vol. 33, no. 10

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXIII

Good Year for Liberties

SAN FRANCISCO, OCTOBER, 1968

Final Report on

The 1968 Calif. |

Legislature

Everyone now agrees that the 1968 session of the California

Legislature ended sometime in August. That date on which

it ended continues, in some quarters, to be a matter of de-

bate. The dispute arose when Acting Governor Hugh Burns

decided that the Senate's desire to adjourn immediately and

the Assembly's desire to clean

up unfinished business created

a conflict between the two

Houses that empowered the Gov-

ernor to adjourn the Legislature.

Burns, when not acting as Gov-

ernor, and he usually is not, is

the President Pro. Tem. of the

Senate. His choice of adjourn-

ment date was viewed by Assem-

bly Speaker Unruh as an un-

seemly unilateral adjournment

by the Senate that affronted the

dignity of the lower house. Ac-

cordingly, Unruh kept the As-

sembly in session after the Sena-

_ tors had left.

But the acappella Assembly

session was short-lived, the vic-

tim of defections from the As-

sembly ranks. The defectors were

Republican Assemblymen, a

group that enjoys embarrassing

Unruh almost as much as the

Senate does. Once the California

Legislature had dwindled to a

gathering of Democratic Assem-

blymen, Unruh decided to recess

the Assembly.

The precise date of adjourn-

ment may still be in doubt but

the important point is that the

legislative session did, finally,

end. What follows, is a review

of civil liberties legislation in

the 1968 session. -

Suit to Put

Cleaver on

The Ballot

As the NEWS goes to press,

ACLUNC is preparing to file a

suit in the California Supreme

Court that, if successful, will

place the name of Eldrige Clea-

ver on the November presiden-

tia] ballot.

Cleaver is the _ presidential

candidate of the Peace and Free-

dom Party. Secretary of State

Frank Jordan, however, has in-

formed Peace and Freedom Par-

ty Chairman Jack Weinberg that

he will not certify Cleaver as a

candidate because he is not old

enough to be President.

ACLUNC will ask the Court to

command Jordan to place Clea-

ver's name on the ballot on the

grounds that Jordan, whose elec-

toral duties are purely minis-

terial, is not qualified or em-

powered to determine who is an

eligible candidate for - Presi-

dent and that a decision on Clea-

ver's eligibility would be pre-

mature at this time because the

California electorate will not

have an opportunity to vote for

Cleaver in November but, rather,

for undisputably qualified presi-

dential electors who are pledged

to Cleaver. The question of Clea-

ver's eligibility and the equally

important question of what body

is charged with the responsi-

bility of determining who is

eligible for President ought not

to be decided until it is ripe for

adjudication.

Cleaver is represented in his

ballot suit by Paul Halvonik.

Bills that went down to defeat

would have prohibited unwanted

labor pickets on the "private"

property of supermarkets; pro-

hibited the display of the Viet

Cong flag and the destruction,

with contemptous intent, of the

American flag; prohibited the

advocacy of communism on col-

lege campuses; made advocacy

of school boycotts punishable as

a crime; made any conduct which

"tends" to incite a riot a crime;

made a "disruptive presence" on

university or college campuses

a crime; and required the dis-

missal of any junior college

teacher who advocated any posi-

tion contrary to national secu-

rity. The most baroque of the

defeated anti-freedom bills was

S.B. 850 (Schmitz), which would

have required parade sponsors to

post a $10,000 bond before re-

ceiving a permit. The bill took

care of the American Legion by

exempting parades held on the

same day of the week in the past

two years.

Additionally, attempts to re-

vive the oath of non-disloyalty

(ACA 10, Hayes) and the crimi-

nal syndacalism act (AB 1771,

Hayes) never got out of the

committees to which they were

originally assigned.

A positive free speech gain

was the enactment of A.B. 267

(McDonald) which amends Pe-

nal Code section 602.9. 602.9,

adopted at the 1967 legislative

session, makes it a misdemean-

or for a person to remain upon

school grounds or adjacent areas

when his presence "interferes"

with the peaceful conduct of the

school and he is there "without

lawful business." The section

has been used to harass pamph-

leteers near school grounds even

though handbill distribution is

obviously "lawful business." The

McDonald amendment, which

provides that "lawful. business"

is any reason for being present

not otherwise proscribed by stat-

ute, ordinance or _ regulation,

should clear up whatever am

biguity existed. .

