evidence,

a citizen of the U.S. has been found disloyal to -

the government of the U.S." He argued that the

loyalty order should require production of evi- .

dence against a suspected employee and oppor-

tunity to cross examine denouncers. All the safe-

guards of judicial trial must be guaranteed, he

said.

The same court rejected the pleas of the Inter-

national Workers Order, Inc. and Arthur L. Dray-

ton, former Philadelphia post office employee,

who said he had been dismissed because of alleged

disloyalty arising from membership in the or-

ganization which was listed on the Attorney Gen-

eral's "subversive" list. It said the TWO had not

shown damages to itself "as a direct result" of

inve stigates

ore Ce

the listing and consequently said the group could.

not sue "for irreparable financial damage'"'.

nion's

ted School

School, however, it appears to us that the matter

of the racial distribution of school children in

San Francisco warrants investigation, to the end

that, as far as possible, a more balanced appor-

tionment of racial minorities among the schools

may be achieved. In this connection, may we call

the Board's attention to an apparent gerryman-

' dering of the Grant School District which has

resulted in the exclusion of a Negro residential

- area.

We appreciate that the basic problem is a deli-

cate one with many ramifications. We are confi-

dent, however, that the Board will give it prompt

and careful consideration.

Under date of April 22, the Union received the`

following response signed by Dr. Clish:

/This will serve to acknowledge your letter of

April 20, 1950 addressed to the Board of Educa-

tion. I note that the contents of the letter review

in rather specific detail certain facts which you

discussed with Dr. Spears and me in my office

about two weeks ago.

It appears to me that for a period of several

years in San Francisco, parents have pretty gen-

erally been granted transfers of their children

upon the parents' request so long as the school

which they wished to attend was not overcrowded.

It appears to me, based upon statements I have

heard made, that over the years a sort of tradi-

tion has existed upon the part of many parents

in sending or wanting to send their children to

Grant School. From my personal point of view,

and I am sure that of the Board of Education, it

has always been our desire to provide equal edu-

cational opportunities for all children and to have

one school as good as another. It is my personal

belief, too, that other schools in that area are

really just as good from the educational point of

view as is Grant School. What has prompted all

of the requests for transfer from Pacific Heights

School I am not, of course, in a position to state

since I do not know the real facts at the present

time. -

Because Dr. Spears and I saw that classes in

Grant School appeared to be getting larger than

they should be, we have been forced to refuse

most requests for transfers. In any situation,

however, where our child guidance service: he- .

lieves that for the best interests of a pupil he

should be transferred to a school out of his district,

we have been and shall continue to honor such

requests. This has been, I believe, reducing the

number of transfers to Grant School.

I shall want, of course, to have all of the facts

gathered relative to this matter in order that

they may be presented to the Board of Education.

Basically and fundamentally, it would appear

to me that other things being equal, children

should attend the school in the district in which

they live. I believe, too, that little would be

gained and great harm would be done were we to

_attempt to make any redistricting retroactive.

Should the Board of Education take any action

on this score after all of the facts have been

gathered, I shall personally recommend that it

apply only from the date board action was taken.

You will recall that during the discussion in

my office that a telephone call to Grant School

elicited the information that there are also some

negro students attending Grant School from out-

side their own district and that some of these

families had been doing this for a number of

years.

After all of the facts have been gathered and

a report presented to the Board of Education, I

shall be very happy to communicate with you as

to any action the Board may decide to take.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

American Civil Liberties Union of No. Calif.,

461 Market St., :

San Francisco 5, Calif. `

1. Please enroll me as a member at dues of

ee for the current year. (Types of mem-

bership: Associate Member, $3; Annual Mem-

ber, `$5; Business and Professional Member,

$10; Family Membership, $25; Contributing

Member, $50; Patron, $100 and over. Mem- |{ 0x00A7

bership includes subscription to the "American

Civil Liberties Union-News'" at $1 a year.)

2. 1 pledge 3.2 Per month... Or $.8As persyr.

3. Please enter my subscription to the NEWS, $1

per year) S es S

Enclosed please find $.......0.000.0..00.., Please bill

1800 ae ener

INGIMG ees ie ee Pe

Street.

City and Zone.

Occupation =... eS B

22 TSE TT UT SS IN TEESE EE SE EEE OE

Page 4

-- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

s

American Civil Liberties Union-News

Published monthly at 461 Market St., San Francisco 5,

Calif., by the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California.

Phone: EXbrook 2-3255

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

Civil Liberties Authority

Opposes Mundt-Nixon Bills

(Continued from Page 2, Col. 3)

apprehension in his time are equally valid in our

time. Meet unlawful action with action; proceed

against real spies and real plotters as he prose-

cuted Aaron Burr and approved the dismissal of

`Genet. Meet objectionable ideas from abroad by

living up to our own ideals-give increased draw-

ing power to our great traditions of democracy

and freedom.

My final point is very important. Its enactment

would disastrously impair our influence over

other freedom-loving peoples.

If we leave aside military considerations, the

best way to combat the spread of communism in

western Europe and elsewhere is to give increased

drawing power to the great traditions of democ-

racy and freedom.

