vol. 19, no. 11

~ American

Civil Liberties

Free Press

Free Assemblage

Free Speech

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

VOLUME XIX

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER, 1954

NUMBER 11

S S.F. Ulility Comtnission

Abandons Censorship

A newspaper editorial and the threat of a legal

suit instituted by the ACLU prompted the hasty

reversal by the San Francisco Public Utility Com-

mission from its position of censoring one point of

view in political advertisements on municipal buses

and streetcars.

Political Ads Subject to P.U.C. Approval

All advertisements on the municipal buses are

handled by the advertising firm of Frelder, Soren-

son and Davis, which, however, has to obtain the

approval of the P.U.C. for any political advertise-

ments. Mr. E. B. Sorenson of that firm wrote the

P.U.C. on August 19:

"We have a chance to get 400 traveling displays

for the month of October, $2340, from (the pro-

ponents of) Proposition `A' which we would surely

Union's Annual Appeal Seeks to Raise

Record Budgei of $29,600 for 1955

On October 25, the American Civil Liberties

Union of Northern California mailed to its sup-

porters, except those who had contributed during

`the past two months, letters soliciting contribu-

tions toward the Union's $29,600 budget for the

fiscal year beginning November 1, 1954,

While the Union's budget is still small, it is the

largest in its 20-year history. It is $1400 more than

` during the last fiscal year, but only $400 more than

last year's income. The larger budget is accounted

for by small increases in staff salaries, a provision

for a new electric typewriter, and increases in the

items for legal expenses and printing and station-

ery. At the same time, there is no allowance for a

membership campaign and the travel item does not

anticipate a national conference in the East. .

like to take. Since this proposition has city official |

endorsement it occurs to me that you might con-

sider this civic."

Proposition "A," on the November 2 ballot, pro-

vides for the issuance of bonds to build an exhibit

hall under Civic Center Plaza. Approval was given

by the P.U.C. to Mr. Sorenson's request. On Octo-

ber 13, he again wrote the P.U.C. and stated:

"An organization known as the Society for the

Preservation of Golden Gate Park has discovered

that we have 35 outside spaces unsold for the

`week commencing October 23. They have demand-

ed that since we have taken Proposition `A' ad-

vertising, which you approved August 19, we must

sell them this space at our published rate of

$34.15."

Request Disapproved ;

On October 18, the P.U.C. met with four com

missioners present, Jack Hilmer and two other

representatives of the Society for the Preserva-

tion of Golden Gate Park appeared to urge P.U.C.

approval. The Commission however disapproved

their request. Its minutes reported:

`In refusing the request, the Commission did.

so in the light that Proposition `A' was a measure

endorsed by City government, and the incongruity

of advertising `Vote Yes' and `Vote No' on the

proposition was not in the best interests of the

City."

Jack Hilmer called the ACLU, which referred

the case to volunteer ACLU attorney Franklyn

Brann, who started preparation of a mandamus

action against the P.U.C. He informed members

of the City Attorney's office that this was being

done. 4

"News" Editorial Lambasts P.U.C,

On October 20, the San Francisco News printed

an editorial calling the P.U.C.'s position "unten-

able" and stated,

"The Public Utility Commission goes beyond

its authority in censoring a legitimate advertise-

ment simply because the text takes a position con-

trary to that of the city government.

"The Muni Railway belongs to all the people, not

to the utility commissioners."

The next day the P.U.C. reversed itself by means

of a telephone poll of its members.

Frantz and Lastrucci Elected

To ACLU Executive Comm.

Laurent B. Frantz, lawyer and writer on civil

liberties issues, and Prof. Carlo L. Lastrucci of

San Francisco State College, have been elected to

three-year terms on the Union's Executive Com-

mittee commencing November 1. Their election

was confirmed at the membership meeting held

in San Francisco on October 15.

At the same time, six members of the Execu-

tive Committee were re-elected to three-year

terms and their election was likewise confirmed at

the October 15 meeting. Those re-elected are as

follows: Alice G. Heyneman, Rt. Rev. Edward L.

Parsons, Clarence E. Rust, Prof. Wallace Stegner,

Stephen Thiermann and Franklin H. Williams.

How to Make Contribution Worth More

.Once again, the appeal suggests that supporters

can make their contributions go almost 10% far-

ther if they respond to the initial appeal for funds.

They can thereby save the Union the costs of fol-

Public Housing `Oath'

Cases In Court

Whether or not the ACLU will be allowed to

challenge the constitutionality of the Gwinn Rider

was the subject of a two and one-half hour legal

argument before Richmond Municipal Court Judge

Leo G. Marcollo on October 21, in the eviction

proceedings against the three non-oath signing

families living in Richmond public housing pro-

jects. )

The Richmond Housing Authority, in attempt-

ing to evict these families, insists that under the

terms of the leases it need not give any reason

for doing so. The ACLU filed an answer on behalf

of the three families insisting that the real reason

for the attempted evictions was their refusal to

sign the certificates of non-membership in over

200 organizations on the so-called Attorney Gen-

eral's List, and that such a requirement is uncon-

stitutional in having no reasonable relationship

to public housing tenancy or the security of the

country.

The housing authority attorney filed a motion

to strike the defendants' answer on the grounds

that a housing authority has the same rights as

any landlord to evict tenants with proper notice,

irrespective of its motive.