-Continued on Page 2

Free Speech

Guide Available

ACLUNC's summer legal in-

tern, Mrs. Barbara Kass, has pre-

pared a comprehensive guide to

"First Amendment Right to Ex-

pression."" The guide is written

for the non-lawyer wishing to

have a general description of

First Amendment rights in spe-

cific areas such. as handbilling,

etc.

The guide also contains cita-

tions to leading legal authorities

so that a lawyer may use it as

a first reference for a_ First

Amendment research problem.

All ACLU chapters will be given

a supply of the guides and other

interested persons may obtain

one by sending a long, self-ad-

dressed stamped envelope bear-

ing 18c in stamps to the

ACLUNC office.

No. 10

STAFF JOBS

AVAILABLE AT

ACLU OFFICE

The ACLUNC is stil! inter-

viewing candidates for the half-

time job of Chapter Director. -

Interested persons should con-

tact Ernest Besig.

The office also has a vacancy

for a stenographer. The salary is

$425 per month. Applicants

should get in touch with Mrs.

Pamela Ford.

State Welfare

Agrees on Due

Process Rights

ACLUNC counsel have been

engaged in an attempt to gain

for Mrs, Calvin Fenske of Or-

land, California, basic due proc-

ess rights to a hearing from the

State of California. Finally the

file was turned over to our Sac-

ramento chapter who assigned

volunteer attorney Carl M. Stein

to handle the matter. Mr. Stein

has now obtained an agreement

from the department of Social

Welfare and the Department of

Mental Hygeine that the State

cannot deny Mrs. Fenske a li-

cense for a child-care home with-

out providing her a hearing on

the question of whether she is

qualified for this license.

The State had maintained that

since Mrs, Fenske had _ surren-

dered a previous license it had

no obligation to grant a hearing

on a new application. The

ACLU believes that any appli-

eant for a state license is en-

titled to find out what evidence

is used against him if such ap-

plication is denied and to con-

front and examine such evi-

dence.

Free Press and Fair Trial

Court Upholds -:

ACLU Position :

On Publicity -

On August 27 the California Court of Appeal decided the

case of Craemer v. Superior Court of Marin County and in

doing so made an important ruling in the area of the power

of a trial judge to keep certain information from becoming

public when he believes it will prejudice a criminal defend-

ant's right to a fair trial.

The particular case involved

a group of persons charged with

felonies by the Marin County

Grand Jury. When the Grand

Jury transcripts were filed with

the court clerk, Judge Joseph G.

Wilson instructed him not to al-

low this testimony to be exam-

ined -by the public and also in-

structed the District Attorney

not to disclose the contents of

the transcripts to unauthorized

personnel. Mr. Craemer, editor

of the San Rafael Independent

Journal, filed a mandamus ac-

tion to obtain access to the

transcripts on the ground that

they were public information un-

der statute.

Tria] Court's Duty

ACLUNC, through staff Coun-

sel Marshall W. Krause and

volunteer attorney Theodore La-

chelt, filed a brief amicus curiae

-with the court, taking the posi-

tion that the judge had a duty

under the Fourteenth Amend-

ment to protect the defendants'

right to a fair trial regardless of

whether there was a statute mak-

ing the particular documents

"public". The brief pointed out

that the Grand Jury testimony is

not subject to cross-examination

and frequently contains such

items as alleged confessions and

alleged results of searches which

could be challenged as illegal

and excluded from the trial. If

this information were given pre-

- predecessors.

Marshall Krause Resigns; _

Succeeded by Paul Halvonik

Marshall W. Krause, Staff Counsel of the ACLUNC

for the past eight years has resigned his position effective

October 1, 1968. He will be succeeded by Paul Halvonik,

Assistant Staff Counsel and Legislative representative dur-

ing the past two years.

Krause is taking some time off

for attention to some non-legal

interests. His residence will be

in Marin county.

Longest Tenure

Krause is the third staff coun-

se] in branch history and held

the job ever since November 1,

1960 - longer than any of his

He suceeded AI-

bert M. Bendich, who served a

little more than three years.

Lawrence Speiser, the first staff

counsel, served for almost five

years,

Brilliant Record

Marshall Krause has had an

outstanding record at the

ACLUNC and he will be sorely

missed. He won five out of six

U.S. Supreme Court cases and

has been equally successful in

State and Federal Courts in

northern California. `Marshall

Krause," said Ernest Besig,

MARSHALL W, KRAUSE

branch executive director `was

an able, dedicated, hard-working,

likeable and responsible staff

counsel. He made a tremendous

contribution to the cause of free-

dom in this country and north-

ern California in particular."

