vol. 18, no. 4

American

Civil Liberties

Union-News

Sot ail :

Free Press.

Free Assemblage

Hree Speech

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

VOLUME XVIII

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL, 1953

No. 4

Senate Approves Bill Aimed

At State College Teachers

Senator Kraft last month rewrote S. B. 1425,

which extends the definition of "unprofessional

conduct" for teachers to include subversive acti-

vities of various kinds. Two years ago Gov. War-

ren vetoed the bill, but, as rewritten, it won ap-

proval of the Senate Education Committee and

was speedily adopted by the Senate. It is now

before the Assembly Education Committee for

action.

Under the original bill, the mere filing of unsup-

_ ported charges by a disgruntled student, parent or

citizen could start dismissal proceedings against

a teacher and cause irreparable injury to his

career and reputation. Under the rewritten bill,

written notice of dismissal would come from the

Director of Education together with the reasons,

but no prior notice of dismissal would have to be

given.

The original bill contained only three kinds of

subversive activities that were labelled as subver-

sive. The present bill adds advocacy of the violent

overthrow of the government. -

One of the vague kinds of subversive activity

still in the bill is the following: "Willful advocacy

of communism, either on or off the campus, for

' the purpose of undermining patriotism of pupils,

' or with the intent to indoctrinate any pupil with |

communism or inculcate a preference for com-

munism in the mind of any pupil. The measure

- contains no definition of communism so it leaves

it pretty much up to the, State Personnel Board

to determine what constitutes advocacy of com-

munism and whether a teacher has so advocated.

The remaining provisions of the bill would allow

dismissal of a teacher who is a member of or who

gives active support to a ``Communist front" or a

"Communist action" organization as those terms

- are defined in the Internal Security Act of 1950.

Persistent active participation in public meetings

conducted or sponsored by such groups is also a

ground for dismissal.

Salesman Barred

From Defense Installation

Last month the Union was consulted by a sales-

man whose job occasionally takes him into a de-

fense installation. He does not deal with classified

information-just something to eat.

For several months he had been allowed entry

in order to sell-his merchandise to the cafeteria,

but suddenly the door was closed to him and he is

now compelled to conduct his business by tele-

phone. Of course, that is not very satisfactory

because he is unable to show off his lines of mer-

chandise. :

The salesman does not know why he is being

_ excluded, and there is no existing machinery to

secure redress. The installation doesn't have to

serve him with charges or grant him a hearing.

One thing is certain; if the matter is not cleared up

speedily, the salesman's job is in jeopardy.

Besig Speaks In Sacramento,

Davis and Modesto During April

Ernest Besig, the Union's local director, will

pene in Davis, Sacramento and Modesto during

pril.

The Davis meeting is under the auspices of the

Davis Democratic Club and will be held at the

Intermediate School, 4th and B Streets, at 8 p.m.,

Wednesday evening, April 22. :

As the "News" goes to press, no definite time

has been set for the Sacramento meeting, but it

is planned for early April. For further informa-

tion, get in touch with Mrs. F. A, Kirchner, Chair-

man, Sacramento Membership Committee, 3101

Lassen Way, Sacramento.

On April 10, Mr. Besig will appear in Modesto

in connection with the current membership drive.

He will meet at dinner with ACLU members and

later in the evening speak at a public meeting.

Brief Filed by Union in Sup

_ Of Atheist's Right to Citizenship

The American Civil Liberties Union last month

filed its brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap-

peals urging that court to allow an atheist, Wla-

dyslaw Plywacki, to become a citizen of the United

States by taking an affirmation in lieu of "the

usual oath of allegiance. The appeal seeks to re-

verse a decision by Federal Judge J. Frank Mc-

Laughlin of Hawaii denying Plywacki's petition

for naturalization, `because of his inability to sub-

scribe to a statutory oath of allegiance."

Plywacki, at the request of the Naturalization

Hearing Officer, had prepared a statement to

which he wag willing to subscribe. It contained

the exact language of the oath with the exception

of the final words, `So help me God!" In their

place he substituted the words, "Affirm in honor

and sincerity." : =

' The Union's brief points out that ever since

1871 Congress has declared that "in determining

the meaning of any act of Congress, unless the

context indicates otherwise, . .. oath includes af-

firmation and sworn includes affirm." Judge Mc-

Laughlin was apparently unaware of this rule be-

cause he makes no mention of it in his memoran-

dum opinion.

The brief contends that the words, "So help me

God," are merely part of the formality and not the

substantive part of the promise made by an alien.

These words "like kissing the Bible or raising the

hand, are merely the sanction or pledge that the

substance of the oath-the declaration to tell the

Two Favorable Decisions in

Loyalty Cases Last Month

Last month two favorable decisions were hand-

ed down in loyalty cases handled by the ACLU.

The first decision came in a case heard by the

Regional Loyalty Board last December. An em-

ployee of the Veterans Administration was

charged with membership in the Communist Par-

ty in 1951 and with subscribing to the "Daily

Worker" between 1947 and 1951. In addition, his

wife was accused of having an uncle who, prior

to his decease in the middle thirties, was a Com-

munist. She was also accused of corresponding

with a woman and her husband, both of whom

were alleged to be Communists.

The employee denied membership in the Com-

munist Party. He had belonged to the Progressive

Party and had at one time subscribed to the

Guardian. His wife was rather young when the

uncle died and if her correspondents were Com-

munists, she knew nothing about it.