Housing Authority May Not Discriminate

At the hearing on this motion, ACLU Staff

Counsel Lawrence Speiser with co-counsel Joseph

Landisman of Richmond, argued that since last

year's decision in Banks v. Housing Authority of

San Francisco decided that a housing authority

couldn't discriminate in taking in tenants, (to

maintain the "neighborhood pattern"), therefore

a housing authority could not, then, discriminate

in evicting tenants (in this case, non-oath signers,

- rather than Negroes) and that the defendants

were entitled to present the facts showing such

discriminations.

It was agreed that the matter be submitted to

Judge Marcollo, who would withhold making his

decision until a Los Angeles appellate court ren-

ders a decision in a similar case being handled by

the ACLU's Southern California affiliate. The

municipal court there ruled against the tenants,

and the matter was appealed some months ago.

San Francisco Case

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, an eviction com-

plaint was filed against Mollie Thorner, a tenant

of the San Francisco Housing Authority. She, too,

has declined to sign the certificate, and, in her

case, too, no reason was given in the complaint for

the attempted eviction, An answer raising the con-

stitutional questions has been filed on her behalf

by ACLU Staff Counsel Speiser with Attorney

Franklyn Brann, of San Francisco ag co-counsel.

low-up mailings-labor, postage, letterheads and

envelopes.

Also, if supporters send their contributions

NOW they help the Union to concentrate its fund-

raising activities, thereby causing a minimum of

interference with its handling of civil liberties

issues, .Supporters who contribute NOW to the

Union's work will receive no further appeal for

funds for another year. So, even if your member- |

ship does not expire just now, the Union hopes

you will be willing to make your PRESENT and

FUTURE contributions in November. The Union

earnestly solicits your cooperation. Incidentally, |

last year over a thousand of the Union's support-

ers made their contributions in November, and

every year the November response grows larger.

Average Contribution

_ On the basis of its present membership of 3488,

the Union needs an average contribution of $8.50

to raise the new budget. Of course, some members

cannot afford to give more than the minimum

dues, and many larger gifts are, therefore, neces-

sary in order to balance the smaller contributions, -

All of the money that is used by the Union to

handle civil liberties cases is raised by this branch

from its members and friends. It receives no sup-

port from any foundation, the Community Chest,

financial angels or the Union's national office.

Money that is sent to New York is not returned -

here to meet local needs. We again emphasize this

point because some of our members occasionally

send money to New York and do not realize that

no part of it will be used for local work,

The Budget

Here is the way your money will be spent:

Directom $7200.00

Start Counsel 8 5100.00

mechetary. 7 3600.00

Dypist- Clery = 5 2750.00

Retirement ee 741.30 ,

extra Help 250.00 (c)

Printing and Stationery __....... 3725.00

Rent (6 ~ 2260.00

Postage a 140000

Telephone and Telegraph.......... 750.00

Taxes and Insurance... 475.00

Furniture and Equipment.......... 500.00

Traveling and Transportation.. 250.00

Publications 75.00

Miscellaneous. 75.00 Contingent Fund (Legal)... 449:70

TOVAL $29,600.00

Judge Kaufman Backs

Fifth Amendment

Judge Irving R. Kaufman of the United States

District Court in New York State recently de-

scribed any move to repeal the Fifth Amendment

to the Constitution as "dangerous radicalism"

and urged lawyers to "speak out when fundamen-

tal rights are threatened."

Judge Kaufman, who presided in the Rosen-

berg atomic espionage trial, said at a bar associa-

tion meeting that Communism feeds on "constitu-

tional illiteracy." . oe

He further added: `Some of our political con-

servatives unwittingly are leaning toward danger-

ous radicalism in their attitude toward the Con-

stitution and in their search for quick cure-alls"

for Communism. Judge Kaufman' cited as an ex-

ample of such a cure-all the current move by

some groups to repeal the Fifth Amendment be-

cause it has been used by Communists to avoid.

answering questions about their activities,

The nation's founding fathers "would have been

numbed with disbelief" had they been told such

action ever would be contemplated, observed Kauf-

man. He said lawyers should be prepared to in-

ee their communities in constitutional princi-

ples.

Page 2

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

ACLU States View on Senaive

Committee WicCarthy Report

The ACLU view on the report of the Senate

Select Committee which recommended censure of

Senator McCarthy was set forth in a recent letter,

over the signatures of Board chairman Ernest

Angell and executive director Patrick Murphy

Malin. The letter, addressed to the editors of nine

leading American newspapers, read: .

"Two of the five categories of incidents on which

the committee reported are outside of the Union's

scope: category I, incidents of contempt of the

Senate or a Senatorial committee; and category IV,

incidents of abuse of Senatorial colleagues. But

civil liberties are directly and importantly involved

in category V, the incident relating to Brigadier

General Zwicker as a witness before an investigat-

ing committee; and significantly though indirectly

involved in categories I and III, incidents of en-

couragement of government employees to violate

- the law and of unauthorized use of confidential in-

formation from executive files.

Zwicker Incident

"With respect to the Zwicker incident, the Union

- wholeheartedly applauds the committee for say-

ing three things of tremendous value for the fu-

ture of individual liberty in this country: (1) "...