Something Added

This issue of the NEWS car-

ries pictures of Krause and Hal-

vonik. In the case of Krause, the

picture was taken in January,

1967, when he was elected Presi-

dent of the San Francisco Bar-

risters' Club.' Something has

been added since that time-a

mustache.

The office is now attempting

to secure someone to fill the po-

sition of Assistant Staff Counsel

and Legislative Representative.

Many applicants have sought the

job and a special board commit:

tee will help make the selection,

hopefully by October 15 and in

any case by November 1.

BERS

PAUL N, HALVONIK.

trial publicity it would stick in

the minds of many prospective

jurors and prevent the defend:

ant from having a trial under

rules of evidence.

ACLU Position

The Court of Appeal in hand-

ing down a decision in the case

said: "It is clear that a judge

has the duty to protect a defenc-

ant from inherently prejudicial

publicity. Accordingly, it follows

that in the performance of that

duty a judge may require the

removal from: public scrutiny of

a public record containing data

or' material which, if publicized

prior to trial, could result in

publicity so inherently prejudi-

cial as to endanger a fair trial.

Appointment Procedure

The Court went on to hold

that an appropriate procedure

for handling these matters would

be that the transcripts could be

withheld from being public rece-

ords until the indicted defend-

ant had a resaonable opportunity

to examine the transcripts and

move the court that any objec-

tionable matter be held from

public scrutiny until after the

trial of the case. "Such a pro-

cedure appears to be a reason-

able accommodation of the right

to inspect public records to the

constitutional right of an indicted,

defendant to a fair trial." The

Court therefore issued a wrif

of mandate setting aside Judge

Wilson's broad order and _ in-

structed the lower court to fol-

low the suggested procedure.

The Right of

The Unemployed

To Be Bearded

Stephen Spangler has been de-

nied unemployment compensa-

tion insurance benefits because

he has, according to the Depart-

ment of Employment, made

himself unavailable for work by

growing a beard,

The Unemployment Insurance

Appeals Board, with one mem-

ber dissenting, has upheld a rul-

ing by a referee that Spangler's

beard is a voluntary action that

has taken him out of the em-

ployment market in spite of evi-

dence, developed at the refer-

ence hearing by Executive Direc-

tor Ernest Besig, that the De-

partment of Employment has

never referred Spangler, whose

profession is that of manufac-

turer's representative, to an em-

ployer and does not expect to

have any requests from a suit-

able employer. If there have

been no requests for manufac-

turer's representatives, manifest-

ly there have been no requests

for unbearded manufacturer's

representatives.

A suit requiring the Depart-

ment of Employment to pay

Spangler his benefits has been

filed in San Francisco Superior

Court by assistant staff counsel

Paul Halvonik, In that suit AC-

LUNC maintains that the deci-

sion of the Appeals Board is un-

supported by the evidence and

that the state has not "demon-

strated that here is any compel-

ling state interest that would

justify conditioning receipt of

benefits on the waiver of peti-

tioner's fundamental right to

groom himself as he pleases."

Final Report on the

1968 Calif. Legislature

Obscenity

All bills expanding the defi-

nition of obscenity were defeat-

ed. Their number, and the num-

ber was large, included a bill

that would have adopted the

"pandering" test of Ginzberg v.

U.S., bills that would have es-

tablished a special test of "`in-

decent matter" that could not

be exhibited to minors and, most

ambitious of all, A.B. 1480 (Rus-

sell) which would have made a

misdemeanant of anyone who ex-

hibited the Venus de Milo to a

minor.

An innovation in the area of

obscenity introduced by Senator

Lawrence Walsh (D.-L.A.) was

also killed. S.B. 49%, directed at

Michael] McClure's play, The

`Beard, would have prohibited the

performance of plays containing

"simulated" sex acts on college

campuses.

Civil Rights

`Rumford Fair Housing Act re:

peal, one of the most heated is-

sues in the 1967 session, received

little attention this year. Rum-

ford repealers were introduced

in both: houses but were easily

defeated after the enactment of

the Federal fair-housing law and

a United States Supreme Court

decision holding an 1866 Civil

Rights Act applicable to private

housing convinced proponents

that the game wasn't worth the

candle.

Civil Rights advances were, not

suprisingly, also thwarted. A hap-

py exception was A.B. 2061

(Sieroty) which partially elimi-

nates the prohibition of state

employment of aliens. Sieroty

(D--Beverly Hills) had a similar

bill vetoed by the Governor last

year.

Prisoner Rights

The rights of prison inmates

were greatly enhanced in this

year's session. A.B. 581 (Sieroty)

secures the following rights to

prisoners: :

1. To inherit real or personal

property. :

2. To correspond, confidential-

ly, with any member of the State

Bar, or holder of public office,

provided that the prison authori-

ties may open and inspect such

mail to search for contraband.