The second case had its inception in July, 1951

when the employee, after three months' work was

separated from her job as a clerk-typist at the

Naval Supply Center in Oakland, on the ground

that ``she has failed to qualify after investiga-

tion."' No reason was ever given for the dismissal,

and, under the regulations, she was not entitled to

a hearing.

In order to secure a hearing, an application was

made to restore her name to the clerk-typist civil

service eligibility list. As a result, she finally re-

ceived an interrogatory from the Regional Loyalty

Board in February, 1953 charging that she and

her husband had been members of the Communist

Political Association and the Communist Party,

and that she had donated money for the benefit

of the `Daily People's World." She was also

charged with membership in AYD.

The woman denied any connection with the

Communist movement or the People's World. She

was able to show that a person with the same

name as hers had belonged to the AYD and that

she was possibly being confused with that person.

The woman's case was disposed of on the basis

of her answers to the interrogatory. Even though

_ her name is back on the Civil Service list, she still

has no government job to replace the one from

which she was fired in July, 1951.

port

truth-will be kept." Consequently, there is sub-

stantial compliance with the requirements of the

law when an alien affirms. Of course, Quakers

have always been allowed to affirm and no excep-

tion should be made in the case of non-believers.

Congress has not expressly required a belief in

God as a qualification for naturalization, but

Judge McLaughlin by his decision, in effect, makes

this a qualification. The brief discusses the ques-

tion as to whether Congress could require a belief

in God as a qualification for naturalization and (c)

concludes that to do so would be.a violation of the

First Amendment both in abridging religious lib-

erty and in establishing religion. It was also ar-

gued that Judge McLaughlin's decision violates

the Fifth Amendment by arbitrarily discriminat-

ing against atheists and in depriving Plywacki of

religious liberty without due process of law.

The brief, prepared by Staff Counsel Lawrence

Speiser, concludes that "this is a nation of people |

who have freedom of conscience-who have the

right to believe or not to believe. Any attempt by

Congress or the judiciary to make this nation

something else than that should immediately be

struck down. There is no official orthodoxy nor

can there be if this nation is to retain its historic

liberty and freedom."

The chances are that the case will not be argued _

before the Court until early in the fall since the

Government is given considerable leeway in filing -

its brief.

ACLU Membership Drive

Begins After Easter

Over two hundred faithful members of the

ACLU are actively participating in the Union's

organized membership drive for 450 new members

and $3000, which gets under way after Easter.

The Union is counting on the support of its en-

tire membership to make the campaign just as

successful as the one a year ago. The reason for

the drive is that $3000 is needed to balance the

Union's budget of $27,600 for '53.

On April 6, almost two thousand auto-typed

letters will be sent to prospective members to-

gether with an attractive leaflet describing the

Union's work and a membership envelope. The

name of the person who recommended the pros-

pect will appear in the body of each letter where

such use has been authorized. -

"When liberty is under attack by those who

fear freedom of thought and expression," says the

letter, "each of us must make his voice heard in

its defense. The ACLU is that voice, defending -

for all-the basic freedoms of. free speech, fair

trial and equality before the law."

Personal solicitation of prospects is scheduled

to start on April 16. The drive is under the chair-

manship of Albert Brundage. The area chairmen

and their goals are as follows:

Berkeley-Lynn B. Bennion 115 $7715

Carmel-Mrs. Douglas Carter 10 15

Davis-Lee H. Watkins 5 40

Hayward-Emil E. Sekerak 5 40

Marin Co.-Mrs. Paul Holmer 25 175

Modesto-Henry J. Osner 10 15

Oakland-Elizabeth Hiner 25 1%5

Orinda-Mrs. Robert F. Suczek 10 75

Peninsula-Ralph Evans

and Jane Cahn 40 275

Sacramento-Mrs. F. A. Kirchner

and Russell Kletzing 25 175

San Francisco-

Mrs. B. Abbott Goldberg 125 850

San Jose-Rev. Harold K. Shelley 10. 15

Santa Cruz-Norman Lezin 5 40

Stockton-Benjamin O. Russell 10 75

Miscellaneous 30 225

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Ford Foundation Gives $15

Million to `Fund for Freedom'

. The Board of Directors of The Fund for the Re-

public recently authorized the following state-

ment: |. "

"The Trustees of The Ford Foundation in Pasa-

dena have appropriated $15 million to The Fund

for the Republic, an independent corporation es-

tablished by the Foundation last year to `support

activities directed toward the elimination of re-

trictions on freedom of thought, inquiry, and ex-

pression in the United States, and the develop-

ment of policies and procedures best adapted to

' protect these right.'

"Paul G. Hoffman, retiring President of The

Ford Foundation, hag been elected Chairman of

the Board of Directors of the Fund.

"Bethuel M. Webster, President of the Associa-

tion of the Bar of the City of New York, has been

selected as Counsel to the Fund. The President of

the new organization has not yet been named.

"Since the announcement of the establishment

of the Fund in the fall of 1952, a planning com-

mittee of the Directors, under the informal chair-

manship of Erwin N. Griswold, Dean of the Har-

vard Law School, has been at work on the task

of suggesting policies, areas for action, and meth-

ods that might be employed in the operation of the

Fund.

"We regard the sphere of operation of the Fund

as including' the entire field of freedom and civil

rights in the United States and take as our basic

charter the Declaration of Independence and the

Constitution.

"One of the first activities to be undertaken by

the Fund is a thorough study into the many diffi-

cult concepts and problems which are encountered

in the field of civil liberties. We see a pressing

need for a clear statement in contemporary terms

of the legacy of American liberty. We propose to

help restore respectability to individual freedom.

