vol. 24, no. 3

_American

G ivil Liberties

Union

Volume XXIV

San Francisco, California, March, 1959

Number 3

California Legislature

Su rvey

Civil liberties are on the offensive at the 1959 session of

the California Legislature. Many bills have been introduced

that are in aid of civil liberties. Several would repeal loyalty

oath laws, others would eliminate racial discrimination in one

way or another and still others are aimed at bad police prac-

tices. Then there is a miscella-

neous group of civil liberties

measures.

This is not the way things used

to be in the California Legisla-

ture. For the past twenty-five

years, witch-hunting has been a

popular sport in that august

body, but, at this moment, not

one red-hunting bill can be

found.among the nineteen hun-

dred measures that have been

introduced atthe 1959 session.

There is still time, of course, but

it is remarkable that anti-civil

liberties bills thus far introduced

are all restricted to the law en-

forcement field.

Levering Act Repeal

In the loyalty oath field, ten

assemblymen, led by John

O'Connell of San Francisco, have

introduced A.C.A. No. 8, which

seeks to repeal the Levering Act

oath for public employees. Be-

sides O'Connell, the other as-

semblymen are Burton, Elliott,

George E. Brown,' Crown, Haw-

kins, McMillan, Petris, Rees and

Waldie The bill has been re-

ferred to the Assembly Constitu-

tional Amendments Committee

of which John A. Busterud of

San Francisco is chairman.

Another oath repeal measure,

A.B. 214, is aimed at eliminating

the oath required by persons and

groups applying for use of school

houses as meeting places under

the Civic Center Act. Nine assem-

blymen, led by John O'Connell,

are co-authors of the measure.

The third oath repeal bill un-

dertakes to repeal the tax exemp-

tion loyalty oath declared uncon-

stitutional by the U. S. Supreme

Court in the Speiser and Prince

cases. Thirteen assemblymen,

led by O'Connell, are co-authors

of the repeal measure.

Two FEP Bills

Two FEP bills head the list of

proposals aimed at eliminating

racial and religious discrimina-

tion. A.B. 91, bearing the names

of 54 assemblymen, was passed

by the Assembly on February 19

by a 65 to 14 vote. The com-

panion measure, S.B. 477, carries

the names of 26 of the 40 State

senators. Sen. McAteer of San

Francisco is conspicuously ab-

sent among the list of co-authors.

In the meantime, San Mateo

joined San Francisco and Ba-

kersfield as California communi-

ties with FEP laws. The San Ma-

teo City Council adopted the San

Francisco FEP law by a 3 to 2

vote amid threats of a referen-

dum. The ordinance would be ef-

fective on March 18 unless the

referendum petition is qualified

in time for the issue to be placed

on the city election ballot of Ap-

Til 7.

Weak Plan

Present State FEP proposals

are much stronger than the local

laws. In fact, the principal fight

in the Legislature will apparent-

ly be over an attempt to substi-

tute the weak San Francisco

plan. Proponents of the latter

plan are also threatening a State

referendum unless their wishes

are followed.

Legislation to end racial dis-

crimination in Government built

or assisted housing has also been

introduced (A.B. 890). And,

A.B. 113 declares it is the policy

of the State that there be no re-

strictions on the basis of race,

color, religion or national origin

`in the-rental of real property de-

veloped under the Community

-Continued on Page 3

| Conference

[in Marin |

| Open to All

March 6 and 7 are dates of

the Marin Chapter's first civil

liberties, conference, Milen

Dempster reminds the mem-

bership. Featuring lectures,

workshops and round-table dis-

f cussions, the sessions will be

held at the Marin Country Day

f School on Paradise Drive in

Corte Madera, with all ACLU

members and friends invited.

; The Rev. Harry Schoiefield,

minister of the First Unitarian

Church of San Francisco, will

7 open the conference Friday

8 night (March 6) with an ad-

dress on "The Kind of Heretics

1 We Need."

Dr. Alfred Azevedo, a well-

7 will open the Saturday meet-

# ings promptly at 9:30 A.M. with

# an orientation period for con-

f ference participants. (Registra-

@ tion for the workshops is at 9

; A.M.) Moderators of the var-

ious fields, also will speak.

j Interested persons may reg-

7 ister for the entire program,

' which will end at 6 P.M. Satur-

7 their choice. Additional infor-

f mation may be obtained from

| Gabriel Lehrer, 150 Manor

# Drive, Mill Valley, DUnlap 8-

i 4866.

Nee 8,

f known San Francisco educator,

ious workshops, experts in var- .

0x00A7 day, or may attend sessions of -

`Weekly People'

Racks Banned

In Sacramento

On January 29, the City Coun-

cil of Sacramento adopted the

recommendation of its City At-

torney, Everett M. Glenn, and

barred the six self-service news-

stands of the "Weekly People",

published by the Socialist Labor

Party of America, from the

streets of downtown Sacramento.

The Grounds

Mr. Glenn ruled against

"Weekly People" because, said

he, "... its primary purpose is

to foster certain political and

economic views. It is not a news-

paper that is generally sold on

streets and delivered by carrier

throughout the community."

Under the first test, the ques-

tion would seem to be as to the

`kind and extent of the opinions.

that are published. Apparently,

`Mr. Glenn would ban the racks

of any newspaper that does not

restrict the expression of opin-

ions to its editorial columns: Cer-

tainly, such a test violates free-

dom of expression. :

Playing Favorites

His second test discriminates

against a small newspaper, one

with limited resources and cir-

culation. Unless a newspaper is

big enough to have newsboys who

peddle it on the streets and del-

iver it to homes, it may not enjoy

the privilege of self-service news-

stands. In other words, favoritism

- is shown to the big and power-

ful newspapers. Certainly, this is .

an improper discrimination.

Mr. Glenn's opinion points out

that "No political party now

maintains any self-service news-

stands `on the sidewalks. No re-

ligious sect or other group main-

tains such stands." That may be

true as far as political parties

is concerned, but Mr. Glenn has

overlooked the fact that the

"Christian Science Monitor" has

self-service stands in Sacramen-

to.

Practice in Other Cities

`In San Francisco, not only the

daily newspapers but the "Wall

Street Journal', "The Industrial

Worker" (I1.W.W. weekly), the

"Christian Science Monitor," and

the "Weekly People" have self-

service newstands. The latter

maintains 35 racks in San Fran-

cisco, 20 in Oakland, 5 in San

-Continued on Page 4

Leaders Launch

25th Anniversary Drive

Meeting for luncheon at the San Francisco Press and

Union League Club on February 27, community leaders made

final plans for ACLU's 25th anniversary membership drive.

By late February, Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross, campaign

chairman, had enlisted nearly 30 area leaders - from Butte

County south to Watsonville.

Some of them, including Sonoma

County, San Francisco and Davis

chairmen, already have sched-

uled meetings and other events.

Director Ernest Besig helped

welcome the luncheon gathering

and spoke briefly on the im-

portance of the drive, an all-out

effort to raise branch member-

ship to 5,000 by 1960. (Present

membership is about 4,000.)

~ Theodore F. Baer, of Los Altos,

a member of the ACLU board

and Press Club, was in charge of

luncheon arrangements.