3. To own all written material

produced by such person during

the period of imprisonment.

4. To purchase, receive, and

read any and all newspapers,

periodicals, and books accepted

for distribution by the United

States Post Office, with the ex-

ception that prison authorities

have the authority to exclude

obscene publications or writings,

and mail containing information

concerning where, how, or from

whom such matter may be ob-

tained; and any matter of a

character tending to incite mur-

der, arson, riot, violent rascism,

or any other form of violence;

and any matter concerning gam-

bling or a lottery.

Death Row Counsel

S. B. 1028 (Petris) provides

indigent death-row inmates,

whose convictions have been af-

firmed by the State Supreme

Court, with state-appointed Coun-

sel to pursue their legal reme-

dies in the United States Su-

preme Court. The steering of the

bill through four legislative

Committees, both houses (where

a 2/3 vote was required because

of a $25,000 appropriation and

the securing of the Governor's

signature, is a tribute to the mas-

terful legislative skill of the au-

thor, Senator Nicholas Petris

(D-Oakland).

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS 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_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch 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_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS 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

A bill that would have re-

quired the Adult Authority to

provide reasons when it refuses

to grant parole to a prisoner

convicted of a non-violent crime

(A. B, 1269-Vasconcellos) failed,

for lack of one vote, to get out of

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1968

Page 2

the Assembly Committee on

Criminal Procedure.

Rights of the Accused

Bills that would have expand-

ed police arrest power, curtailed

the right of appeal from a crimi-

nal conviction, increased the

power of prosecutors to conceal

the names of informants, and

permitted court clerks to issue

arrest warrants, were all defeat-

ed. Bills authored by Assembly-

man William Bagley (R-Marin)

that would have reformed Cali-

fornia's archaic bail laws and

greatly increased the right to be

free without bail. (A. B.'s 319,

640) were defeated in assembly

committee by his Republican

colleagues. Bail reformers Bag-

ley and Senator George Moscone

(D-San Francisco) will doubtless

try again next year.

Gains for the criminally ac-

cused include S. B. 580 (Mos-

cone) which prohibit Judges

from reading certain prejudicial

matters about a defendant prior

to a decision about his guilt and

S. B. 1207, authored by Senator

Lewis Sherman (R-Berkeley)

providing that only the accused

juvenile, and not his parents,

can waive his right to counsel

in juvenile proceedings.

: Marijuana

A, B. 1%2 (Biddle) reduces

the penalty for possession of

marijuana by giving a judge the

discretion to punish a first-time

offense as a misdemeanor. The

bill reflects, in part, a minimal

legislative awareness that un-

duly harsh punishment for the

possession of a euphoric does

nothing but crowd the jails. In

part, however, the bill denies

this experience because it in-

creases the penalty for posses-

sion of dangerous drugs. Biddle

(R-Riverside) felt the increased

penalties for the possession of

dangerous drugs, to make them

commensurate with the mari-

juana penalty, were necessary in

order to have this bill enacted

into law. Perhaps he was right.

An attempt by Assemblyman

Sieroty to reduce the penalty for

~ possession of marijuana to a mis-

demeanor (A. B. 1155) failed to

get out of committee.

Privacy

The right of privacy faired

well in 1968. Proposed legaliza-

tion of police wire-tapping and

eavesdropping was rejected. S.B.

1089, a potential threat to ACL-

UNC's 1967 U. S. Supreme Court

victory in Camara v. Municipal,

which brings non-criminal,

searches within the protection of

the Fourth Amendment, was

converted into a fortification of

Camara when the author, Senator

James Wedworth (D-Hawthorne),

aften an extensive battle in the

Assembly, accepted ACLU

amendments to his bill.

A proposal to make the list

of welfare recipients available

for the scrutiny of anyone

(S. B. 102, Schmitz) was defeated

for the second consecutive year.

Bills prohibiting schools from

administering surveys in which

questions appear about a pupil's

beliefs or practices regarding

sex, morality and religion, with-

out first receiving permission

from his parents (S. B. 669,

Schmitz); greatly limiting the

persons to whom personal infor-

mation concerning a pupil may

be given (S. B. 670, Schmitz);

and limiting the persons to whom

information regarding a _ mis-

treated minor may be given

(A. B. 187, Milias), have all been

signed into law by Governor

Reagan.

Defeats

The most serious ACLU de-

feats in 1968 were the enact-

ment into law of A. B. 144 (Vas-

concellos), which provides for

implementation of Federal aid

to parochial schools, and A. B.