_ the very fact that `the exercise of good taste and

good judgment' must be entrusted to those who

conduct such (Senate committee) investigations

places upon them the responsibility of upholding

the honor of the Senate." (2) "We do not think

that (the conduct of Senator McCarthy, toward

General Zwicker) would have been proper in the

case of any witness, whether a general or a pri-

vate citizen, testifying in a similar situation." (3)

" _. for this conduct (Senator McCarthy) should

be censured by the Senate.'' The Union also ap-

plauds the committee's recommendation of cer-

tain changes in the Standing Rules of the Senate |

regarding the procedure of investigating commit-

tees, as one instalment of the direly-needed com-

prehensive reform on which the Senate Subcom-

mittee on Rules has recently held extensive hear-

ings and expects to have a report ready for the

opening of the next session of Congress.

Confidential Information

"With respect to the incidents of encourage-_

ment of government employees to violate the law

and of unauthorized use of confidential informa-

tion from executive files, the Union welcomes

__ these two conclusions of the committee: (1) "...

the conduct of Senator McCarthy in inviting Fed-

eral employees to supply him with information,

without expressly excluding therefrom classified

documents, tends to create a disruption of the

orderly and constitutional functioning of the ex-

ecutive and legislative branches of the Govern-

~ment, which tends to bring both into disrepute."

(2) " ... the leadership of the Senate (should)

endeavor to arrange a meeting of the chairmen

and the ranking minority members of the stand-

ing committees of the Senate with responsible

departmental heads in the executive branch of the

Government in an effort to clarify the mechanisms

for obtaining such restricted information as Sen-

ate committees would find heipful in carrying out

their duly authorized functions and responsibili-

ties."' More is at stake here than even the balance

of power between the executive and the legisla-

_ tive branches of our government. For example,

the individual liberty of the citizens of our free

society depends in great measure on preventing

the disclosure of personal information from in-

vestigative files, except under the due process

safeguards of fair court trial or administrative

hearing.

McCarthy's Civil Liberties

"With respect to the civil liberties of Senator

McCarthy, or any other Senator or Congressman,

the Union believes that the committee scrupu-

lously avoided doing or saying anything which

would curb the indispensable free speech of the

people's representatives. But the Union is examin-

ing the charge that the committee violated Sena-

tor McCarthy's right of due process with regard

to the testimony of the Senate Parliamentarian-

in the same spirit in which the Union urged that

the Senator be accorded the right to cross-exami-

nation in the hearings of the Senate Subcommittee

on Privileges and Hlections in 1951, and in the

hearings of the Select Committee which has just

reported.

"All in all, the report of this committee is one

of the great milestones in the history of American

civil liberties. The Senate should long ago have

recognized its responsibility for dealing with Sena-

tor McCarthy, and the United States has paid a

heavy price for the delay-at home and abroad.

But we now hope that the lesson has been well

learned, not only for the present with specific

reference to Senator McCarthy's conduct, but also

for the future with general reference to any simi-

lar conduct, If that lesson has indeed been well

learned, then our leadership of the free nations of

free people, in the world-wide struggle against the

tyranny and aggression of Soviet Communism,

will be more deserved-and more successful."

Government Opposes Naturalization of

Pacitist Who Won't

The naturalization case of Jean Bradley, Eng-

lish-born, Vallejo housewife and mother, has

finally been submitted to the Superior Court in

Fairfield, California by the ACLU which is rep-

resenting her, Although the petition of Mrs. Brad-

ley, a conscientious objector, was first filed on

July 20, 1951, it has taken up to the present time,

by reason of Immigration or Naturalization Serv-

ice delays, to have the matter presented to Su-

perior Court Judge Joseph Raines, who will make

the actual decision.

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Unfavorable Recommendation In 1952

In October of 1952, Harmon HE. Hosier, Desig-

nated Naturalization Examiner, recommended

Mrs. Bradley's petition for naturalization be de-

nied on the grounds that she was ineligible to take

the oath of allegiance prescribed for C.O.'s because

the church to which she belongs, the Disciples of

Christ, assertedly does not advocate the non-bear-

ing of arms or non-performance of non-combatant -

service and thus "she has not established that she

was attached to the principles of the Constitution

and weil disposed to the good order and happiness

of the United States." Mr. Hosier also concluded

Mrs. Bradley's unwillingness to work in munitions

factories likewise indicated a lack of attachment

to the principles of the Constitution. This recom-

mendation was not presented to the Court, and

Was even mysteriously missing from the files.

Another Unfavorabie Recommendation .

After the McCarran-Walter Act* became effec-

tive, a second recommendation was made by the

same hearing examiner. This time he conceded the

good faith of the petitioner's religious training

and belief in pacificism, and made no allegation

that she was not attached to the principles of the

Constitution. Instead, he recommended denial on

the grounds that she was ineligible to take the

oath of allegiance for C.O.'s since the oath now

requires a promise to do `work of national im-

portance," which Mr. Hosier claimed, includes

work in munitions factories.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service,

however, finds itself in a conflicting position, be-

cause the head of the Immigration Service, the

Commissioner, with the advise of his General

Counsel, recommended Mrs. Bradley's naturaliza- -

tion be granted, since she need only take the oath

of allegiance in effect when she fiied her petition

which makes no mention of promising to do ``work

of national importance."