"The major factor affecting civil liberties today,

in our opinion, is the menace of communism and

communist influence in this country. Coupled with

this threat is the grave danger to civil liberties in

`methods that may be used to meet the threat. We

propose to undertake research into the extent and

nature of the internal communist menace and its

effect on our community and institutions. We hope

to arrive at a realistic understanding of effective

procedures for dealing with it. aS

"Out of our discussions has come a preliminary

conclusion that the attention of the Fund should -

at this time be concentrated in the following five

areas, not necessarily in order of priority:

1. Restrictions and assaults upon academic

freedom; ; o

i 2. Due process and equal protection of the

aWws; 9s 60 eo

3. The protection of the rights of minorities;

4. Censorship, boycotting, and blacklisting ac-

tivities by private groups;

d. Principles of guilt by association and its ap-

plication in the U. S. today." a

In addition to Mr. Hoffman, the Directors of

The Fund for the Republic are: James F. Brown-

lee, partner, J. H. Whitney and Co., New York

City; Huntington Cairns, lawyer, Washington,

D. C.; Charles W. Cole, president, Amherst Col- .

lege, Amherst, Mass.; Russell L. Dearmont, law-

yer, St. Louis, Mo.; Richard J. Finnegan, consult-

ing editor, Chicago Sun Times, Chicago, IIl.; Er-

win N. Griswold, dean, Harvard Law School, Cam-

bridge, Mass.; William H. Joyce, Jr., chairman,

Joyce Inc., Pasadena, California; Meyer Kestn-

baum, president, Hart, Schaffner and Marx, Chi-

cago, Ill.; M. Albert Linton, chairman, Provident

Mutual Life Insurance Co., Philadelphia, Penna.;

John Lord O'Brian, attorney, Washington, D. C.;

Jubal R. Parten, president, Woodley Petroleum

Co., Houston, Texas; Elmo Roper, marketing con-

sultant, New York City; George N. Shuster, presi-

dent, Hunter College, New York City; Eleanor

Bumstead Stevenson, Oberlin, Ohio; James D. Zel-

lerbach, president, Crown Zellerbach Corp., San

Francisco.

NCJ. Court Issues Restraining

Order In "Gwinn Rider" Test

The Chancery Division of the Superior Court

of New Jersey, on March 24, issued an order re-

straining the Housing Authority of the City of

Newark from evicting or threatening to evict

three persons who are testing the constitutionality

of the "Gwinn rider," which provides that no low

rent housing "shall be occupied by a person who is

a member of an organization designated as sub-

versive by the Attorney General.'' The case was

brought through the American Civil Liberties

Dnion: 2.

In another test suit, the U.S. Supreme Court on

March 16 refused to issue a writ of mandamus

at the request of the IWO to compel the District

Court in New York to convene a three-judge court

to determine whether or not federal courts had

jurisdiction of such a suit.

The New Yorker Speaks Out Against the Reign

Of Terror by Congressional Committees

Every now and then The New Yorker carries an

excellent comment about some civil liberties

question. In the March 7 issue, under the head-

ing, "The Talk of the Town," the editor uses his

scalpel to examine the activities of Congressional

committees operating in the name of loyalty. If

you have already read this article, we think it is

worth reading again.

Notes and Comment

There was an announcement in the Times the

other day of a playwriting contest sponsored by

the office of Samuel French. One of the conditions

was that the sponsor "reserves the right at any

time to declare ineligible any author who is, or be-

comes publicly involved, in a scholastic, literary,

political or moral controversy." On first reading

this, we thought it was a typographical error such

as one finds once in a great while in the Times,

but we searched and could discover no sign of

error, and so became aware that the sponsor's in-

sistence on the contestants' intellectual inertness

was indeed a condition of the contest. Controversy

is now a naughty thing, a disqualifying thing. The

act of disputing, or contending is an unwholesome

act. To disagree with anybody or anything is to

run the risk of taking oneself out of the money.

All this in a country that was born of controversy

-a country that wrote controversy into its con-

stitution, that set up its legislative bodies on the

theory of controversy, that established its free

press in the belief that controversy is vital to in-

formation, and that created a system of justice of

which controversy is the heart and goul.

What's Wrong? -~

The Samuel French office would not have gone

to the trouble of sterilizing its playwrights were

not something wrong somewhere. What is this

something? And how does it manage to infect

every person and every business in the nation?

The "something" is a general uneasiness. Its im-

mediate effect is a general clamming up. The.

spread of the disease is caused, quite largely, by

the steady expansion of the investigations carried

out by Congressional committees in the name of

loyalty, plus the many special watchdog activities

of patriotic organizations that throw themselves

about rather wildly in times of nervous strain.

Alben Barkley, whose old eyes have looked upon

many a session of Congress, spoke up recently in

favor of a new code, a new set of rules, to govern

investigations. In so doing, he took the words out

of the mouths of many millions of Americans who

are-wondering how much longer they will have to

wait for corrective measures. It is a problem of

self-discipline, for Congress has a clear right to

ACLU Testimony Hits

Bricker Resolution

ACLU has formally registered its opposition to

the Bricker Resolution, which is aimed at limiting

the federal treaty-making power. The Union's

position was presented to a subcommittee of the

Senate Judiciary Committee by Irving Ferman,

ACLU's Washington director, who said that the

proposed resolution on one hand is unnecessary

and on the other would hamper this country's

struggle against Communism.