These war-torn countries want more than

weapons, more than food and machinery. They

are eager for ideals to strengthen the spirit and

make life worth living. Communism, we are told,

operates like a religion; it is presented as the

vision of a better world.

Yet Jefferson and Lincoln had a great vision.

During the 19th century it possessed the appeal

of a religion to bring millions to our shores.

In order to hearten the discouraged people of

the 20th century, we must keep that vision bright

-not, this time, to attract them to America but

to enable them to build their lives in their own

homes, so that the freedom which Jefferson and

Lincoln did so much to give us will be a reality

in many parts of the world.

More than words is needed. Unless our acts

show that we believe in our democratic ideals, we

lessen the chance of winning wavering men to

democracy. - .

In my experience with foreigners in the United

`Nations, I have been constantly impressed by the

way our prevailing adherence to the ideals of our

Bill of Rights helps to close up the ranks of free-

dom-loving countries in opposition to undesirable

measures.

On the other hand, I have seen how much harm

is done whenever we conspicuously depart from

our professed basic principles. It lays us open to

damaging charges of hypocrisy and pretense

which are hard to meet.

There is no doubt that such attacks based on

concrete facts do impress men from many coun-

tries whose support we need, and sometimes they

-are thus pried apart from the United States dele-

_ gation on critical votes.

Now, freedom of information is one of the big

issues in the United Nations at the present time.

A treaty of great value to facilitate the work of

foreign correspondents, which was originally pro-

jected by our State Department, has been put in

final form by the General Assembly. -

Over and above this, freedom of speech and

press is an American ideal which means a very

_ great deal to the citizens of countries where cen-

sorship and every sort of gross suppression have

prevailed in recent years. :

So the way we maintain freedom of speech and

press or the way we depart from it is bound to

have tremendous effect, for good or bad, upon

delegates from countries like Holland, Norway,

India and Australia.

Consequently, if we enact a new sedition law

like this bill, it will do us great harm among our

natural friends in the United Nations. They know

well how much suppression is made possible by

the vague definitions in this bill.

-1516. 3

We just can't defend such a sedition law against |

the bitter attacks of our opponents, and still less

against the distrust of our friends. Our profes-

sions of love for open discussion will ring hollow

in their ears.

And matters will be much worse when enforce-

ment starts, with numerous inquisitions by the

Subversive Activities Control Board, mail opened,

nonregistrants prosecuted, lists gone through

with a fine-toothed comb, and all the rest of it.

__ Frenchmen, Belgians, Dutchmen, Norwegians,

Danes have had years of experience with that sort

of thing under totalitarian occupations and it

leaves a stench in their nostrils. :

The way for us to spread abroad freedom of

speech is to live up to it ourselves. The rejection

of this bill will be a telling demonstration that we

are governed by the principles of Thomas Jeffer-

son. :

ra

Human Rights Is #

Security, Says

Roger N. Baldwin, former national director of

the American Civil Liberties Union, last month

addressed an A.C.L.U. meeting at the Western

Women's Club in San Francisco on the question

"What Chance for a World Bill of Rights?" A

summary of his remarks follows:

The sharpest conflict between the west and the

east in the cold war revolves around ideas of

human rights. The democratic countries regard

them as inherent in a people sovereign over their

governments. The Communist countries regard

them as gifts of a government to a people. To

them government as representative of the whole

people, so they say, is supreme. To the democra:

cies the people are supreme.

In every debate in the United Nations over

human rights the Soviets and their satelites have

either opposed the western concepts or have ab-

stained. No possible reconciliation seems possible

between the two forces. :

But the western world is far from realizing in

practice the principles it professes. A comparison

of the Declaration of Universal Rights, adopted

by the U. N. Assembly a year and a half ago, with

the actual practices of the leading democracies

which voted for it, shows none with more than

a 60 per cent performance, and most with far

less. Not even the United States, with its racial

discriminations, it oriental exclusion act, its re-

straints on Communists, and the limitations of

the Taft-Hartley Act on trade union liberties, does

better than 60 per cent.

In the present attempts at Lake Success to

write an enforceable international Bill of Rights

Bill to Permit Entry of War

Bride Passes Committee

The fight of Mrs. Ellen Knauff, German war

bride who has been held for deportation, to enter

this country advanced last month as the House

Judiciary Committee approved a bill permitting

her to. enter. The Committee acted after a sub-

committee heard Mrs. Knauff and unanimously

voted to support the bill. The bill will be up for

full House approval on May 2nd. |

Mrs. Knauff has been barred from entering the

United States by the Attorney General's office

which contends she is a poor security risk, but

has refused to disclose the charges against her at

a hearing. ACLU urged that the bill be approved

"to permit Mrs. Knauff to remain in the U.S. to

remedy the completely outrageous attempts to

deport her without a hearing and while Congres-

sional action was pending." "Now that she has

been cleared by a Congressional hearing," the

union wired Judiciary Committee chairman

Emanuel Celler (D.-N.Y.), "she should be allowed

to stay. This clearance by a Congressional sub-

committee demonstrates that she should have

been granted administrative hearings as the

_ ACLU contended before the U.S. Supreme Court

and shows the need for hearings before exclusion

to prevent injustice."