Case Argued Last August

On August 19th, arguments were heard before

Judge Raines with ACLU Staff Counsel Lawrence

Speiser representing Mrs. Bradley, and Daniel

Lyon presenting the conflicting recommendations

of the Naturalization Service. Briefs have since

been submitted by both sides. :

The ACLU brief backs up the Commissioner's

point of view by pointing to the savings clause in

the McCarran-Walter Act whieh states that: -

"Any petition for naturalization pending at the

time this Act shall take effect shall be heard in

accordance with the requirements of law in effect

when such petition was filed."

However, the ACLU brief also argues that,

Mrs. Bradley could also take the present oath, if

so required. The ACLU brief points out that the

religious beliefs of some C.O.'s allows them to

serve in the Armed Forces in non-combatant du-

ties, and the present law prohibits the government

from assigning them duties involving the hand-

ling of munitions, It therefore contends that it

would be highly inconsistent to force "absolutist"

C.O.'s, whose religious conviction forbids even

non-combantant service, to work in munitions

Catholic Objeciors'

Appeai Drepped

The appeal of the two Catholic conscientious

objectors, George Lillis and Arthur Duffy, con-

victed for refusing to be inducted into the Army, -

seems to have come to the end of the road.

On October 12, 1954, a motion for leave to

prosecute their appeal at government expense be-

cause of their poverty was made to Federal Judge

OQ. D. Hamlin, who had presided at their trial. He

denied the motion on the ground that he was

"satisfied that the proposed appeal is without

merit and not taken in good faith."

This ruling forces the ACLU to end its efforts

on behalf of the two C.O.s, because the record in

the case was so voluminous that the cost of appeal

is prohibitive and beyond the present finances of

the ACLU. A further consideration was that the

chances for success in any appeal were slim, in

view of the earlier refusals of the Circuit Court

and Chief Justice Earl Warren to grant bail on

the ground that there was no substantial question

involved in the cases. The men are scheduled to be

released from prison in about a month.

fork in Munitions Plani

plants when `so-called `compromise' C.O.'s need

not. ;

Mr. Hosier Is Unhappy

Mr. Hosier filed a reply brief, in which he re-

iterated his position. He also states:

"I have carefully read the Brief of the Civil

Liberties Union in this case, the Civil Liberties

Union being counsel for the petitioner, and I have

been unable to locate a single sentence, reference

or statement of any kind to even suggest that the

maintenance of our constitutional form of gov-

ernment should be of vital consideration where an

alien is petitioning for naturalization as a citizen

of the United States. Neither do I find any sug-

gestion of our right to believe in the God we

choose; the right to think as the moods may move

us, or the right to say the things that our minds

commit to our tongues to speak. I believe it was

Patrick Henry who said: `Give Me Liberty Or

Give Me Death." It has also been stated by many

devotees of liberty and freedom that "The Price

of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance." This latter state-

ment takes on added weight in these days of com-

munist aggression, and it seems that if we are to

. retain our liberty that we are going to do so only

at the price of eternal vigilance and with an all

out effort to defend that liberty."

In the ACLU brief it was pointed out that

naturalization had been granted in a similar case .

_ in Salinas last June in which Mr, Hosier had made

the exact same recommendation, word for word,

as in Mrs. Bradley's case. The Commissioner's con-

flicting recommendations had also been presented.

Lack of "Attachment" Reiterated

Mr. Hosier ends his brief by going back to his

original abandoned position in his first recommen-

dation:

"It does not seem reasonable that a person can -

be very strongly attached to the principles of lib-

erty and justice, as set forth in our Constitution

and as practiced in the United States, when such

a person is not willing to do anything which they

may be called upon to do lawfully for the defense

of those principles. Where a person will do only

certain things to defend those principles, and those -

acts which they are willing to do does not place

such person in any particular danger, nor place

such person as a part of the force to repei any

invasion of the United States which would result

in the destruction of those principles, it does not

- appear that such person is really attached to our

Constitution, and well disposed to the good order

_and happiness of the United States."

At the hearing before Mr. Hosier, it was brought

out that, during the bombings in England in World

War iI, Mrs. Bradley had worked as a volunteer

fire watcher at night on her own time guarding

against fires, as well as having worked as a nurse,

and would be willing to do the same work again.

A decision is not expected for several months.

No Due Process In Navy

Barring of Red Cross Worker

The barring of an American Red Cross em-

ployee from Treasure Island on asserted security

charges, with no hearing procedure available, or

even a statement of charges, is causing grave con- -

cern to local and national American Red Cross

officials. 7?

This action by the Base Commander of Trea-

sure Island brings to light the fact that certain

Red Cross employment apparently is subject to

the complete and arbitrary power of the military

authorities.

Had Submitted Resignation

On the morning of October 25, this employee, |

who had earlier submitted a resignation, had

agreed to remain on his job until January 15 in

order to give local Red Cross officials an oppor-

tunity to replace him. Only a few hours later, just

before quitting time, he was notified by his su-

perior that the Island Commander had ordered

him off the base permanently. He was told vaguely

that it was a security matter, but he was not told

what the charges were against him. ;

`There is no hearing procedure, and the em- |

ployee has no idea why the action was ordered,

although he thinks that it might have something

to do with his having been active in "Students for

' Wallace" a few years ago while he was attending

college.

No Hearing Procedure.

Local American Red Cross officials made sev-

eral long distance `phone calls to their national |

office, after inquiries by the ACLU, to determine

whether there was some hearing procedure so that

the employee might have an opportunity to clear

himself. They were informed there is none.