The Bricker Resolution, sponsored by Sen. John

W. Bricker and 63 other Senators would amend

the Constitution to prohibit the signing of a treaty

that would abridge any constitutional right and

that would require congressional legislation before

a treaty could become effective insofar as its do-

mestic effect is concerned.

The resolution, said Ferman, "rests on the fear

that treaty-law, becoming recognizably more com-

plex and enveloping in its scope, can nullify inter-

nal law both state and federal."

Ferman replied to this criticism by pointing

out that the Constitution already expressly for-

bids any treaty which "denies or abridges any

right" granted in the Constitution. He also stated

that the cause of the Bricker group's concern, the

United Nation's declaration on Human Rights,

restricts the application of the document where

it runs counter to the policies of the signatory

powers.

Under the Bricker amendment a treaty to "be-

come effective as internal law' would have to be

given the sanction of "appropriate legislation by

the Congress." Ferman contended that this would

contravene the wording of the Constitution, which

demands ratification by Congress. Furthermore,

he said, this amendment "would make unworkable

any attempt.on our part to extend the spirit of our

Bill of Rights internationally in the fight against

Communist totalitarianism." He said the amend-

ment might foreclose the possibility of an inter-

national covenant attempting to bring freedom

to the people behind the Iron Curtain.

search for facts in whatever spheres may suit its

fancy, and the committees make their own rules

and write their own tickets. It is a problem in pub-

lic responsibility, and it involves a basic question:

Is a fact worth finding even if the harm done in

discovering it is out of all proportion to the use-

fulness of the fact? The answer to this question

by the committeemen has been a resounding Yes.

A National Emergency

To us, the emaciated condition of controversy

and the rising tide of conformity and docility are

a national emergency eclipsing even the large

emergency that was, and is, the root of the trou-

ble. The emergency is great and calls for action by

the President and by the Congress along lines

suggested by Alben Barkley. What is chiefly

needed is some assurance that we are coming to

the end of the reign of terror in which witnesses,

chosen somewhat whimsically and dressed in im-

munity, are in a position to do irreparable damage

to the reputation of almost anybody they may

care to mention. What is needed is a second look

at the validity of television in public hearings, a

device that gives ambitious lawmakers (so called -

because they seldom draft a law) a chance to add

to their political fame at the expense of persons

whose names get drawn into the act. What is

needed is the realization that in America the end

does not necessarily justify the means, that the

means are all-important in a democracy, and that

it is quite possible, in ferreting out the rascals, to

tear down the house. Right now, colleges and uni-

versities are the target. We don't know how many

college teachers and students there are in the

United States, but we know that they all have

their eyes straight on their books, their mouths

shut, and their ears cocked for the first sound of |

the trumpet call. Probably the most tempting tar-

get of the lot is the press and radio, for there the

congressmen will find controversy still kicking,

voices still yowling in the night-voices that in

some cases the gentlemen would very much like

to tone down.

The Committees' Reply

The arguments assembled by the committeemen

in defense of their activities are simple ones: ``We

are seeking out the subversives. Anybody who

criticizes our work is a friend of Communism, We

shall continue to look with a jaundiced eye at ev-

erybody, but no loyal American need worry, be-

cause he will have a chance to prove he is a good

fellow." As it turns out, a very great majority of

loyal Americans are deeply worried, not because

they have a skeleton in their closet or because

they disapprove of fact-finding in Congress but

because they see and feel in their daily lives the

subtle change that has already been worked by a -

runaway loyalty-checking system in the hands of

a few men who, to say it in a whisper, are not

ideally equipped to handle the most delicate and

dangerous job in the nation, that of questioning

the value of one's fellow-citizens. A couple of these

committeemen don't know a fact from a bag of

popcorn anyway.

"Good Americans"

_ At the Voice of America hearing last Saturday

afternoon, Senator McCarthy ended his television

show with a short speech. He explained to the

audience that the Committee is non-political, that

three Democrats serve on it along with four Re-

publicans. Then he said something that we

thought very odd indeed. He described these three

Democrats as "good Americans'-as though ev-

eryone should be surprised and pleased that three

men of sound character should turn up on a Sat-

urday afternoon. To us it was the most signifi-

cant moment of the hearing: the chairman of a

Senate committee feeling moved to endorse his

colleagues as "good" Americans.

"Good Americans" Should Disavow Label

We think these three senators should publicly

disavow this label that has been hung on them so

_blandly. They should insist that they be known

"

as "Americans," not as "good Americans." They

should refuse to participate in the idea, being

spread by Senator McCarthy, that a good Ameri-

can is a rare bird singled out by him for special

mention, as though he had been given the respon-

sibility for deciding who, in this country, is good

and who bad. It's ever so much more important

that citizens labelled ``good'"' by McCarthy issue

a public denial than that citizens labelled ``bad"' do

so, because a man labelled ``bad" is on the de-

fensive and his denial is somewhat ineffectual, but

a man labelled `"`good"' is not on the defensive and

his public statement would be of great value, re-

assuring the people of America that we have not

yet reached the point where all America is divided

into two parts-the small, select body of good peo-

ple who are approved by the Senator from Wis-

consin and the sprawling millions who have not

yet received the official blessing and are still

waiting in the shadows.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page 3

q

Court Decisions Point Up

Self-Incrimination Issue

Three major cases recently dealt with by. the |

District of Columbia U. S. Court of Appeals re-

garding the question of self-incrimination point

out these consequences of the decisions:

@ Government employees are fit grand jurors

in cases of this type-specifically, trials on

charges of contempt of Congress.