By NEWS deadline time, the

incomplete roster of campaign

leaders included:

`Paul H. Finch, Butte County;

Lee H. Watkins, Leonard Ho-

mann and Dr. H. A. Arnold,

Davis; Dr. David G. Edwards,

Concord and Eastern Contra Cos-

ta County; Mrs. Roy Potter, Fre-

mont (Alameda County); Mrs.

Paul Couture, Fresno-Modesto-

Stockton; Theodore F. Baer, Los

Altos-Mountain View-Sunnyvale;

Mrs. J. H. Merryman, Menlo

Park-Atherton-Stanford; Miss An-

nie Clo Watson, dormant cam-

paign for Oakland; Mrs. David T.

Thatcher, Placerville;

Mrs. Harry J. Lewenstein, Red-

wood City-San Carlos-Woodside;

Mrs. Edward McHugh, Rich-

mond-El Cerrito; Jay M. Hutch-

inson, Sacramento dormant cam-

paign; Mrs. Arthur Bierman and

Shelby Cooper, San Francisco;

Mrs. Robert A. Hall, San Jose

area; :

Mrs. Alec Skolnick, San Ma-

tea- Burlingame- Hillsborough;

Dr. Marvin Naaman, Santa Cruz;

H. Gordon Tappan,

County; John Dunlap, St. Helena-

Napa; Mrs.

Mrs. R. L. Betzenderfer, Walnut

Creek; Harry F. Brauer, Watson-

ville.

As Marin Chapter chairman,

Milen Dempster temporarily

heads his county drive.

National Education Act

Sonoma'

Charles Chase and

Protests

Against Student

Disclaimer

Nation-wide protests have been growing against a dis-

claimer oath required by the National Education Act of 1958

which went into effect last February 1. The act provides for |

loans to undergraduate students at 3 per cent interest rates,

fellowships for graduate students and funds for expansion of

certain university programs. But

"No ...funds... shall be used

to make payments or loans to any

individual unless such individual

(1) has executed and filed with

the Commissioner [of Education }

an affidavit that he does not be-

lieve in, and is not a member of

and does not support any or-

ganization that believes in or

teaches the overthrow of the

United States Government by

force or violence or by any il-

legal or unconstitutional meth-

ods. ... and (2) has taken and

subscribed to fan affirmative

loyalty oath }."

Colleges Protest

In the East, five institutions-

Antioch, Bryn Mawr, Haverford,

Princeton and Swarthmore-have

declined to accept funds under

the Act, while on the Pacific

"Coast, Reed College and Mills

College have thus far refused to

participate in the program be-

cause of the oath requirements.

Also, Presidents of Bates, Bow-

doin, Colby, Emory and the Uni-

versity of Wisconsin have spoken

out against the act, as has Arthur

S. Flemming, Secretary of Health,

Education and Welfare.

Local chapters of the American

Association of University Pro-

fessors at the University of Cali-

fornia in Berkeley, San Jose

State, Mills College, and at Stan-

ford have expressed opposition to

the oath. (See the excellent reso-

lution adopted by the Berkeley

chapter of the AAUP which ap-

pears elsewhere on this page.) ,

A Price for Political Freedom

At Foothill (Junior) College,

Mountain View, however, Presi-

dent Calvin Flint declared that

the oath requirement presents no

problem. Mrs. Mary Levine, a

member of the school's Board of

Trustees, questioned the prin-

ciple involved in signing the test

oath. "Sure, there's a principle

involved,' answered Dr. Flint,

"but I can't see turning down the

money. These youngsters don't

mind signing the oath. ... There's

nothing to object to. I enjoy

signing a loyalty oath."

Commenting editorially on Dr.

S.F. Leaders

Plan Fliome

Coffee Hour

Mrs. Arthur (Sue) Bierman

and Shelby Cooper, campaign co-

chairmen for San Francisco, are

opening their drive with a home

coffee hour March 4. The event

is planned primarily to reinterest

lapsed members, but all present

and prospective members will be

welcome.

Ernest Besig, branch director,

will give an informal account of

current ACLU cases at the 8

p. m. social, to be held. in the

home of Mrs. Zora Cheever

Gross, campaign chairman, 3737

Jackson Street, Pacific Heights.

A committee of about 15 tele-

phoners is assisting Mrs. Bier-

man and Cooper. Among them

are members of the Fellowship

for Social Justice of the First

Unitarian Church of San Fran-

cisco, which also will help with

the April drive.

Miss' Annie Clo Watson of

Berkeley is directing a telephone

campaign of dormant members

in Oakland, and Jay M. Hutchin-

son, a former Marin board mem-

ber living in Fair Oaks, is doing

the same for Sacramento. Area

chairmen will be conducting

similiar drives in other commu-

nities this month.

Flint's statement, the Palo Alto

Times declared, in part, `Most,

we suspect, feel that the demand

{for a disclaimer oath] is useless

-since it would not possibly

deter a real subversive-but see

no point in making a fuss about

it if it gives anyone a greater

sense of security to have us do

so."

Assumption of Guilt

Taking issue with Dr. Flint,

the ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia, in a letter to the Board of

Trustees of Foothill College, in-

sisted there is "an important

issue of principle at stake in

signing a disclaimer oath in order

to secure a Federal education

loan-that of freedom of speech."

It pointed out that under the

decision in the Speiser case the

U.S. Supreme Court had outlaw-

ed a tax exemption loyalty oath

because it placed the burden of

proof upon the taxpayer. It sug-

gested that under the Education

Act a student must likewise be

assumed to be innocent and not

guilty of expressing prohibited

political ideas. In any case, "The

burden of proof should be upon

the Federal Government," the

ACLU declared.

Unjust Discrimination:

"Instead of affirming loyalty,

as has been suggested," the

ACLU `went on to say; "such dis-

claimer oaths merely curtail free-

dom of speech and require con-

formity. Moreover, in this case,

the oath unjustly discriminates

against a particular group in so-

ciety-students. There is no sub-

stantial reason to place them in a

suspect class. Under similar cir-

cumstances, the California Su-

preme Court knocked out a

special University of California

loyalty oath because it was dis-

criminatory. In any case, experi-

ence has shown that such dis-

claimer oaths do not. catch

Communists, but merely persons

of principle."

`No Loyalty Oath for Farmers

The San Franciseo Chronicle

in arguing the discriminatory na-

ture of the oath quotes President

Gould of Carleton College as say-

ing, " `We give $6 billion to the

farmers but don't gue any

loyalty oath.'

. this special, non-Commu-

nist requirement is offensive and

mischievous," the Chronicle con-

tinued. "The UC administration

should join the academic revolt

against it, and throw its weight

into the swelling pressure for its

early repeal."

In voicing its opposition to the

oath, the Stanford Daily declared,

"Feeling that loyalty oaths tend

to alienate the good will of the

loyal citizen without gaining a

corresponding advantage in pro-

tecting the public against the

actions or. intentions of the dis-

loyal, we wish the opponents

every success."

Repeal Legislation Introduced

Senators Kennedy of Massa-

chusetts and Clark of Pennsyl-

vania co-sponsored a repeal bill

-Continued on Page 3

In This Issue...

ACLU Argues Passport Ban

in Court of Appeals ..... p3

AEC Grudgingly Allows

Counsel at "Interviews". .p. 4

Letters to the Editor ...... p.2

No Grounds to Revoke

Bar License ...... oes p. 2

Roosevelt Scores Record

of HUAG =. p.3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California-

Second Class mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, Calif.