The barred employee has worked for the Red

Cross for over fourteen months, having been sta-

tioned at Travis Air Force Base for a year of that (c)

/

time. :

~ AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

Page 3

ACLU Brief Hits Contempt

Citations As Illegal

The contempt-of-court citations against 12 per-

. sons who refused to answer on grounds of self-

incrimination a Florida state grand jury's ques-

tions concerning alleged Communist activities

-should be reversed, the American Civil Liberties

Union said last month. .

The Union announced that it had filed a `friend

of the court" brief with the Florida Supreme Court

now considering the case of Michael Shantzek,

which tests the legality of the contempt citations.

The cases arose out of a county-wide investigation

into alleged Communist activities involving over

1380 persons.

Single Question

The Shantzek case, the ACLU said, boiled down

to the single question of whether it was proper to

plead the state constitutional privilege against

self-incrimination in refusing to answer the grand

jury's questions about alleged Communist matters

_ that took place more than two years previous, and

which, under a two-year statute of limitations,

could not be the basis of a state criminal prosecu-

tion. (c) .

Arguing that the sole function of a grand jury

is to investigate crime with a view to prosecution,

the Union's brief said that the jury had no power

to "make an inquiry into events which cannot form

the basis of criminal prosecution," and thus the

contempt action was improper. The exception to

this rule, it added, arises when the grand jury is

investigating alleged offenses in a period not pro-

tected by the statute of limitations, or probing

similar issues which are still not illegal. However,

in either case, the contempt citations are still ins

valid, the ACLU said. If the grand jury was prob-

ing affairs which were not illegal, it was outside

its jurisdiction, and if it was asking the questions

in the hope of establishing criminal conduct in the

post-statute of limitations period, the defendant

had cause to invoke the privilege against self-

incrimination. _

Secrecy Argument Answered

While pointing out that Florida's Supreme Court

had recently ruled that the state -constitution's

self -incrimination clause offered protection

against federal prosecution, the ACLU's brief em-

phasized that the federal statute of limitations

would not protect persons from answering ques-

tions concerning matters more than two years old

for which they might be prosecuted by the federal

government. `The state has attempted to evade

the point ... by arguing that grand jury proceed-

ings are secret and that therefore the answers to

questions could not be disclosed to federal author-

ities. .. . It might be added that there might in-

deed be disclosure through one of the methods

provided under Florida law for disclosure of grand

jury minutes, or through a public trial as the

result of an indictment for recent activities not

protected by the state limitations statute."

Communist Candidate In New

Jersey Denied Place on Ballot

In a Trenton, New Jersey court the American

Civil Liberties Union recently challenged the con-

stitutionality of the Communist Control Act of

1954 in the first legal test of the controversial

outlawry bill passed in the closing days of the

83rd Congress. The ACLU argued that while the

Communist Party is part of the Soviet conspiracy,

. it is also a political movement, and that under the

U.S. Constitution its members have the same right

_ to offer candidates for public office as do the

members of other parties.

Emil Oxfeld, Newark attorney, filed the ACLU's

friend-of-the-court brief in the case of Bert Sal-

wen, Communist candidate for County Freeholder

in Trenton, who was removed from the ballot in

compliance with the new law signed late in August

by President Eisenhower. Salwen brought legal

action to be restored to the ballot. The case was

heard by Judge Drewen in Trenton Superior Court.

Judge Drewen ruled against Salwen, stating that

the candidate "became, so to speak, the embodi-

ment of the party by choosing to run under its

banner ... if an individual violates the law ap-

plied against the organization, he comes under its

effect. If you can get at the Communist Party

only through its candidates that is a human neces-

sity we will have to face." Salwen's attorney plans

to appeal to an intermediate appellate court.

_ In its unsuccessful efforts to prevent the pas-

sage of the legislation in Congress last summer,

the ACLU said, `The puny status of the Commu-

nist Party in this country is crystal-clear evidence

that it possesses no hold on the American people.

Its conspiratorial acts can and should be dealt

_ with under existing law or new legislation. But to

cutlaw its political agitation, in addition to driv-

ing it into clandestine channels more difficult to

police, will cut directly across the guarantees of

free speech and association in our Bill of Rights

and weaken our own faith in this charter of

freedom."

Assistant Secretary of Navy Clears Accused

`Security

The security case of a clerk-typist at the U.S.

Navai Air Station in Alameda was brought to a

successful conclusion on October 21st, through the

efforts of the ACLU, after she had been suspended

without pay for thirteen months. At that time,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy, J. H. Smith, Jr,

reversed a Security Hearing Board decision and

held that the employee was not a security risk.

The Charges

The case started on September 25, 1953, when

the employee was suspended ard served with

charges that she had stolen some money while

attending Berkeley High School in 1928, when she

was 16 years old; that she had been employed by

the Writers Project of the W.P.A. from 1939 to

1942 which "was reported to have been Communist

controlled and staffed with a large percentage of

Communist Party members," that her name was

"in the files" of the Communist Party of Alameda

county and that she had worked for a Communist

controlled labor union for two months in 1943

and then for a Communist employer for: five

months in the same year.

At her request, the employee was given a hear-

ing, but she had no counsel and presented no wit-

nesses.. The hearing board promptly declared her

to be a security risk and inadvertently gave her a

memorandum which stated the reason for its deci-

sion to be that the employee had the responsibility

of learning the opinions of her associates and

keeping away from those whose opinions are bad.