@ The claim of the privilege against self-in- -

crimination must be stated in rather ex-

press terms although it can be made by

reference.

@ A witness cannot be guilty of contempt un-

less he is in some fashion put on notice that

his reasons for refusing to answer is not

acceptable. oe

@ A witness can be guilty of contempt with-

out a specific direction to answer.

The three cases were decided originally in the

U. S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

They all involved officers of the United Electrical

Workers Union, an independent union. .

In the Emspak case, the higher court ruled, in

regard to refusal to answer, that "any crime of

contempt was complete when appellant refused to

answer questions propounded by the subcommit-

tee," .

Emspak argued that there could be no contempt

until. after a question had been asked by the sub-

committee, reply had been refused, and thereafter

specific direction had been made that the question

be answered, with still further refusal.

In the Bart case, the court faced the question

that when a witness is on notice he must reply or

be in contempt. The court here held that "a speci-

fic direction to answer is not a prerequisite to a

conviction for contempt."

On the other hand, the court also made this

point:

"Tf a witness interposes an objection....to....

a question ... he may not be refusing to answer.

In such event, both elementary justice and statu-

tory provision require that he be made aware, by

some method, at some time, that despite his posi-

tion, the inquirer means that he shall answer the

question."

In the Quinn case, the court took up the ques-

tion of a claim of privilege. The appellant was

- aSked if he had ever been a member of the Com-

munist Party. He refused to answer for reasons

advanced the previous day by another witness.

The lower court had held that, as the privilege is

personal, one may not assert the privilege by ref-

erence. The higher court held that a witness may

claim the privilege by referring to an adopting

language used by another, so long as that other's

language is identified. The other witness had re-

fused to answer, standing on the "protection of

the First Amendment to the Constitution supple-

mented by the Fifth Amendment." The court in-

dicated in the strongest terms that this was not a

sufficient claim of the privilege but sent the case

back to the lower court to make the final decision.

NAAP Membership 1 Ground

For Being A Security Risk

Recently, the ACLU received a complaint that

an employee of the Grand Central Aircraft in

Tucson had been dismissed from his job as a se-

curity risk after only four days' empioyment.

Of course, a private employer, in the absence

of a contract or some law, can hire and fire at will.

In this case, the company has contracts with de-

fense agencies which require security clearances

of employees by the government. And, in order

to protect employees, a hearing system hag been

devised under the direction of the Industrial Em-

ployment Review Board.

In this case, however, the employee claims he

was called in by the employment manager and

told that his job was being terminated because of

security reasons. Five grounds were given:

1. He had refused to sign the Levering Act

loyalty oath while performing some small job at

California Polytechnic State College. :

2. He had belonged to the NAACP in 1949,

while attending Cal. Poly.

3. He had belonged to the World Affairs Coun-

cil and attended its 1950 conference at Asilomar.

4. He went to Mexico on a Christmas vacation.

5. He made trips to Europe in 1949 and 1952

and on one occasion attended some meetings of a

peace conference in Budapest with a friend who

was reporting them for a responsible news agency

-Reuters.

These five things, according to the employment

manager, showed a pattern of behaviour which

made the man a security risk.

The Union has sent an inquiry to the company

as to why the employee was not permitted to

avail himself of existing appeal machinery before

being fired from his job. Since no response has

been received, the inquiry will next have to be

peed to the Industrial Employment Review

oard.

Americans Are Free Agents and Don't

Have To Be Interviewed by FE

What are a person's rights when a couple of FBI

agents call upon him for information? Must he

answer their questions? Or, can he tell them to go

about their business? These questions are prompt-

ed by the fact that in recent weeks seven or eight

persons have complained to the Union about ha-

rassment by FBI agents and have sought infor-

mation as to their rights.

The Union unfailingly reminds such complain-

ants that they are free agents. Whether or not

they wish to talk to representatives of the FBI is

up to them. An FBI agent is in no better position

than the Fuller brush man or some other salesman

who comes to your door. You can do business with

him if you wish; that's for you to decide. But the

ACLU is concerned in coercion and harassment of

people by police officers, whether they be uni-

formed members of the local constabulary or

young, handsome, arrow-collared agents of the

FBI. They are all police officers. 5

FBI Agents Ubiquitous

These days FBI agents are particularly ubiqui-

tous because they are collecting loyalty and se-

curity data about public employees and others,

and are also trying to interview ex-radicals. "All

we want is some information to complete our

files," the person is told. This type of data falls in

the field of opinion and association, and, whether

the FBI likes it or not, Congress has turned it

largely into a political police.

No FBI agent may compel a person to be inter-

viewed without himself being guilty of violating

the law. Of course, if agents ring your bell, show

their credentials and are invited into your home,

you cannot complain unless they then misbehave

themselves in some manner or refuse to leave

when asked to do so. But, even if you invite agents

into your home, there is`no legal duty on your part

to answer their questions,

FBI agents will resort to various means to se-

cure information. One of the commonest devices

is the friendly, father-confessor approach. If that

doesn't work a little lawful coercion may. Of

course, if a person allows information to be whee-

dled from him, which he later regrets giving, he

has no basis for complaint. But it seems to us he

may justly complain about such things as implied

threats or telephone calls for interviews to his

place of employment. Naturally, he does not want

the boss to know that he is not "cooperating" with

the FBI; the boss might not like it. In order to get

rid of the agent without the boss knowing what is

in the wind, a person will sometimes make a date

for an interview at the FBI office or his home.