ERNEST BESIG.. . Editor

-503 Market Street, San Francisco 5, California, EXbrook 2-4692

Subscription Rates-Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per Copy ~

Philip Adams

Theodore Baer

Prof. James R. Caldwell

William K. Coblentz

Richard De Lancie

@ JohnM. Fowle

Howard Friedman

Julian R. Friedman

Rev. Oscar F. Green

Zora Cheever Gross

Alice G. Heyneman

Mrs. Paul Holmer

J. Richard Johnston

Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Prof. Theodore J. Kreps

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. John Henry Merryman

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn, Helen Salz

SECRETARY-TREASURER: William M. Roth

HONORARY TREASURER: Joseph M. Thompson

HONORARY MEMBER: Sara Bard Field

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig -

Rev. F. Danford Lion

Seaton W. Manning

Rey. Robert W. Moon

. Lloyd L. Morain

Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons

Clarence E. Rust

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Fred H. Smith, IV

Theodosia B. Stewart

Stephen Thiermann

Franklin H. Williams

GENERAL COUNSEL

Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL

Albert M. Bendich

Homosexual Hangout

No

3 rou rh ` S

To Revoke

Bar License

The District Court of Appeal in San Francisco recently

decided that the license of a bar "may not be suspended or

revoked simply because homosexuals or sexual perverts pat-

ronize the bar in question. Before such deprivation can occur

there must be improper, illegal, disgusting or immoral acts

of conduct committed on the

premises to the knowledge of the

licensee."

"First and Last Chance"

The decision was handed down

in the case of Albert L. Vallerga

and Mary Azar, owners of the

"First and Last Chance" tavern

in Oakland. A petition for a re-

hearing was scheduled to be ruled

upon on February 26. If the re-

hearing is denied, it is expected

that the State Supreme Court will

`be asked to hear the case.

In seeking to revoke the tav-

ern's license, the Department of

Alcoholic Beverage Control al-

leged that "From on or about

September 7, 1955, until the date

hereof (June 1, 1956), the por-

tions of the premises of the li-

censees, where the activities per-

mitted by the license are conduct-

ed, have been and still are a re-

sort for sexual perverts, to wit:

Homo-sexuals."

Hangout for Homosexuals

At a hearing the charge was

found to be true. In fact, one of

the licensees admitted at the

hearing that the premises "were

established as a resort for lesbi-

ans and homosexuals, and that he

was aware that said premises

were a hangout for homosexuals."

The license was, therefore, re-

voked. There had been no prior

formal accusations against the

licensees. Following are portions

of the court's opinion.

"During the nine-month period

involved in the charge, the li-

censed premises were. subjected

to frequent intensive surveillance

by the city and military police.

Admittedly, not once during this

period did the police call the at-

tention of the licensees or their

employees to any improper acts

on the part of patrons that they

had observed, nor was any person

arrested for improper acts on the

premises. ...

Females in Mannish Attire

"All of the police officials laid

great emphasis upon the fact that

the majority of female customers

were dressed in mannish attire,

and that the patrons of the bar

usually paired off men with men,

and women with women. These

facts, if entitled to any legal sig-

`nificance, merely emphasized the

ACLU NEWS

March, 1959

Page 2

fact that the patrons were homo-

sexuals or lesbians. Of them-

selves, these acts did not amount

to immoral, indecent, disgusting

or improper acts. They merely

tended to prove that the patrons

were homosexuals, a fact the li-

censee admitted....

"During the nine-month period

of intensive surveillance the po-

lice officers did testify that they

did observe a few isolated acts

which are relied upon to support.

the revocation order. Several of

the police officers testified that,

on occasion, women were ob-

served dancing with; and kissing,

other women. This is not neces-

sarily offensive, illegal or im-

proper conduct that would justi-

fy the revocation of the license.

"Cute Little Butch"

"The most damaging testimony

was given by a policewoman who

went to the bar as an undercover

agent. She testified that she sat

at a table and that a patron

dressed in mannish costume sat

down and stated to her, `You're

a cute little butch.' Later in the

evening this patron kissed the

witness. A waitress of the estab-

lishment, Buddy by name, came

by and warned the participants

that if they wanted to continue

such activity they should go into

the rest room, Other than through

this waitress, there was no evi-

dence the licensees knew of this

_ activity or that they had been

told of it. The officer did not

complain to anyone about this

conduct.

Display of Affection

"Another police officer (who

had been in the bar 10 times) on

one occasion observed a display

of affection between two men.

He observed these two embrace

and whisper to each other with

their foreheads touching. He

heard one of the men state to the

bartender `Arley and I are going

steady.' There was no evidence

that the acts of affection between

these two men were or should

have been observed by the li-

censees or their employees.

"This is a fair summary of the

alleged misconduct that was ob--

served during the nine-month pe-

riod.... At most, the conduct ob-

served indicated that the patrons

were homosexuals. But that fact

es will not support the revoca-

ion."

Education Loyalty Oath

Editor: A disease which is

prevalent at all levels of our soci-

ety was reflected in a statement

attributed to Dr. Calvin Flint,

president of Foothills Junior Col-

lege.

Dr. Flint is reported in the

Feb. 3, 1959, edition of the Palo

Alto Times as saying, "Sure,

there's a principle involved, but

I can't see turning down the

money." ;

This philosophy of "anything

for the almighty dollar" is not

far removed from the tenet that

"the end justifies the means."

This *is the same philosophy

which is associated with unprin-

cipled industrialists, labor racke-

teers, unscruplous politicians and

eertain highly placed govern-

ment officials. However, it is

rarely stated so bluntly by such

a distinguished member of the

community.

It is even more shameful that

the principle Dr. Flint was re-

ferring to involved signing loy-

alty oaths so that students could

qualify for loans. A signature

purchased for a price is certainly

no true affirmation of loyalty.

_ Justice Hugo Black of the

U. S. Supreme Court stated in

an opinion nullifying the loyalty

oath requirement to qualify for

the California Real Estate Tax

exemption, "I am certain that

loyalty to the United States can -

never be secured by the endless.

proliferation of `loyalty oaths';

loyalty must arise spontaneously

from the hearts of people who

love their country and respect

their government."

The reaction of the Palo Alto

Times was most disappointing.

Although implying that the loy-

alty oaths are useless, editorially

it cautions against making a

"fuss!" Would this be the reac-

tion of the editor if he had. to

- bow to a similar rule to qualify

for news releases concerning fed-

eral affairs?

In other words, when does one

make a fuss?" The answer in a

free society should be, make a

fuss each and every time that

we feel a principle of freedom

is involved-or else we shall not

be free for long-Arthur Smith,

Palo Alto.

2

Crime and the Victim

Editor: Referring to Lewis W.

Jones's letter in the February is-

sue of The News, he and your

readers may be interested in The

Criminal and His Victim, by

Hans von Hentig, Yale Univer-

sity Press, 1948, especially Part

IV entitled The Contribution of

the Victim to the Genesis of

Crime. It is here shown that the

victim often contributes much

more than is generally supposed.