The Board said:

Security Board's Reasoning

"Even if the appellant's testimony be taken

as factual (that she didn't know the political

opinions of her employers and fellow. em-

ployees), it is self revealing in the sense of

establishing her as one so impressionable and,

to a certain degree, naive, as to remove her

from consideration as a trustworthy em-

`ployee. Those who are granted the privilege

of Federal employment must show themselves

Phila ACLU Scores Jefferson

Med. Coilege In Security Case

The Greater Philadelphia Branch of ACLU has

made public letters from Jefferson Medical Col-

lege stating that the dismissal of three faculty

members last November after security proceed-

ings were "not based on a finding"' that they were

subversive.

This was the general understanding created -

by newspaper reports about the firings, which

took place November 30, 1953, amid considerable

publicity. The College at that time announced to

the press that the board of trustees had unani-

mously decided that the employment of the men

"should be terminated in the best interest of the

institution."" Simultaneously the College revealed

that the dismissals followed investigations by the

College's Loyalty Committee.

Won't Tell Reasons For Dismissals

A lengthy report by the Philadelphia Branch

of ACLU discloses that the College has refused to

tell the men why they were fired, yet in letters to

the three men after the firings cleared them of

subversion. Paragraphs in each letter, by the in-

stitution's solicitor, J. Warren Brock, stated:

"T can assure you that the decision .. . was not

based upon a finding that you were a subversive

"person as that term is defined in the Pennsylvania

Loyalty Act."

At least one of the three men admitted in closed

hearings that he had at one time been a member

of the Communist Party, but `swore that he no

longer is and that he knows no one at Jefferson

who is a member now.

The discharged men had spent from four to nine

years at the College, conducting elaborate experi-

ments on U.S. Public Health grants. According

to the report by the ACLU branch, "the men were

given as little as 24 hours notice to be off the

premises and were actually locked out when the

time was up."

ACLU Charges

Four charges are made in the report against the

College for its handling of the cases. They are:

1. The three professors were "heard by the

Loyalty Board on one question, fired on another."

2. The College in refusing to state the grounds

for dismissal "is particularly unjust" because of

the wide publicity given the dismissals and the

impression that they were made on loyalty

grounds, | :

3. Faculty participation in the procedures lead-

ing to dismissal was `"`so minimal as to be almost

non-existent."'

4, The College "not only changed the rules gov-

erning the proceedings withott notice, but failed

to notify the men and their attorneys that the

changes had been made."

isk' After 13 Months Suspension

completely beyond the reach of defection of

any sort and especially that which might be

brought about by pressure, no matter how in-

direct or insidiously applied. It is not enough

that the employee shall be untainted; he must

order his life with such positive knowledge as

will absolutely negate the risk of guilt by

association. The appellant has not so ordered

her career." -

At this point, the employee turned to the ACLU.

for help, and it obtained for her a new hearing

in which it represented her, At the new hearing it

was shown that the employee had made full resti-

tution in the 1928 theft, which was caused by a fit

of childish pique over insults to her by fellow stu-

dents. It was also shown that the employee had

handled the entire payroll of one department at

the Naval Air Station for over a year and a half,

involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in

checks, without any adverse criticism whatsoever.

Assigned to W.P.A.

It was pointed out that she was charged with

being a security risk, in part, because she had

worked for an agency of the United States govern-

ment, and that, in any case, she was assigned to

the job with the Writers Project and did not re-

quest it. And, with respect to the allegation that

her name was in the files of the Communist Party,

it was pointed out that she obviously had no con-.

trol over that. oS

The charge of having worked for alleged Com-

munist employers concerned employment of three

days in one instance, and two months in another,

in 19438, and she had voluntarily quit rather than

work on a full-time basis in the latter case. She

denied knowing that her employers were Com-

munists.

Adverse Decision After New Hearing

Several witnesses appeared on her behalf, in-

`cluding her immediate supervisors, who attested

to her good character and non-Communist outlook.

However, the Hearing Board, consisting of three

persons, two of whom had participated in the first

hearing, again decided, on May `7, 1954 that she

was a security risk.

Almost six months later the decision was re-

versed by the ruling of Assistant Secretary of the

Navy, J. H. Smith, that the employee's continued

employment was clearly consistent with national

security." She has been ordered restored to her

job and will be reimbursed for her lost pay less

any income from other jobs she may have secured.

Right of Assembly 7

In Yonkers Case |

The New York Civil Liberties Union joined with

the Yonkers Committee for Peace in a test case

heard by the U.S. Supreme Court last month on

the right of communities to bar groups with "left-

wing" reputations from meeting in public school

buildings.

The Yonkers Board of Education has barred the

Yonkers Committee for Peace from meeting in a

school building there last year, although. other

organizations had frequently received permission.

Committee appeals, with the aid of the ACLU,

were made to the State Supreme Court and the

Appellate Division, both of which refused to re-

_verse the school board ruling. The Committee and

Emanuel Redfield, counsel for NYCLU, served

briefs on Yonkers officials, who claimed that the

proposed meeting was "controversial," and that

the Board of Education had discretion to bar

any meeting, since the State Department of Edu-

cation has told school boards to forbid "contro-

versial"' meetings.