Interviews "Confidential''

Some people wouldn't mind such interviews if

they could have the protection of an attorney or

representative. But the FBI won't agree. Inter-

views must be conducted on their terms. They

claim the interview is "confidential." It would

seem to be ordinary good sense and caution for a

person who is willing to talk to FBI agents to

have counsel present and to insist upon receiving

a transcript of his statements.

FBI agents are not easily discouraged. If a per-

son refuses to give information, they try again.

So would you if that were your job. But if the tar-

get of the interview.says he refuses to be inter-

viewed and the agents won't take "No" for an an-

Court Test of 'Miracle'

Ban In Chicago

ACLU has now gone into Cook County circuit

court to get clearance for showings in Chicago of

the motion picture "The Miracle."

In a suit filed against Mayor Martin H. Ken-

neally and Timothy J. O'Connor, acting commis-

sioner of police, the Chicago division of ACLU

asked the court to declare unconstitutional the

censorship provisions of the city's municipal code.

The Union, together with Charles Liebman, had

asked for a permit to show the film, but were

turned down by Commissioner O'Connor. A later

appeal was rejected by Mayor Kenneally.

ACLU contends that parts of the municipal code

violate both the state constitution and the First

and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Consti-

tution. The code makes it unlawful to show any

movie without a permit. And it says it is the duty

of the police commissioner to refuse a permit for

any picture that is "immoral or obscene, or por-

trays depravity, criminality, or lack of virtue of a

class of citizens . .. and exposes them to contempt

... or tends to produce a breach of the peace..."

This, ACLU maintains, is contrary to the law

of the land. It says the ordinance deprives people

of the freedom of speech and of the press guaran-

teed by the constitutional provisions.

The U. S. Supreme Court held last spring that

a New York ban against "The Miracle''-on the

grounds that it was sacrilegious-was unlawful

censorship. It also ruled that motion pictures,

as such, were entitled to free-speech guarantees.

| Agents

swer, then there's a civil liberties issue.

Many of the people who consult the ACLU

about their rights in connection with FBI agents

are former members of the Communist Party.

These people are generally not averse to talking

about their own past activities, but they do not

want to involve other people. Of course, that is

precisely the information the FBI is after.

Check on Minority Political Groups

Recently, the Union was consulted by a man the

FBI apparently believes is or was a Trotzkyite,

although the man denies it. No doubt other mi-

nority political movements are also under constant

surveillance by the FBI.

Finally, there is the person who is interviewed

by the FBI about a federal employee or an em-

ployee of the maritime or defense industries. May-

be he was only a neighbor or fellow employee of -

the person being inquired about. In any case, the

agents want to discover the man's political opin-

ions and associations as far as they are known to

the informant.

In any of these situations, a person does not

have to answer the questions of the FBI. In the

past, where a person has complained to the Union

about harassment by FBI agents, the Union has

conveyed to the particular agents or to the Agent

in Charge the wishes of the person. .

How To Be Left Alone

Recently, the FBI questioned the Union's au-

thority to act on behalf of two persons, a husband

and his wife. D. K. Brown, San Francisco Agent in

Charge, stated that while no person was under

compulsion to talk to FBI agents, they would not

respect requests to be left alone that come from

either representatives or attorneys, and that such

requests would have to come directly from the

persons they wish to interrogate.

Accordingly, the ACLU has suggested to per-

sons in this area who do not wish to he interviewed

that they should address a letter to Mr. D. K.

Brown, Agent in Charge, FBI, Federal Office

- Building, San Francisco, advising him that they

do not wish FBI agents to attempt to communi-

cate with them in any way. (Of course, there's no

choice where an agent is making an arrest or is

serving a subpoena.) The letter might well be reg-

istered and a copy should be retained by the

sender.

In any case, if a person is being harassed by

FBI agents or his peace is being disturbed by

them, he should consult the ACLU.

The End Does Not Justify the Means

In an article in the Winter, 1952, issue of the

Iowa Law Review, J. Edgar Hoover declared that

"The FBI operates on the highest code of ethics,

attempting to fulfill its responsibilities yet, in

every iota, respecting the civil rights of the indi-

viduals involved. This means that Special Agents

-not only observe the letter but also the spirit of

the law, not only the basic rights guaranteed to

the individual by law, but also the rights implied

in the American tradition of democracy. . ." We

hope that the Special Agents in this area won't let

Mr. Hoover down. In their investigations in the

political field they will be supporting Mr. Hoover's

brave words if they remember in word as well as

in ae that the end does not justify the means.

Tough Witch-Hunting

Legislation Proposed In Ohio

In a report to the state legislature, the Ohio

Un-American. Activities Commission has called

for some of the toughest anti-subversive legisla-

tion yet proposed. The commission, which went

out of existence last December 31, also asked the

lawmakers to revive its investigation into Com-

munist operations in the state.

The strongest proposals of the commission

were those calling for laws that would make it a

felony, carrying a penitentiary sentence, to: (1)

help form, contribute to, or knowingly remain a

member of a subversive organization; (2) commit -

or aid any act dedicated to violent overthrow of

the state or federal government; (3) destroy

records or secret funds of subversive groups.

The commission went on to stress "the clear

and present danger of the Communist Party" and

asked for laws to dissolve Communist organiza-

tions, bar Communists and members of other sub-

versive organizations from holding special privi-

leges or licenses, and make refusal to testify about

Communist activities prima facie evidence of

Communist or front-organization membership.

During its statewide investigations, the com-

mission cited 20 witnesses for refusing to say

whether they were or had been Communists. So

far, seven of the witnesses have been indicted by

grand juries. The commission has estimated that

there are about 1,300 Communists in the state.