Criminal lawyers know that in

murder cases every jury tries

the victim as well as the ac

cused, and the fact that the vic-

tim in rape cases very often con-

tributes to the crime is so nor-

torious that, as one criminologist

puts it, even policemen have

found it out, and the more in-

telligent ones are loath to make

an arrest on the unsupported

complaint of the woman.-E. W.

Leary.

Jones Letter Dissected

Editor: The letter of Mr. Lou-

is W. Jones in the February is-

sue of the ACLU "News" is dis-

turbing. :

{

Let me discuss Mr. Jones' last

two points first since they show

most convincingly how his con-

cern is misdirected: He claims

that no "mere" merchant should

be vested with the power of

clemency. Well, every person

who has been wronged by an-

other has the right to press or

not to press charges against the

wrong doer. In cases where it is

not a policeman who has wit-

nessed an alleged crime, the vic-

tim is the one who must sign a

complaint. Without that com-

plaint, the police cannot act. I

would wager that there are more

cases of embezzlement and fraud

that are not pressed in the crim-

inal courts than are brought to

the attention of the police -

through the knowledge that the

victim has a better chance of re-

covery by not pressing charges

and affecting an agreement for -

restitution with the criminal.

Sights Not High Enough

Concerning Mr. Jones' point

about "indebtedness to an in-

dividual" as opposed to "offenses

against society at large;" an ap-

preciable portion of all offenses

are offenses against individuals

rather than against society at

large. One steals from an individ-

ual, one assaults an individual;

one defrauds an . individual.

Would Mr. Jones exempt these

offenses because the criminal did

not set his sights high enough

and take on all of society simul-

taneously?

The "merchant's notion of de-

portment" to which Mr. Jones

refers, is nothing more than so-

ciety's notion of "deportment.".

Namely, one does not take some-

thing that does not belong to

him, secrete it on his person, and

then attempt to carry it away

without paying for it. In other

words, he does not attempt to

steal. The fact that this person

may be "young and untutored,

weak willed, mentally ill or ab-

sent minded," will be important

in mitigating the punishment or

determining rehabilitation meas-

ures, and certainly in pointing

the way for education and treat-

ment of those in a similar condi-

tion, but it does not change the

fact that the person did attempt

to steal. Our concern for civil

liberties should not be used as

a cloak to enable truly guilty

persons to evade justice, nor

should it be used to accomplish

such worthy goals as the im-

provement of the treatment and

rehabilitation of the mentally ill,

etc., etc.

No Law

But these last points of Mr.

Jones are only peripheral. His

main point still stands: He claims

that there is no law that makes

shop lifting a crime. Well, that

is truly a significant omission, if

true, and one that must be con-

sidered by those concerned with

civil liberties. Our position is

that justice must be administered

according to law: laws that ac-

curately describe acts worthy of

being proscribed; laws that spe-

cify penalties; and laws that are

administered with procedural

safeguards. But defer that ques-

tion for a moment.

Assuming for the nonce that

the situation regarding the shop

lifting law is as Mr. Jones says,

what would he have the shop-

keeper do? Must the merchant

having observed a "customer"

place an item (of.any value what-

soever) in his left pants pocket,

ask the person at the check stand

to produce it, and only it, for in-

clusion in the customer's pile of

visible purchases? What if the

person has another item in his

right pants pocket that the store-

keeper knows nothing of? Would

Mr. Jones allow the merchant to

inquire, "Have you anything else

to declare?" Or would that be an

infringement of the person's

civil liberties, according to Mr.

Jones? What sort of game would

this thing degenerate into if a

shoplifter could stuff each pocket

with a different item, knowing

that the chances of the shopkeep-

er asking about each of them

would be small, and that there

would be no penalty for any of

those that he did guess correctly? .

A shoplifter with a .333 average

could reduce his grocery bill con-

siderably with only a little cha-

grin to show for each shopping

expedition!

Super-Markets Not Grab Bags

If Mr. Jones does interpret the

present law this way, he is duty

bound, `as a person interested in

upholding law and order, to write

to his representatives urging that

suitable laws be enacted to make

certain that thefts are punished

if merchants are to be prevented

from continuing their present

course of action. I am certain

that he must agree that willfully

taking an item with the inten-

tion of not paying for it is a rep-

rehensible and punishable act.

The fact that it is easier to steal

from a super-market than from

the neighborhood grocery does

not make the theft any the less

real. Super-markets and moral

codes have been around long

enough now for people to con-

nect the two. Most people will

correctly identify a super-market

as being a variation of a grocery

store and not a grab bag....

No `Engineering'

One thing I do know: while en-

trapment, which Mr. Jones refers

to as "engineering" (I am an en-

gineer, and that use of the term

does bother me) is sufficient to

impair the prosecution of a crim-

inal action, the term does not

apply here since the shopkeeper

has done nothing, except display

his wares "temptingly" to ini-

tiate ithe theft. If he were to sidle

up in mufti to potential "shop-

lifters and whisper in their ears,

"Just slip that can of taste-tan-

talizing tuna fish in your poc-

ket," then he would be "engineer-

ing" a crime, but no such overt

action takes place. Mr. Shop-

keeper is obliged to refrain from

entrapping-if he wants to ob-

tain a conviction-but he is not

compelled to challenge the thief

to prevent the completion of a

crime, the inception. of which he

has witnessed, nor will it make

the crime any less real after it is

completed. ... Richard R. Gould.

Startled and Confused

' Editor: Being a new member,

I am both startled and confused

by your publication in your Feb-

ruary issue of Mr. Jones's letter

about shoplifters. Do you print

all letters containing the words

"civil liberties," or was there a

lack of good arguments during

the holidays? Perhaps Mr.

Jones's message just did not get

through to me - he does not

really say what he wants ito hap-

pen - but I can see relatively

little connection to civil liberties.

On the one hand, he seems

annoyed that shoplifters get ar-

rested instead of being allowed

to pay for what they tried to

steal. (Perhaps he would like a

softer word than "steal"?) Fol-

lowing this logic, I suppose

captured bank robbers would be

forced to pay interest for the

time that they had the money.

On the other hand, he seems an-

noyed that shoplifters are not

always arrested. Perhaps I could

share this annoyance, because I

have read articles by life-term

convicts who wished some one

had cracked down on them when

they stole their first bicycle. Un-

fortunately, crime does pay many

people well for many years. How-

ever, I think that the Union and

I would oppose making it a crime

to refrain from prosecution

when, in the individual's opinion,

it is not appropriate. I have the

right to refrain from prosecution

as well as Mr. Jones's "mere

merchant."

Mr. Jones gets all involved in

the "injustice" of allowing the

shoplifter to go outside the store

before being arrested. Perhaps,

not being a "mere merchant,"

Mr. Jones thinks that someone

ean be convicted of shoplifting

before he has left the store with

the goods. Is there a law that I

have to use the shopping cart

when I already have pockets

handy? You surely knew better,

so why did you print his letter?

If it was to stir up some letters,

here is mine; but let's get a

worthwhile issue, shall we? -

Lee E. Davis. c

EDITOR'S NOTE: While there

is no specific California statute

penalizing stealing from a serve-

yourself market, it would appear

that the laws against petty theft

apply. We are unable to find a

civil liberties issue in the matter.

Decline Of ACLU

Editor: ... The recent suit by

the Los Angeles Branch against (c)

the Police Chief there and on

behalf of the so-called Hungar-

ian Freedom Fighters nauseates

me beyond the point of my en-

durance...