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the At-

torney General's right to bar Mrs. Knauf with-

out a hearing and solely on the basis of his find-

ings. With Mrs. Knauff scheduled for deporta-

tion, her attorney, at ACLU's suggestion, sought

her release on a habeas corpus writ on the basis

that she could not be deported while a bill grant-

ing her entry was pending in the Congress. The

US. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York last

month upheld this right in a 2-1 decision.

Opnose Barring Communists

For Grand Jury Service

The American Civil Liberties Union April 17th

announced adoption of the policy that no person

should be denied the privilege of serving as a

grand juror because of political beliefs. -

The ACLU declaration was announced after a

Pittsburgh woman was barred from grand jury

service on charges of being a Communist. `The

ACLU statement said:

". . We detest and oppose Communism; but,

no matter how much we despise and hate totali-

tarianism, we regard such discrimination as un-

wise and dangerous. Who can tell what person

or eroups will be denied the fundamental privilege

of jury service tomorrow, the next day, or next

year because of unpopular or minority opinions?"

The ACLU pointed out exclusion of Commun-

ists from grand juries might invalidate indict-

ments handed down by those juries; "certainly

this would be true if the indictments were against

Communists. The courts have long held in cases

where Negroes and other minority groups were

excluded from jury service that members of these

groups brought up for trial were denied a fair

trial because of discrimination."

ne Key to Freedom and

idwin at Union Meefti

for the first time in the world's history, our State.

Department, fearful of Senate refusal to ratify,

has taken a position far behind that of other -

democracies. It would limit appeals to the United

Nations on violations of human rights only to the

member governments; no aggrieved private par-

ties could ask anything. It would limit enforce-

ment solely to inquiry and conciliation.

Such limitations would make an international

Bill of Rights a farce, betraying the high hopes

raised by the United Nations in its declaration

adopted at Paris. Better no Bill of Rights than

one so feeble. . .

Nor does the United States in general support

the principles of human rights throughout the

world. The cold war strategy has allied us with

the enemies of human rights among the reac-

tionary anti-Communists. It has blinded us to

our democratic allies among the socialists and

trade unions abroad, who are the most effective

opponents of Communism because they have a

democratic alternative for solving the problems

of poverty and injustice. It has blinded us to the

support of colonial peoples struggling for the

elementary right of national freedom, and thrown

us, aS at present, in Indo-China, on the side of

French imperialism.

Not until the United States squares professions

with acts by channeling its world responsibilities

through the United Nations and abandons the

present course of by-passing it, can we hope to

build a world of law out of the present tragic

world of force. And it is on a world of law that

the guarantees of human rights depend.

Since human rights are today inseparable in

all countries, what we do at home to promote

them will have.a profound effect on the moral

position of the United. States in international

councils. We are distrusted today throughout the

world because of our racial injustices. Passage

of the civil rights program in Congress and the

abolition of segregation in principle would fog |

long way to make good our professions.

We can win the cold war only as we demon-

strate to the people of the world outside the iron

curtain that democracy offers them more than

Communism in terms not only of their freedom

but of the satisfaction of their needs. Human

rights in every sense-political, economic and

social-is the key to both freedom and fulfillment

of the universal urge for security. Only democ-

racy in the long run insures stability. No police-

state dictatorship can offer more than a false

salvation.

Alliance of the progressive forces of change is

the only force capable of proving the superiority

of democracy. A thousand guardians of the past

stand in the way, and the struggle will be long

and turbulent. But human rights will emerge

triumphant over both reaction and Communism

if the forces of the democratic center, in and out -

of the United Nations, fight hard enough for their

faith.

Genocide Pact Approved

By Senate Sub-Committee

After clarifying the United Nation's genocide

convention to quiet fears expressed by opponents,

a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee recom-

mended its ratification by Congress April 12th.

Senator Brian McMahon (D.-Conn.) said he would.

press for speedy approval by the full Foreign

Relations Committee and then the Senate so that

the United States may join 42 other nations that

have ratified the convention. ACLU has pressed

for its ratification by the U.S.

Senator McMahon said that four "understand-

ings" outlined by his subcommittee make the

fears of the convention's opponents "groundless".

He pointed out that fears that lynchings, race

riots and similar disturbances might be classed

as crimes of genocide, opening the way for pos-

sible trial of U.S. citizens by federal or foreign

tribunals, were unjustified because of the "under-

standing" that a crime could be considered geno-

cide only when it affected "a substantial portion

of the group concerned".

Other "understandings" are the construal of

the words "mental harm" in the convention to

mean physical permanent injury to mental facili-

ties, construal of the words "complicity in geno-

cide" to mean abetting and aiding the crime be-

fore and after the fact, and the maintenance ol 2

the traditional jurisdiction of the states with re-

gard to crime.

Under the convention, jurisdiction over indi-

viduals charged with genocide rests in the state

where the crime was committed unless the state

has agreed to pass the jurisdiction to some inter-

national tribunal that does not yet exist. Senator

McMahon said that the U.S. could agree to such

jurisdiction through normal constitutional pro-

cesses.