133 (McDonald) which permits

counties to seek reimbursement

of probation expenses from the

parents of a juvenile offender.

Assessment

The results of the 1968 ses-

Leics...

... to the Editor

Recorded Messages

Editor:-As a member of the

John Birch Society and opera-

tor of Berkeley "Let Freedom

Ring" recorded telephone mess-

age service, I would like to pub-

licly thank the American Civil

Liberties Union of Northern

Caltfornia for successfully de-

fending my case against the Pa-

cific Telephone Company and

the California Public Utilities

_ Commission,

On July 19th, the Supreme

Court of the State of California

unanimously rendered their de-

cision upholding my right to free

speech; including my right to

anonymity of recorded tele-

phone message transmissions.

This important decision of the

State Supreme Court protects

and reinforces the rights of free-

dom of speech for all Ameri-

cans - especially for those hold-

ing minority or unpopular views.

The ACLU spent many thou-

sands of dollars worth of time,

talent and materials in working

on my case over the past two

years, At no time did they ever

request or imply that I should

pay even one cent.

The ACLU's legal briefs were

masterful expositions on -con-

stitutional law, and as a JBS

member, I can honestly subscrib2

to every word therein.

My thanks go to Mr. Ernest

Besig, ACLU Director, whom I

first solicited to accept my case;

and to Mr. Reed H. Bement, the

principal attorney and the others

of the ACLU staff who handled

my case supremely well.

-Fred E. Huntley

Gun Control Policy

Editor: You may include me

among those wio were aston-

ished at the action of the ACLU

in its stand on gun control laws.

Civil liberties, in the light of

how our nation was established,

in the light of the current dis-

turbances in Czechoslovakia and

the Vietnams, are something the

Union seems to have lost sight

of.

Or if we, as a nation, have be-

come so nearsighted that we see

only the threat of illegal guns,

then what has the Union's stand

on gun control done to legalize,

sequester, or otherwise hamper

the illegal use of firearms or any

other weapon?

The Union's action has been

a step toward: 1) removal of a

threat to loss of civil liberty;

2) taking arms from all but crim-

_inals, or creating a new class of

criminal; 3) pinpointing the

availability for the taking of

arms, for the benefits of crim-

inals. The incentives in the con-

ception of the Union's stand will

inevitably lead toward the op-

posite of the very things for

which the members of the Union

conceive it stands, and away

from the very arms contro] ap-

parently desired.

At least Senator Marks' bill,

now law, is a step in the right

direction William Frank Poyn-

ter, San. Francisco.

sion were certainly better than

anticipated. It was, on balance,

a very good year for civil lib-

erties. The principal assaults on

civil liberty, and they were many

and from sundry sources, were

repelled. And gains, particularly

in the areas of prisoner rights

and privacy, were of significant

proportions.

What does the 1969 session

bode for civil liberties? The No-

vember election will determine

that. The appeal to "law and or-

der," advanced most conspicuous-

ly by George Wallace (who

gained prominence by defying

the law set forth in a federal

court order) is the fashionably

polite means of advancing the

cause of repression. If it is the

theme of the newly elected legis-

lature, civil liberties and civil

rights may be in for some diffi-

cult times.

-Paul Halvonik

"Campus Draft Opposition"

Federal Court

Upholds Denial

Of Facilities

Another skirmish in what promises to be a long battle

was fought last month in Federal District Court when

ACLUNC staff counsel Marshall Krause represented a group

of UC professors and students who are attempting to obtain

a ruling that a Regents' rule regarding use of campus

facilities is unconstitutional.

Pledges Sought

The group, known as Campus

Draft Opposition, circulates

pledges to draft-eligible men who

wish to publicly state that they

will refuse an induction notice

and also pledges of support from

non-draft eligible persons that

they will aid the signers of the

first pledge in vindicating their

positions.

One round of the battle was

lost last May when Federal Judge

William T. Sweigert denied a

preliminary injunction against

the University's refusal of the

Greek Theatre for the Campus

Draft Opposition to hold a "Viet-

nam Commencement." The Com-

mencement then was held on the

steps of Sproul Hall.

Regulation Attacked

Now the group is attacking

the Regents' resolution which

provides that University facili-

ties are not available for per-

sons engaging in or organizing

"unlawful activities." The regu-

lation is being attacked as a

prior restraint on First Amend-

ment activities since, under the:

procedures followed by the Uni-

versity, questions of possible un-

lawful activity are referred to

the General Counsel for an opin-

ion and that opinion is then fol-

lowed in granting or denying

use of University facilities. This,

argues the ACLU, creates a prior

restraint. That is, one adminis-

trative official by deciding some- -

thing illegal may happen at a

meeting can stop the exercise of

First Amendment rights without

any court determination of the

legality of the proposed activity.