The Board of Education also referred to an

earlier meeting of the Committee for Peace, in

the hall of the Yonkers YWCA, which, according

to the officials, `"created considerable dissatisfac-

tion' and criticism among some citizens' and vet-

erans' organizations." The Committee, noting that

`a "vigilante-minded group" had complained about

this meeting, stated that Quakers had addressed (c)

the gathering and that clergymen had preached

sermons praising the YWCA for its "mature

thinking and courageous stand" in lending the

hall,

The Committee said to the U.S. Supreme Court

that the court `"`has never passed upon this serious

question of free speech which is becoming recur- |

rent. ... The Bill of Rights tells us that a person

should have a right to talk on any subject he

wishes, so long as the speaker does not incite to

riot, incite to unlawful conduct or arouse to lust.

In this case, the Supreme Court, Westchester

County, was moved by the fear that the subject -

matter might be `controversial'-as if controver-

Sy were some sort of taboo-and construed the

statutes. as forbidding the use of school property

for `controversial discussions.'" _ :

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 BBESIG. 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 Year.

Fifteen Cents per Copy | -151 a=

OPEN FORUM

U. C. Policies Reached Without Discussion

Editor:

Why is it that in a university of all places, poli-

cies are made, decisions reached, without benefit

of discussion, nor even forewarning of those im-

mediately concerned? me

In using closed-door techniques and resort to

fiat, university administrators are resorting to

some of the worst practices of arbitrary govern-

ment.

We witnessed this in the case of the Regents'

loyalty oath, when, without notification, nor

chance for discussion, a demand for a sworn state-

ment of conformance was simply attached to the

yearly contracts of all University employes.

We saw it again with the contact man system

which was offered to the faculty-signed, sealed

and delivered. Again in the instance of the ROTC

loyalty oath, students in the process of normal

enrollment were confronted with yet another

oath, presumably to be signed if one would not

forfeit his education.

No warning, no opportunity to obtain advice

or hear discussion. This in spite of the fact that

the University administration had known of the

matter since last spring through the American

Council on Education.

Now comes yet another example of arbitrary

administration. How many members of the Asso-

ciated Students of the University of California

know that that organization signed a loyalty oath

during the summer vacation-that is, its director

of student activities signed one for the ASUC.

This he did without recourse.to the Executive

committee, nor to the students who have final

jurisdiction (subject to an administration vete).

This he did "`as a matter of course."

The most recent oath is one required of all non-

profit organizations (which means the ASUC both

formally and actually) if they are to be tax-

- exempt. It is the same oath on which the living

groups, through open debate of pros and cons, are

now attempting to reach a decision. cS

Not to sign would mean to give up the privilege

of being tax exempt. To take a non-sign position

on principle has almost always meant financial

sacrifice. Witness the faculty non-signers of the

Regents' oath. :

But it is not clear in this case, whether not sign-

ing would work any financial hardship on the AS-

UC (whose balance sheet is usually more red than

black). Such questions were not asked. In fact

no questions were asked; least of all whether the

student body desired to sign another loyalty oath.

Inquiry was not even made as to the final date

for processing the oath certificate. As a matter of

fact, the decision was not urgent and could have

awaited the convening of the fall semester, at

which time Executive committee could have made

a decision-quite possibly by referring the issue

to a student referendum.

It appears instead that the ASUC director, an

employe of. the ASUC, preferred `normal' pro-

cedures and signed the oath as an administrative

function, rather than getting involved in the

"more complicated" process of submitting the

issue to student decision.

Such conduct is reprehensible in government

and it is equally so in the management of Univer-

sity affairs.-Phil Macbride.

Roller Rink Pledges End

To Discriminatory Practice

The Philadelphia ACLU's fight to end discrimi-

nation in city roller skating rinks won another

victory recently, when the Crystal Palace Rink

agreed to abolish the "membership card' device

used to exclude Negroes.

The agreement was reached at a formal public

hearing before the city's Commission on Human

Relations, at which Negro skaters; on advice of

ACLU, lodged complaints of bias. Hearings were

postponed until last month to allow the Commis-

sion to observe the rink to see that it abides by

the agreement. Meanwhile, the Concord Roller

Rink, also charged with bias, failed to appear or

produce testimony at a previous public Commis-

sion hearing, and the Commission is considering

evidence to determine if the charges are justified.

U.C. Commitiee On Academic Freedom Will

Make Further Inquiry Into `Contact Man' Issue

The Representative Assembly, Northern Section

of the University of California, on October 5,

unanimously authorized its Committee on Aca-

demic Freedom to continue its investigation of the

"contact man" problem at the University. The

Committee is composed of Emily H. Huntington,

Chairman, Donald Coney, Theodore D. McCown,

Covey T. Oliver and William W. Wurster.

Report Given By Miss Huntington

The action was taken following a report by Miss

Huntington which noted a `variance' between a

report issued by the 1953 Committee on Academic

Freedom and a letter of President Sproul and a

release issued on July 6 and signed by University

administrators and R. E. Combs, counsel for the

Burns Committee. Miss Huntington supplemented

her report with a statement as to the kind of

inquiry that would be made if the Assembly de-

sired. Miss Huntington invited members of the

University Faculty to submit questions to the

Committee which it would attempt to have an-

swered. President Robert Gordon Sproul defended

the administration's handling of the "contact

man" problem,

The Committee's report follows:

Committee's Report

"The Committee on Academic Freedom last re-

ported to the Representative Assembly on May 18,

1954, At that time it dealt with the results of its

ACLU Criticizes Lack of Facts

In Report on Security Risks

. The Civil Service Commission's report last

month on government employees dismissed or re-

signed under the federal security program was

criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union

as containing `"`gaps in fact which afford too much

opportunity for further political charges and

countercharges and the consequent confusion of

a vital question which could and should be treated

with statistical clarity."