Page 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

American Civil Liberties Union-News

Published monthly at 503 Market Street., San Francisco 5,

Calif., by the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California.

Phone: EXbrook 2-3255

ERNEST BHSIG.. 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 and Fifty Cents a

Fifteen Cents per Copy -151.

High Court Refuses Review

Of California Vagrancy Law

The U. S. Supreme Court has refused to review

a test case brought by ACLU to test a California

vagrancy law that defines a vagrant as a "dissi-

lute person." The high court's action was based

on a procedural point.

The case involved Isadore Edelman, a Los An-

geles political, economic, and religious orator in

Pershing Square, who was arrested in September,

1949, on a complaint under the vagrancy statute.

This statute imposes a fine and/or imprisonment

for an "idle, or lewd, or dissolute person." The jury

returned a verdict of guilty after having been

charged by the judge to consider Edelman as "dis-

solute" if they found him to be a lawless person

on the basis of his having begged, or indulged in

indecent conduct, or used slanderous, vulgar, and

profane language.

The ACLU Southern California affiliate argued

before the Supreme Court that the law is loose,

uncertain, and vague, and therefore unconstitu-

tional. But Mr. Justice Clark, writing the 7-2 opin-

ion, held that this defense had not been raised

early enough, appearing for the first time on ap-

peal. He contended that dismissal of the appeal by

the California Supreme Court could have rested on

adequate state grounds, not involving the federal

constitution. Justice Clark suggested, however,

that a writ of habeas corpus might now be filed

to test the constitutionality of the state law.

Justices Black and Douglas dissented, contend-

ing that the refusal of the Appellate Court of Cali-

fornia to review was in itself a denial of due pro-

cess of law. Pointing out that the legislation was

obviously unconstitutional, Justice Black insisted

that "courts should be astute to examine and

strike down dragnet legislation used to abridge

public discussion... ," pointing to the fact that

the major reason for Edelman's conviction was

the content of speeches he had delivered in public.

Tenny's 'Freedom Of Choice'

Bill is as Good as Dead |

Last month, Senator Jack B. Tenney lost the

eight co-sponsors of his "Freedom of Choice pro-

posal, S.C.A. 21, and, as a result, the measure is as

good as dead for this session of the Legislature.

The bill, if approved by the electorate, would have

the effect of legalizing racial and religious dis-

~ erimination in California.

In a public statement, Sen. Tenney blamed Com-

munist propaganda for the sad state of his bill.

While the senator says he will still seek a hearing

for the measure, none has been scheduled.

Executive Committee

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

Sara Bard Field

Honorary Member

Rt. Rey. Edw. L. Parsons

Chairman

Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn

Helen Salz

Vice-Chairmen

Fred H. Smith, IV

Secretary-T reasurer

Ernest Besig

Director

Lawrence Speiser

Staff Counsel

Philip Adams

Prof. Edward L. Barrett, Jr.

Albert Brundage

Prof. James R. Caldwell

Wayne M. Collins

Rev. Oscar F. Green

Alice G. Heyneman

Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Ruth Kingman a

`Seaton W. Manning

Rev. Harry C. Meserve

Rabbi Irving F. Reichert

Clarence E. Rust

Prof. Laurence Sears

Prof. Wallace E. Stegner

Beatrice Mark Stern

Stephen Thiermann

Kathleen Drew Tolman

Franklin Williams

Berkeley's Sidewalk Tab

le Case Challenges

Discrimination in Enforcement of Ordinance

The trial of Reuel S. Amdur, 18-year-old U. C.

student charged with placing a table on the side-

walks of Berkeley (at Sather Gate) without a

permit is still in progress but will probably end

on April 2nd, at which time final arguments

will be made by prosecution and defense counsel.

The trial has been marked by lengthy recesses

during which the judge made up his mind on legal

points. ;

At the opening of the trial on February 28,

Lawrence Speiser, ACLU Staff Counsel, who is

representing Amdur, made a motion for dismissal

on the grounds that the ordinance Amdur is

charged with violating is unconstitutional on its

face in not providing for a hearing and in not re-

stricting the City Council to considerations of

traffic and safety in granting or denying permits.

The motion was denied by Municipal Judge Red-

mond C. Staats, Jr. after considering it for two

weeks.

The prosecution's sole witness was officer R. J.

Burks, who testified that Amdur had refused to

remove his card table even though he had no per-

mit. David Dutton, Deputy District Attorney for

the County of Alameda, who was being assisted

Book Notes

The House Un-American Committee by Profes-

sor Robert K. Carr, 489 pages, Cornell University

Press. .

This is another contribution to the excellent

series published under the title, `"The Cornell Stu-

dies in Civil Liberty,'' made possible through a

grant of the Rockefeller Foundation. -

Prof. Carr traces the history of this controver-

sial House committee since it became a permanent

group in 1945. Examined against a general back-

ground of Congress and the campaign against

subversion, the areas covered are the committee's

personnel, staff, publications, the press' treatment

of its work, and court review of its activities. The

book ends with an evaluation by Prof. Carr of the

committee's record.

Equality By Statute by Monroe Berger, with a

foreword by Robert MaclIver, 238 pages, published

by the Columbia University Press.

A valuable contribution to the literature on the

problem of discrimination and segregation. The

author compares civil rights today and during the

Reconstruction Period and discusses the role of

the Supreme Court in two periods, 1868-1937 and

1937-1950, in meeting this issue. One chapter is

devoted to an analysis of the New York State

Law against Discrimination; there is also a gen-

oe discussion of the control of prejudice through

aw.