Spock Case Issue

Also attacked in the lawsuit

is section 462 (a) of the Uni-

versal Military Training and

Service Act which makes it a

crime to aid or counsel persons

to fail to obey any provision of

the Act (this is the same law

as was invoked to convict Dr.

Spock and his co-defendants in

Boston). ACLU attacks this stat-

ute as unconstitutionally vague -

and overbroad in the First

Amendment area.

Latest Ruling

The second round of this court

battle was fought on September

23 before Judge Louis Burke on

the Regents' motion to dismiss

the complaint and on the plain-

tiff's motion to convene a three-

judge court to hear the constitu-

tional questions. Judge Burke

granted the motion to dismiss

the complaint and ruled that

there was not a substantial con-

stitutional issue presented allow-

ing the convening of the three-

judge court. Since it believed

that this ruling is completely er-

roneous on both grounds, an ap-

peal will be taken to the Ninth

Circuit.

Meanwhile, the Campus Draft

Opposition has said it will con-

tinue its normal activities on fhe

campus of the University of Cali-

fornia which could well raise

further problems of denial] of

First Amendment rights.

SSA A SE EE)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year. ..

Twenty Cents Per Copy.

ee 151_

Ralph B. Atkinson

Mrs. Judith Balderston

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Rey. Hamilton Boswell

Price M. Cobbs, M.D.

Mrs. Natalie Dukes

Prof. John Edwards

Robert Greensfelder

Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grillo

Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross

Francis Heisler Re

Neil F.. Horton

Howard H. Jewel |

Gerald D. Marcus

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph S. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

John J. Esgan

Joseph Eichler

Dr. H. H. Fisher .

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Rabbi Alvin I. Fine

Helen Salz

SEC'Y-TREAS.: Howard A. Friedman

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Paul Halvonik

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner

Prof. Wilson Record

Prof. Ernest Hilgard Dr. Norman Reider

Ephraim Margolin

Dr. John Marquis

Martin Mills, M.D.

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Richard Patsey

Mrs. Esther Pike

Henry J. Rodriquez

Eugene N. Rosenberg

Mrs. Muriel Roy

John Brisbin Rutherford

Warren H. Saltzman

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Richard J. Werthimer

_ Justin Vanderlaan

Joe J. Yasaki

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Seaton W. Manning

Rev. Robert W. Moon

Clarence E. Rust

Prof. Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin :

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Picketing

In Cameron v. Johnson the

petitioner alleged that a Missis-

sippi anti-picketing law which

prohibits". . . picketing or mass

demonstrations in such a man-

ner as to obstruct or unreason-

ably interfere with free ingress

or egress to and from any public

premises, state property, county

or municipal courthouses, city

halls, office building, jails, or

other public buildings .. ." was

vague and overbroad. Justice

Brennan, for seven justices, said

the statute clearly and precisely

delineated its reach in words of

common understandtng and was

therefore not vague, It was not

overbroad, since "Picketing and

parading are subject to. regula-

tion even though intertwined

with expression and association."

He concluded that the record

did not establish any bad faith

in the enforcement of the law

for purposes of harassment, and

that therefore there were no

"special circumstances" justify-

ing relief, as in Dombrowski v.

Pfister, Fortas, and Douglas, dis- .

sented on the grounds that Dom-

browski dictated intervention.

A more significant case on the

right to picket was Amalgamated

Food Employees v, Logan Valley

Plaza. The issue was whether

peaceful picketing of the busi-

ness enterprise located within

the shopping center could be en-

joined on the ground that it con-

stituted an invasion of the prop-

erty rights of the owners of the

land. The picketing was peace--

ful and non-obstructive. Mar-

shall, writing for five members

of Court cited the "company

town" case, Marsh v. Alabama, as

authority for the proposition that

in some circumstances private

property may be treated as

- though publicly held for the

purposes of exercise of First

Amendment rights. He conclud-

ed that because this shopping

center served as a community

business block and was freely

accessible to the public, the state

could not delegate the power to

use trespass laws wholly to ex-

clude members of the public

wishing to exercise their First

Amendment rights on the prem-

ises, Douglas concurred, but

Black dissented on the grounds

that picketing is conduct, rather

than speech, and therefore not

protected.