These Hungarians, whose sta-

tus is that of `""Parolee Aliens'-

for all practical purposes the

same as "Prisoners"-under the

~ -Continued on Page 4

Roosevelt Scores

Record of

For the first time in many years the House of Repre-

sentatives has heard vigorous debate on the constitutionality

and effectiveness of the House Un-American Activities

Committee.

Leading the drive against the HUAC is Representative

James Roosevelt (D., Calif.), who

has introduced a resolution to

abolish the Committee and trans-

fer its jurisdiction to the House

Judiciary Committee. The Amer-

ican Civil Liberties Union is

actively supporting the Roose-

velt effort.

Mandate Attacked

Taking his cue from the U. S.

Supreme Court's 1957 Watkins

decision which upset a contempt

of Congress conviction on the

ground that the Committee's

questions concerning Commu-

nist associations were not shown

to be pertinent to the investiga-

tion's subject, Rep. Roosevelt is

urging the House to "do some-

thing constructive" about the

HUAC. He is emphasizing that

the Supreme Court's emphasis on

pertinency makes necessary an

evaluation of the Committee's

mandate, which authorizes the

HUAC to "investigate un-Amer-

ican propaganda activities." The

ACLU has long opposed the man-

date on the ground that it in-

fringes on freedom of speech and

`association.

The Supreme Court's consid-

eration of the Barenblatt case,

now before it, also raises the is-

sue of the HUAC's constitution-

ality, and Rep. Roosevelt in-

formed the House in a speech on

January 27 that action on his

proposal could await the high

~eourt's decision. However, he

stressed that "an evaluation has

become a constitutional responsi-

bility of the House." Recogniz-

ing that the Democratic leader-

ship and the Republican caucus

in the House have both an-

nounced opposition to his sugges-

tion, Rep. Roosevelt declared

"this does not excuse them or

any one of us from facing the

seriousness of our duty."

Committee Ineffective -

In his January 27 speech, Rep.

Roosevelt dwelt on the HUAC's

ineffectiveness in coping with

the problem of Communist sub-

version. This was an answer to

the HUAC's defenders, who,' in

the previous week's debate, said

that the Committee was a bul-

wark in defending the nation

against the threat of Commu-

nism. In reminding the HUAC

that "rigidity in . . . the investi-

gation of Communism could even

play into the hands of the Com-

munists," Rep. Roosevelt cited:

1. A 1957 HUAC report based

on a staff consultation with Gen-

eral Charles A. Willoughby, for-

mer intelligence chief of General

MacArthur, which featured Gen.

Willoughby's equation of Com-

munist expansion in the Far East

with the natural hope for inde-

pendence on the part of native

Indonesians. Rep. Roosevelt

' noted that Frank Waldrop, editor

of the now-defunct Washington

Times-Herald, published by the

late Col. McCormick of Chicago,

had assailed the Willoughby re-

port. "What excuse in God's

name has any Committee of Con-

gress for spending the taxpay-

er's money on such indefensible

drivel as this compound of Wil-

loughby's? By what test can the

committee justify issuing this

staff consultation as it were a

thing of value and discovery,"

Waldrop wrote.

Reckless Subpoenaing

2. The reckless subpoenaing,

with attending publicity, of per-

sons who had brief and former

Communist associations. `Does

this activity really help in the

fight against Communism," Rep.

Roosevelt declared. "Does sub-

jecting persons to intense pub-

licity alone help us understand

the machinations of the Krem-

lin? By conducting this ceremony

through the breadth and width

of this land, we have achieved

~ Rep. Roosevelt said ".

one unfortunate result. Former

Communists and true repentants

do not feel that there is a place

for them in a free society, unless

they are willing to name pub-

licly those who were former as-

sociates - a desperate decision

for any man to make. They have

been subjected to loss of their

jobs, their status in the commu-

nity, and eventually their hap-

piness."

Examples of Pillory

As examples of such pillory,

Rep. Roosevelt pointed to the

questioning of playwright Arthur

Miller and the public release of

executive session testimony of a

witness charging Rabbis Judah

Magnes and Stephen S. Wise and

Rev. John Haynes Holmes as fol-

lowing Communist Party: instruc-

tions 30 years before the testi-

mony was given. Both Rabbis

Magnes and Wise were dead at

the time of the testimony. Com-

menting on the Miller hearing,

. what

good did it do to the Free World

to subject this talented man, re-

gardless of his past political at-

titudes, to a criminal prosecu-

tion because he refused to name

those in the Communist Party

with whom he had been asso-

ciated 10 years ago.,There is no

question of the harm that it did

to our status as a leader of the

Free World." The testimony

against the religious leaders, .

given by Ben Gitlow, chief of the

American Communist Party from

1919 to 1929, was criticized for

failing to require substantiation

of the charges. "Had the Com-

mittee shown the slightest re-

sponsibility of fair play, it would

have refused to countenance this

denunciation, on the unsupport-

ed assertion of one witness, based -

on nebulous charges thirty years

old. Instead, heedless of the in-

quiry it might do to the reputa-

tion of two dead Rabbis, and a

living and respected leader of

the Christian Church, it made

Gitlow's testimony public," Rep.

Roosevelt charged.

Hit and Run Action

3. The harsh treatment accord-

ed the Fund for the Republic in

refusing to give its spokesmen

the right to be heard or cross'

examine hostile witnesses called

to testify against the Fund. Rep.

Roosevelt noted that the Fund

had. been attacked despite the

fact that a good deal of its activ-

ity was aimed at educating the

public about Communism, espe-

cially its distribution of a De-

fense Department pamphlet

`Know Your Communist Enemy,'

and. its $250,000 study on the in-

fluences of Communism in Amer-

ican life. "Is this hit and run

action . . . against the Fund the

kind of anti-Communist activity

for which the taxpayers are pay-

ing millions of dollars, in the

hope that it is doing the work of

Free Men," Rep. Roosevelt asked.

Legislative Record

4. The Committee's failure to

have many of its recommenda-

despite "rather sweeping claims

of legislative accomplishment."

Presenting an analysis of the

HUAC's 1958 report on legisla-

tive progress, Rep. Roosevelt

noted that of the 79 recommen-

dations Congress had acted on

35, but of this number 30 were

included in six statutes. Of these

six acts, he continued, only two,

the 1950 Internal Security Act

and the 1954 Communist Control

Act, were referred to the HUAC,

four other laws being dealt with

by the House Judiciary Commit-

tee.

Survey of

Civil Liberties

Measures

Continued from Page 1-

Redevelopment Law. Racial dis-

crimination by real estate agents

would be grounds for revocation

of their licenses under another

proposal, A.B. 444.

California's 70- -year-old statute

forbidding inter-racial marriages,

which was declared unconstitu-

tional a number of years ago,

would be repealed by A.B. 7. The

bill was adopted in the Assembly

on February 17 by a 50 to 8 vote

with many abstentions.

The ban against discrimination

in places of public accommoda-

tion or amusement, provided by

California's so-called Civil Rights

Act, would be extended to all

kinds of accommodations by A.B.