The Salvage, by Dorothy Swaine Thomas, with

assistance from Charles Kikuchi and James Sa-

koda; University of California Press ($7.50).

This is the second volume in the Japanese

American Evacuation and Resettlement Study.

This book offers a probing examination of the

evacuees from War Relocation camps who were

given "loyalty" clearance and were permitted to

resettle in the Middle West during 1943 and 1944.

The first part of the book is a sociological portrait

of Japanese American life in the midst of isola-

tion and segregation from the general American

community. Much of the information is attribut-

able to James Sakoda, himself an evacuee, who

was responsible for analyzing data revealing the

"statistical lives" of almost 25,000 evacuees. The

second section contains fifteen life histories of

Nisei resettlers. Much of this information was

presented by Charles Kikuchi who had done ex-

tensive work for the study while confined in a ~

relocation center. .

Report On The American, Communist, by Morris

_ Ernst and David Loth; Henry Holt and Co., New

York; 240. pages; $3.00.

Based on interviews with 300 former Com-

munist Party members, the authors set forth

several convincing arguments that Americans are

attracted to the Communist Party for psycholo-

gical, not economic or social, reasons. Rebellion

against parents, or a desire for a fixed Gibraltar-

like authority, not poverty or economic distresses,

are the motivating factors.

The authors stress ways and means of siphon-

ing people out of the Communist Party, chiefly

through a willingness on the part of the public,

organizations and congressional committees to

accept the repentance of ex-Communists rather

than treating them as pariahs unfit to live and

work in society. Smear attack and "vigilante"

action are deplored. The congressional commit-

tees especially are urged to forego their desire for

confessions and to probe, through the addition

of clergymen, psychologists, sociologists and

psychiatrists to their staffs, for the reasons that

attract Americans to the Communist Party.

by Asst. City Attorney Robert Anderson, then

rested the prosecution's case.

As its opening witness, the defense called City

Clerk Ruth Kemp, who had been asked to bring

with her 43 prior applications for sidewalk tables.

The defense hoped to show that there had been

discriminatory action in granting permits, but

the judge would not allow the applications to be (c)

introduced into evidence. :

The City Manager, John Phillips, then testified

that he had recommended against issuance of the

permit because he had been informed by the City

Clerk's office that Amdur had expressed the hope

that a prior request for a permit would be denied,

and that he had also expressed pleasure to Mayor

Cross when this occurred. Consequently, he con-

cluded that the application question was not made

"in good faith."

On the other hand, Capt. L. H. Laird of the

Berkeley Police Dept. testified that he had ap-

proved Amdur's application because the use would

not unduly obstruct traffic, and, in the event of

any breach of the peace, his department could

handle the situation.

Five council members defended their action on

the ground that Amdur was not acting "in good |

faith," although four of them also testified that

they took into consideration Amdur's purpose of

circulating Rosenberg clemency petitions. Two

of the City Councilmen apparently rejected the

police recommendation since they testified that

in voting against the application they had con-

sidered the question of obstruction of traffic in

the event of a riot.

In moving to introduce all prior applications

for sidewalk permits into evidence, the Union's

counsel made the following points:

1. The 36 prior requests for sidewalk tables

which were granted were necessary to show the

use of such tables as accessories to a public forum.

2. Amdur had filed a request, like all others

desiring to use a table, as part of a forum, and

hence fell in the same class.

3. Good faith had nothing to do with his case,

since good faith had never been used as a guide

or standard in any of the other cases.

4, A desire to test the constitutionality of a

law does not establish a lack of good faith, since

the usual method of testing criminal ordinances

is to flaunt them and invite arrest. Z

5. The City Council acted arbitrarily and capri-

ciously since it had granted 36 other requests for

sidewalk tables and denied only 7. Of these 7

denials, five were concerned with the Rosenberg

clemency appeal. All requests had the approval

of the Police Department from the traffic stand-

point. ;

6. The City Council did not accord any of the

applicants due process. Except in two instances,

decisions were made without hearings.

7. The City Council acted as a censor in con-

sidering any other factor than safety or conven-

ience to the public in the use of sidewalks. The

opinions of applicants are irrelevant.

- The prosecution answered that no civil liberties'.

issues were involved and that Amdur's lack of .

"good faith" (which apparently means his desire

to have the permit rejected in order to secure a

court test) place him in a different category

than all other applicants for permits. os

While Judge Staats denied the motion made by

ACLU counsel, he did permit introduction into

evidence of the record of the hearing of the first

request made by Amdur on Feb. 27th for the sole

purpose of showing that Amdur had not received a

hearing.

It appears most unlikely that the Court will

rule in favor of Amdur and an appeal therefore

appears inevitable. -

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

American Civil Liberties Union of No. Cailif.,

503 Market St. 5

San Francisco 5, Calif.

1. Please enroll me as a member at dues of

Bis for the current year. (Types of mem-

bership: Associate Member, $3; Annual Member,

$5; Business and Professional Member, $10;

Family Membership, $25; Contributing Member,

$50; Patron, $100 and over. Membership includes

subscription to the "American Civil Liberties

Union-News" at $1 a year.)

Peas p

2. I pledge 6............ per month........ or er yr.

8. Please enter my subscription to the NEWS ($1.50

per. year)

- Enclosed please find $.......:.-ccscsscsce-e-- Please bill

ING eestor nce

Name

Street

City and Zone .....

Qccupation: 2.32