Obscenity

In Ginsberg v. New York the

Court upheld a criminal obscen-

ity statute which prohibited the -

sale to minors under 17 of ma-

terial defined as "obscene" on

the basis of its appeal to them,

whether or not it was similarly

"obscene" for adults. Brennan,

speaking for five members of the

Court, said that the power of -

the state to control the conduct

of children reached beyond the

scope of its authority over adults.

In light of the state's and par-

ents' interest in the well-being of

the youth, and of the fact that

"obscenity" is not constitution-

ally protected, the only require-

ment to sustain such a statute is

a finding that it was not irration-

al for the legislature to conclude

that exposure to the condemned

material would be .harmful to

minors. He then held that this

statute was not vague because

the New York Court of Appeals

had construed the definitions

there to be virtually identical to

the Supreme Court's most recent

statements of the elements of ob-

_ scenity. Douglas, joined by Black,

dissented on the grounds that

obscenity was not excluded from

the protection of the First

Amendment. Fortas dissented be-

cause the Court did not reach

the question of whether the par-

_ticular publication at issue was

obscene but only considered the

constitutionality of the stat-

ute on its face. The scope of this

decision is somewhat confused

by the companion case of Inter-

state Circuit Incorporated v. City

of Dallas. There Marshall, speak-

ing for six justices, declared a

city ordinance which provided

for classification of movies as

ously subverts,

suitable or non-suitable for chil-

dren under 16 void for vagueness.

Although the statute provided

for a speedy court test of the

administrative body's decision,

thus fulfilling one of the require-

ments of Freedman v. Maryland,

Brennan stated that the problem

of vagueness was not cured by

affording prompt de novo judici-

al review, because the vague

terms still encouraged erratic ad-

ministration. The vague defini-

tions of "not suitable'? were (1)

"describing or portraying brutal-

ity, criminal violence or deprav-

ity in such a manner as to be in

the judgment of the Board, like-

ly to incite or encourage crime or

delinquency on the part of young

persons" or (2) "describing or

portraying nudity beyond the

customary limits of candor in

the community, or sexual prom-

iscuity or extra-marital or abnor-

mal sexual relations in such a

manner as to be, in the judge-

ment of the Board, likely to in-

cite or encourage delinquency

or sexual promiscuity on the part

of young people or to appeal to

their prurient interest." Harlan

dissented here and concurred in

Ginsberg on the basis that the

whole matter of obscenity is pri-

marily one of state concern. He

would limit federal regulation

to hard-core pornography and not

interfere with state decisions ex-

cept where a state action was

clearly the product of "prudish

over-zealousness."

Draft-Card Burning

In United States v. O'Brien

the Court held constitutional a

1965 law forbidding knowing de-

struction or mutilation of a draft

card. O'Brien destroyed his card

as a protest to the Vietnam War.

Warren's opinion said that this

statute does not abridge free

speech on its face, since it only

regulates conduct, not speech. It

listed the purposes of requiring

possession of draft cards which

destruction or mutilation obvi-

and said that

there were no other alternative

means that would be as effective

for these purposes, Therefore,

since (1) the government. has a

substantial interest in assuring

continued availability of issued

draft cards; (2) the amendment

is an appropriately narrow

means of protecting this interest,

and only condemns the independ-

ent non-communicative impact

of the petitioner's conduct; and

(3) the non-communicative im-

pact of the petitioner's act frus-

trated the government's interest,

the conviction was justified

even if it punished indirectly

the "symbolic" speech of O'

Brien, Douglas, on the ground

that the case called for a ruling

on the constitutionality of per-

manent conscription in the ab-

sence of a declaration of war,

dissented.

Public Employees

Pickering v. Board of Educa-

tion involved a teacher who was

dismissed for sending a letter to

a local newspaper criticizing the

Board and the district superin-

tendent of schools. He was dis-

missed on the ground that the

letter was "detrimental to the

efficient operation and adminis-

tration of the schools of the dis-

trict." The Court held that the

statute was unconstitutional as

applied. Marshall `said that al-

though it was necessary to bal-

ance between First Amendment

protection and the need for or-

derly school administration,

there was no showing here of the

letters impeding the teacher's

performance of his daily duties

nor interfering with the regular

operation generally. Therefore,

the school board's interest in

limiting this type of communica-

tion was not significantly greater

than that of any member of the -

public, The standard that should

have been followed was that of

New York Times v. Sullivan,

which dictates that in order for

a communication about public

bodies or figures to be unpro-

tected by the First Amendment

there must be a showing of know-

ledge of the falsity of what is

said, or reckless disregard of the

truth or the falsity.