155. Three other bills have also

been introduced on the latter

subject. A. B. 204 would extend

the protections of the Civil

Rights Act, so-called, to religious

discrimination. One measure by

Unruh, A. B. 346, would extend

the Civil Rights Act to cover re-

ligion, ancestry or national ori-

gin as well as race or color, and

would cover all accommodations.

It would. also increase possible

damages from $100 to $1000. A

second bill by Unruh, A. B. 594,

would do all the things that his

first bill does except that it

would raise the possible damages

from $100 to $500, and "allow

costs and attorneys fees.

In the police field, Assembly-

sman Burton and nine others have

introduced A. B. 810 forbidding

wiretapping, and, according to

press reports, Assemblyman

O'Connell has introduced a bill

forbidding introduction of illeg-

ally obtained evidence, and pro-

hibiting electronic eavesdrop-

ping.

On the subject of arrests, A. B.

341 by Assemblyman Francis

and eight others would permit an

arrested person to make, imme-

diately after he is booked, three

answered telephone calls to his

employer, attorney, or a relative.

Refusal to allow the calls would

be a misdemeanor. The bill

passed the Assembly on Feb. 20

by a 55 to 9 vote and is now

awaiting action in the Senate.

An identical bill was pocket

vetoed by Gov. Knight at the

1957 session. Another bill, A. B.

342,. would permit one such

telephone call and A. B. 344

would allow two such calls. Mr.

Francis has also introduced

A. B. 2%6 requiring an arrested

person to be taken before a magi-

strate within two days, excluding

Sundays and -holidays. On the

other hand, Sen. Grunsky has

proposed in S. B. 260 that where

a person is arrested without a

warrant he must be taken before

a magistrate without unnecessary

delay, which shall be determined:

by all the circumstances.

As far as miscellaneous civil

liberties bills are concerned,

A. B. 631 (McMillan) declares it

to be State policy to allow pri-

vate and public employees to join

and remain members of labor

unions.

An unusual constitutional

amendment by Sen. Dilworth,

S.C.A. 3, would establish a "Bill

of Rights for Mental Freedom."

Its nine provisions, among other

things, would guarantee a person

suspected of being mentally ill

a trial' by jury and counsel and

would prohibit committment of a

person to prevent exercise of

free speech, assembly, petition,

etc.

On the other side of the ledger,

A. B. 272 and A. B. 388 would re-

quire all narcotics offenders to

register with the police every

time they change their address.

And 8S. B. 289 would allow sus-

pension of the driver's license of

a person for 90 days or for as

much as one year for refusing

to submit to a drunk test. This

proposal is endorsed by Gov. Ed-

mund G. Brown.

Assemblyman Francis, in A. B.

624, has proposed a State curfew

law under which, "Every person

under the age of 18 years who

loiters about the public streets,

avenues, alleys, parks or public

places between the hour of 10

p. m. and the time of sunrise, the

following day, when not ac-

companied by his parent or legal

suspicion of disloyalty;

withdrawn.

Univ. of California AAUP

Opposes Disclaimer Oath

The following resolution was adopted by the University of

California Chapter of the AAUP at a meeting on February 18

presided over by President James R. Caldwell:

`The University of California (Berkeley), Chapter of the

American Association of University Professors, opposes the dis-

claimer affidavit requirement of the National Defense Educa-

- tion Act of 1958. In particular, the Chapter:

1. Holds the disclaimer to be contrary to established prin-

ciples of American justice and to be intimidating with

respect to historic democratic freedoms;

2. Objects to the singling out of the nation's young scholars

and scientists or any other group of citizens for unjustified

3. Commends those institutions which have either refused to

participate in the program or have protested against it;

4, Maintains that for this or any other university to par-

ticipate in a program whereby students are required in

financial self-interest to abjure their freedom as Amer-

icans is to abandon the idea of education and it urges the

university administration to abstain from further par-

ticipation in the program until the required disclaimer is

A Saga About

"Confidential

Information'

The Immigration Service last month recommended sus-'

pension of deportation to a husband and wife who had previ-

ously been denied such relief on the basis of confidential

information and had been ordered deported from the United

States. =

The aliens entered the United

States in 1937, one as a student

and the other as a visitor. Subse-

quently, they changed their sta-

tus to Treaty Traders and, having

failed to maintain their' export

business, deportation proceed-

ings were brought against them

on September 15, 1949. However,

in 1954 a local hearing officer of

the Immigration Service granted

them suspension of deportation.

Thereafter, the proceedings

were reopened by the Board of

Immigration Appeals and, on

June 15, 1955 the hearing officer

reversed the previous ruling and

denied the applications for sus-

pension. "Certain confidential in-

formation pertaining to these

respondents, tthe disclosure of

which would be inimical to the

best interests of the United

States, indicates that the grant

of the extraordinary relief of sus-

pension of deportation is not

merited in these cases," said the

hearing officer. His ruling was

affirmed by the Board of ae

gration Appeals.

On November 1, 1955 a tat

was filed in the Federal District

Court in Washington, D. C., chal-

lenging the validity of the de-

portation orders. On December

31, 1956, because of a change in

regulations, the Board of Immi-

gration Appeals withdrew the

deportation orders and the cases

were once again remanded to a

hearing officer in San Francisco

for further hearings. With the

consent of the aliens, their suit

was withdrawn.

Last May 2 another hearing

was held in the cases in San

Francisco. The Government pre-

sented no confidential informa-

tion for consideration. The only

clue to the "confidential infor-

mation" the Government pre-

viously relied upon was question-

ing by the Examining Officer

based on a University of Califor-

nia Master's thesis written by the

wife. It discussed the develop-

guardian having legal custody

and control of such person, or by

the spouse of: such person over

21 years of age, is guilty of a

misdemeanor."

In order to nullify a State Su-

gpreme Court decision, Sen. Grun-

sky has introduced A. B. 524 to

allow police to refuse to divulge

the name of an informant on

the basis of whose statement they

have made an arrest or search.

Copies of the foregoing bills

may be secured without charge

by writing to the Legislative Bill

Room, State Capitol, Sacramento,

Calif. Assemblymen and senators

may also be addressed at the

State Capitol.

ment of Communism in China.

The Officer apparently con-

strued some language in the

thesis to show sympathy for

Communism although the thesis

was obviously an attempt to pre-

sent material in a scholarly fas-

hion. In any case, both husband

and wife denied being Commu-

nists or of holding sympathy for

that type of government. _

The cases are not yet ended.

Pursuant to the law, the orders

for suspension of deportation

must now be approved by Con-

gress. If it fails to take action

during the next two years, the

aliens will be permitted to leave

the country voluntarily. If they

fail to leave voluntarily they will

then be deported. In any event,

the almost ten-year-old deporta-

tion proceedings should reach a

final conclusion during the next

two years.

The aliens have been repre-

sented by the ACLU of North-

ern California through Ernest

Besig, local CCUG director.

Protests Mount

Against Student

Disclaimer Oath

Continued from Page 1-

in the Senate. Three repeal bills

have also been introduced in the

House, one by Representative

Thompson.

President Richard H. Sullivan

of Reed College also points out

that the affirmative loyalty oath_

is one that "could really be taken

only by a citizen of the United

States." Under it, no alien could

teach-a prohibition that would

rule out many of the teachers

that would be best qualified for

the foreign language centers and

the foreign language institutes

that are a principal emphasis of

the National Defense Act, he

said.