In a letter to Philip Young, head of the Com-

mission, the Union endorsed the request of Rep.

Edward H. Rees, head of the House Civil Service

Committee, that the Commission report by cto-

ber 20 specifically what "constitutes subversive

actions," under which employees are discharged.

The Commission's Figures

The Commission's report listed 6,926 employees

as separated from federal service, 2,611 dismissed

and 4,315 resigned. Of the total, 1,743 were re-

ported separated on the basis of file information

showing "subversive" associations or activities.

The Union said that debate on the matter of

security risks in government has revolved mainly

around the need for a clear-cut definition of "sub-

' version" and for exact measurement of whatever

its extent may he. "This is essential in order to

avoid conflict with the civil liberties of free speech

and association, and accurately to assess the ac-

tual risk of subversion. The public needs full in-

formation, to reduce the tension which arises from

conflicting party statements about `subversives

in government' and damages civil liberties.

"For this reason,' the Union continued, "we

wish that the figures of dismissals and of resigna-

tions had each been subdivided into cases involv-

ing `subversion' (established or alleged) and cases

of other sorts. We also wish that the `subversion'

category had been subdivided into dismissals and

resignations, with indication of the extent to which

hearings were held. A hearing is vitally important

because it affords the only reliable test of the

accuracy of a `subversive' charge leveled against:

a government worker."

"Subversion" Undefined

The ACLU letter also called attention to the

lack of a clear definition of ``subversion" in the

report. Such cases, it said, are based on files that

contain derogatory information, "in varying de-

grees," of subversive activities or associations.

"But, it is not clear whether such information is

raw, unevaluated data, possibly based on gossip

or malicious tale-bearing, which the employee has

not had a chance to refute at a hearing; or wheth-

er it represents considered judgment on reasoned

findings. The purpose of a hearing under the se-

curity program is to evaluate and judge file in- .

formation, and the failure to make explicit that

derogatory file information does not automatically

lead to dismissal or resignation harms civil liber-

ties by leading the public to believe that there are

more established `subversive' security risks than

there actually are, and thus creating an atmos-

phere in which more and more curbs on free speech

_and association will be accepted."

investigation of the duties and functions of the

University Security Officer, particularly with

respect to his functions as a liaison officer between (c)

the University and the Burns Committee. This

report said in part: :

`... The Committee on Academic Freedom

has attempted to establish the facts in this

situation. We have had the frank and unre-

served cooperation of the President and the

Chancellor of the Berkeley campus in our

inquiry and in our request for details of the

University's operations in this field. .. .

Security Officer

`The University has a few classified proj-

ects ... which must comply with Federal se-

curity regulations. Mr. W. W. Wadman is

currently assigned as a state-wide security

officer for these classified projects. This em-

ployee is not assigned to any checking or in-

formation-gathering duties for the Adminis-

tration, except in cases involving classified

research projects.'

"During June and July, 1954, public statements

continued to be made that the University Security

Officer was actually the contact man with the ~

Burns Committee. These statements, were made |

although the report of the Committee on Academic

Freedom on May 18, 1954, and a letter of April 5,

1954 from President Sproul to the Civil Liberties

Union had stated that the University's Security

Officer's duties were limited to classified govern-

mental research,

Variance Noted

"On July 6, 1954, a release was issued by the

University Office of Public Information which was

at variance with the 1953 Committee's report and

the President's letter. This release was signed by

R. E, Combs, Counsel, State Senate Un-American -

Activities Committee; J. H. Corley, Vice-President

-Business Affairs, University of California;

Clark Kerr, Chancellor of Berkeley Campus, Uni-

versity of California; Robert G. Sproul, President

of University of California; and William Wadman, -

Security Officer, University of California, It states

in part that: . =

"In the beginnings of the `contact man' ar-

rangement there were misunderstandings about

the respective relationships of statewide and local

officers of the University with the State Senate

Committee on Un-American Activities. (Burns

Committee These misunderstandings arose be-

cause Mr. Wadman, a statewide officer, properly

has relations with the Committee in his capacity

as University Security Officer, in connection with

many federal defense contracts involving Univer-

sity personnel. These relations have been clarified

and his relationships are now confined to matters

affecting defense contracts.'

' Committee Seeks Guidance

"The Committee is mindful of its responsibility

to look into general matters involving academic

freedom about which the Senate membership may

be concerned, Hence the present Committee on

Academic Freedom wishes to know whether the

release of July 6, has removed uncertainties and

fears resulting from the events of the summer

which preceded the release.

"The Committee, therefore, by this report calls

the events of the summer bearing upon the `con-

tact man' situation to the attention of the Repre-

sentative Assembly, in order that the Committee

may know what further action, if any, it is desired

should be taken by it." :

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

American Civil Liberties Union of No. Calif.,

503 Market St.

San Francisco 5, Calif.

|1. Please enroll me as a member at dues of

See 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 $1.50 a year.)

2.. I pledge $............ per month or 9. per yr.

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

per year)

Enclosed please find $.. 2, Please bill

Mee

Name

Street

City and Zone .....

Occupation =.