In supporting the campaign

against the disclaimer oath, the

national office of the ACLU has

urged college and university

authorities to take a stand against

the oath and to make their views

known to Secretary Flemming

and their Congressmen.

Students and their organiza-

tions should also send letters of

protest to Secretary Flemming,

supporting his public stand

against the oath and to Senators

and Congressmen, urging that

they support pending bills which

would repeal the oath require-

ment.

ACLU NEWS

March, 1959

Page 3

William Worthy Case

The U. S. Court of Appeal in

Washington, D. C., was asked to

rule recently that an American

citizen's liberty of movement

could not be abridged by the

State Department's denial of a

passport as a tool of American

foreign policy. The constitutional

argument was advanced by attor-

neys of the American Civil Lib-

erties Union in the case of news-

man William Worthy. They urged

the appeals court in a legal brief

to reverse a federal district court

decision that Secretary of State

Dulles' refusal to renew Worthy's

passport was a proper exercise of

the Executive branch's conduct

of foreign relations. This power,

the lower court said, gave the

State Department the right to

restrict the travel of citizens to

certain geographic areas in the

_ world.

Worthy, a foreign correspond-

ent for the Baltimore Afro-

American, and special corres-

pondent for the New York Post

and the Columbia Broadcasting

System, visited Communist China

and Hungary in the winter of

1956-57 despite a State Depart-

ment ban on travel to those coun-

tries. His application to renew

the passport was denied last sum-

mer, after almost a year and one-

half delay at the Department's

administrative levels,

grounds that his travel to the

barred countries were "prejudi-

cial to the orderly conduct of

foreign relations and the inter-

ests of the United States," and

that he would not promise in

`the future to abide by ee

restrictions.

Stifles Criticism

Citing a January 11, 1958 pub-

lic statement by Roderic O'Con-

nor, the State Department's se-

curity officer, that the power to

withhold a citizen's passport is

"designed as an instrument of

foreign policy," the brief asserted

that the Department's control

over travel "is utilized to stifle

criticism or promote espousal of

a particular foreign policy which

is subject to sudden and frequent

changes at the whim or caprice

of one official. It is China today

which is off limits-tomorrow it

may be Argentina, France or

Indonesia."

In supporting its position that

the grant of a passport has no

relationship to the conduct of

foreign policy, the brief empha-

sized that Congress has never

passed a law giving the Secretary

of State the power to deny travel

to banned countries. The 1926

passport law, under which the

State Department's 1952 regula-

tions imposing political and other

`tests for passport grants were

made, was merely a re-enactment

of the original 1856 passport law

the ACLU brief said. The law

had a limited purpose, it stressed,

to centralize the issuance of pass-

ports in the State Department.

Thought Control

Declaring that "in reality,

travel control is thought control,"

the brief reminded that the de-

cision to close off certain foreign

countries to travel by American

citizens "involves the relation-

ship of the government to its

own nationals and a restriction

upon their liberty. This is not the

matter of foreign affairs as it

would be if it involved relations

between this country and foreign

powers."

The brief asserted that even

if the Executive branch's right

to conduct foreign relations cov-

ered the grant of passports, it

_ would still be subject to the test

that only the' gravest national

ACLU NEWS

March, 1959

Page 4

on the

eal

danger could justify an infringe-

ment of the constitutional right.

to travel. The reasons advanced

to deny Worthy's passport do

not "warrant the abridgement of

constitutional rights." Worthy,

the brief said, has a "special

property interest in his occupa- '

' tion as a foreign correspondent

of which he has been deprived

without due process. His right to

travel also is clearly one of the

unenumerated rights protected

by the Ninth Amendment but -

here denied and disparaged."

Vague Criteria

In attacking the standard laid

down by the State Department

in denying Worthy's application,

that the pasport grant would be

"prejudicial to the orderly con-

duct of foreign relations and...

to the interests of the United

States," the ACLU brief said the

regulation denied procedural due

process "by its hopelessly vague

criteria. What are the acts which

are `prejudicial to the orderly

conduct of foreign relations' or

`to the interests of the United

States?' These standards are not

more definite than the terms `un-

American' or `subversive,' lan-

guage condemned by the Su-

preme Court as not susceptible

of definition."

Freedom of Press Issue

The State Department's action

was also scored as an abridge-

ment of the First Amendment

guarantee of freedom of the

press by refusing to allow a re-

sponsible newsman to report on

news to the American public.

"The Secretary has not, by law,

custom or tradition," the brief

said, "the right to prohibit ac-

credited press representatives

from visiting either friendly or

unfriendly countries in peace--

time. Such a ban is an adminis-

trative invasion of the freedom

of the press guarantees of the

First Amendment . .. News cov-

erage cannot be regulated by

foreign policy fluctuations with-

out laying the cornerstone for

government press control, too

tragically often in the recent

past the first step on the road

to tyranny."

Two Vets Get

Honorable

Separations

The Army last month decided

in favor of two veterans in pend-

.ing security cases. In both in-

stances, the only allegation was

membership in the Chinese Amer-

ican Youth Club of San Fran-

cisco, which is not on the Attor-

ney General's list.

In the first case, the veteran

received an Undesirable Dis-

charge in 1955. Then, he was

granted a General Discharge on

September 3, 1955. Last month,

after intervention by the ACLU,

he was given an Honorable Dis-

charge. The ACLU contended

that under the Harmon and Abro-

mowitch decisions by the U.S.

Supreme Court, the veteran could

not be penalized for associations

which he had prior to entering

the Army.

In the second case, the veteran

was separated from the Army

last January 9 with the charac-

ter of his separation "to be de-

termined." He had been under

investigation for over a year be-

cause of his past membership in

the Chinese American Youth

Club. On February 16, the Adju-

tant General informed the ACLU

that the veteran would be re-

tained in the Army Reserve and

that a new separation form

would be issued showing the

character of his service as Hon-

orable.

Volunteers

Make ACLU

oe ;

History

}

We cannot put your name on

a gold plaque, but you will go

down in ACLU history (via the

News) if you volunteer to help

in the office. (Offer good for

an unlimited time.)

ACLU needs you now during

our big 25th anniversary mem-

bership drive ... needs as

can spare-any weekday or

Saturday morning.

Here are hardy, dedicated

members who saved the branch

many dollars by working hours

last month checking files and

licking their weight in stickers:

Mmes. Henry Arian, Zora

Hutchinson, Joseph Karesh,

Leo Kroll, John Kerner, H. S.

McClees, Mrs. Lora Andrews

and D. W. Thomas, Misses

Edith Rosenshine, Barbara

Slickman, Leanore Rosen-

baum, Nancy Tarr and Sue An-

drews, Messrs. Arthur Simon,

E. H. Smith and E. C. Vander-

laan, San Francisco.

Mmes. A. E. Smith and Mary

Hall and Misses Emily Light

and Marjorie Gordon, Berke-

ley; Miss Frances B. Flynn, Al-

bany; Mmes. Gerald Rubin,

George Pohlman, John T.

Swayne and R. R. Watkin,

Marin County;

Mrs. Harvey Powelson, Wal-

nut Creek; Mrs. Ethelreda

Davis and Miss Gayle Maureen

Smith, Oakland.

Letters to

The Editor...

Continued from Page 2-

supervision, command, and at

the mercy of Hoover's Immigra-

tion Service, who can't even

speak or read our language, who

are mostly indigent scullions, la-

trine cleaners, and such, they

have the time, the means and

nerve to converge at any time of

day or night, at any distant point,

not only to conduct rambunctious

phony protests, but even to make

assaults upon us the native and

life-long residents. I can't bring

myself to believe that the ACLU

Staff in Los Angeles, composed

as it is of lawyers who can hold

their own even against the Phila-

delphia variety - can't perceive

that these assemblies are organ-

ized by, are led by, are under

the command of, and. are at the

expense of, our version of Heim-

rich Himmler-most likely the

Immigration Service.

In this Hungarian case I per-

ceive the beginning of the de-

cline and perhaps of the end of

the ACLU unless its high com-

mand is purged of certain ele-

ments. . . . Sam Roberts, San

Francisco.

Hungarians Dismiss Suit

EDITOR'S NOTE: The $6000

damage suit against Police Chief

Wm. H. Parker for seizure of the

leaflets and placards protesting

the arrival of Soviet Deputy Pre-

mier Mikoyan in Los Angeles was

dismissed on Jan. 23 at the re-

quest of the plaintiffs (Hungar-

ian Freedom Fighters).

In response to several letters

protesting filing of the suit, Ea-

son Monroe, Southern California

ACLU executive director, em-

phasized that ACLU cannot dis-

tinguish between the "good guys"

and "bad guys" in defending the

guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

"The suit was concerned with

only one question," Monroe said:

"Do the police have authority to

seize leaflets and placards in a

deliberate attempt to prevent

peaceful picketing and distribu-

tion of literature? We think they

do not, and our action was imple-

mentation of that belief.

"We have no defense for egg-

throwing or for the acts of vio-

lence which characterized Miko-

yan's reception in other cities.

We were neither for nor against

Mr. Mikoyan; we were neither

for nor. against the Freedom

Fighters. We were only for the

First Amendment and its guaran-

tee that anybody in this country

still can print and distribute

leaflets, and can carry placards

much or as little time as you

AEC Grudgingly Allows

Counsel at `Interview'

The San Francisco Operations Office of the Atomic Ener-

gy Commission last month very grudgingly allowed counsel

to be present while a sworn statement was taken from a Uni-

versity of California Radiation Laboratory employee concern-

ing a security clearance problem.

Security Officer Objects

When the security officer was

informed by telephone that coun-

sel would be present during the

interview he objected most

strenuously and implied that

only a person who had something

`to hide would have counsel. On

the other hand, the ACLU re-

sponded that AEC objections to

counsel allowed an inference that

the investigators wanted to push

the employee around. Of course,

this was denied. "It isn't our prac-

tice to allow counsel," the secur-

ity officer contended. "Do I un-

derstand that the employee re-

fuses to cooperate?" he asked.

He was informed that the re-

spondent was willing to attend

the interview but, on the advice

"Weekly People'

Racks Banned

In Sacramento

Continued from Page 1-

Jose and 138 in the Los Angeles

metropolitan area.

.Six "Weekly People" racks had

been on the Sacramento down-

town streets for more than a year

when last January some business-

men objected to Bartley W. Cav-

anaugh, City Manager. They had

apparently confused the paper

with the "People's World." As a

result of their protests, the City

picked up the racks without noti-

fying the Socialist Labor. Party.

The latter discovered who had

taken the stands when they made

inquiries in the neighborhoods

where they had been located.

Conference With City Manager

On January 19, a representa-

tive of the S.L.P. conferred with

the City Manager about the seiz-

ure and was informed that the

racks had been removed because

a recent ruling made it illegal to

use chains to attach newsstands

to electroliers. He was advised

to write to the City Council point-

ing out that his newspaper was

unrelated to the "People's

World." Of course, there is no

good reason why the latter news-

paper should not be allowed to

have self-service newsstands in

Sacramento even though it may

be unpopular with business men

in the community.

Could Ban All Racks

If it wished, Sacramento could

ban all self-service newsstands

from its streets. This has been

done in Redwood City. Sacramen-

to has no ordinance on the sub-

ject of self-service newsstands,

but if it allows any newspaper to

put its racks on the streets it

must extend that privilege to

ALL newspapers on the same

basis.

in the process of peaceful picket-

ing," Monroe said.

`Wf the American Civil Liber-.

ties Union ever loses its bear-.

ing in the rough waters of parti-

san controversy," Monroe con-

cluded, "its special valuable serv-

ice to the American people will

be lost."

of counsel, the latter would be

present. The interview was then

postponed in order to allow the

AEC an opportunity to deter-

mine what it wanted to do.

AEC Changes Mind

In the meantime, the ACLU

sent a written inquiry as to the

AEC's policy on the matter. E.

C. Shute, Manager of the San

Francisco Operations Office, re-

sponded that "it is unusual to

receive a request that counsel for

the respondent be present... .

Should the individual concerned

feel, however, that counsel is

desirable during an informal in-

terview, the Commission will not.

object to his presence. In such

instance he would not be a par-

ticipant in the interview but

could, of course, advise his client

of his opinion with regard to an-

swering or not answering ques-

tions. The interview would still

be conducted on an informal

basis and no discussion would be

entered into with respect to the

procedures or the relevancy of

the questioning."

"Informal Interview"

Such an "informal interview"

is informal in name alone. The

employee is taken into a small

room where he is sworn and

warned that he may be prosec-

uted for any untruthful state-

ments. A stenotypist.records the

questions and answers, except

when the investigators choose to

conduct matters off the record.

Two investigators are generally

present. If the investigators don't

get the kind of answers they want

they may suggest that the un-

protected "witness" is not being

frank or cooperative or that he

is being evasive, etc. Of course,

with counsel present brow-beat-

ing tactics, on or off the record,

may be resisted.

Counsel Lectured

A very brief "informal inter-

view" was finally held in the

foregoing case. Before the ques-

tioning started, in the absence of

view" should be on the record

counsel was lectured by an ob-

viously annoyed investigator as

to what was expected of him.

Counsel insisted that any instruc-

tions as to his role in the "inter-

the employee and off the record,

and in the presence of the em-

ployee. Counsel contended that

the purpose of the lecture was to

intimidate him. The investigator

apparently didn't want his state-

ments to appear on the record

where they could be attacked.

AEC Acting Improperly

The AEC is acting improperly

when it seeks to deny counsel to

an employee. In fact, it ought to

advise an employee that he has

the right to counsel during the

so-called "informal interview"

made in the course of a security

investigation. It should not dis-

courage representation by coun-

sel, even though it feels that the

presence of counsel may cramp

its investigating style.

The ACLU will now present

the problem to the national of- 0x00B0

fice of the AEC.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible. |

en TODAY

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

"OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

WELEPHONE NUMBER... 2.2...

Patron Membership. 1... .0 2 =. $100:

sustaining Membership 2.2.0.5 2600x00B0 4. =e 00

_ Business and Professional Membership ........ ee 25

Family Membership). 0 7. 5, 12

Annual Membership 30.0. 6

Junior Mentearchie. (under 21) 2

ACLU News Subscription. .......... ee $2.00

NAME ee

ADDRESS i ee Sie sc ses

ees AMT. ENCLOSED...

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 5