Absention

In Zwickler v. Koota, the doc-

trine of "abstention" by Federal

courts until state courts have

had a chance to rule on an al-

legedly unconstitutional law was

severely limited. Brennan, ex-

pressing the views of eight jus-

tices, said that if a state statute

is not fairly subject to an inter-

pretation which will avoid or

modify the federal constitutional

question involved, it is the duty

of the federal court to decide

that federal question when it

is presented, even if the statute

has never been interpreted by a

state court. He pointed out that

in a First Amendment case to

force a plaintiff to suffer the

delay of state court proceedings

for declaratory judgment might

have an impermissible chilling'

effect on First Amendment free-

dom, and concluded that it was

error on the part of the district

court to refuse to pass on the

-appellant's claim for a declara-

tory judgment.

FREE ASSOCIATION

In two cases this term the Su-

preme Court upheld freedom of

association as against considera-

tions of loyalty and national se-

curity. In the first, Whitehill v.

Elkins, the Court held that a

loyalty oath required by the

amined as to whether they can

set aside their scruples, obey

their oath as jurors, and, in a

proper case, impose the death

penalty. Stewart, speaking for

five, reasoned that a jury which

excluded such people fell short

of the impartiality to which the

petitioner was entitled by the

Sixth and the Fourteenth

Amendments, because it did not

represent the views of a cross-

section of the community. He

carefully pointed out what this

case does not say: It does not

mean that those who say that

their reservations regarding capi-

tal punishment would prevent

- an impartial decision on the

guilt of the accused, or that they

could never vote for the death

penalty and would refuse even

to consider its possibility, can-

not still be excluded for cause.

The opinion expressly reserved

the issue of: whether the exclu-

sion of scrupled jurors results

in an unrepresentative jury on

the issue of guilt or substantially

increases the risk of conviction,

because there was insufficient

evidence on the matter, Nonethe-

less, most of those now on Death

Row in the various states re-

taining the death penalty will be

entitled to new trials on the is-

sue of punishment.

United States v. Jackson de-

clared unconstitutional that part

of the federal kidnapping act

which created an offense punish-

Review of

Significant

U. S. Supreme

Court Decisions

1967-68

By BARBARA KASS

ACLU Summer Fellow 1968 - Third Year Student

Univ. of California Law School

Maryland Board of Regents for

teachers at the state university

was void for overbreadth, The

second case was United States v.

Robel, where. the issue was the

constitutionality of a section of

the Subversive Activities Con-

trol Act of 1950 providing that

when a "communist action' or-

ganization was under final order

to register it would be unlawful

for any member of that organi-

zation to engage in any employ-

ment in any defense facility, Ro-

bel was a Communist Party mem-

ber working in a shipyard. The

Supreme Court, in an opinion

by Warren, reasoned that the

means chosen by the government

here to reduce the threat of

sabotage and espionage cut deep-

ly into the right of freedom of

association and thus required that

statute be drawn very precisely

to affect only those likely to en-

gage in such conduct. Brennan

concurred on the grounds that

the statute was an unconstitution-

al delegation of legislative power

to the Secreary of Defense, who

was empowered to designate de-

fense facilities with no provision

for an administrative hearing or

subsequent judical review, White

and Harlan dissented.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Jury Trial

Two major cases last term

were concerned with jury trial

in death penalty cases. In With-

erspoon v. Illinois, the Court

held that a man could not be

condemned to die by a jury chos-

en by excluding veniremen for

cause simply because they voiced

general objections to the death

penalty, or expressed conscien-

tious or religious scruples against

it. Potential jurors must be ex-

able by death only on the rec-

ommendation of the jury. In oth-

er words, if you waived a jury

trial you were guaranteed to es-

cape the death penalty. The

Court ruled this an impermissi-

ble burden on the exercise of

the constitutional right to a jury

trial.

In Duncan v. Louisiana, the

Court extended the right to a

jury trial in state courts to in-

clude all cases in which the de-

fendant would be entitled by the

Sixth Amendment to a jury trial

in federal court, The issue was

whether a jury trial was re-

quired for simple battery, a mis-

demeanor punishable by a maxi-

mum of two years' imprisonment

and $300 fine, White stated in

the majority opinion that the

states should use the criteria of

the federal courts to determine

which offenses rquired a jury

trial. This means that the petty

offenses which do not entitle one

to a jury trial are those punished

by a maximum of six months in

jail and a $500 fine. Black, joined

by Douglas, concurred on the

basis that the Fourteenth Amend-

ment required complete appli-

cation of the Bill of Rights to

the states. Harlan, joined by

Stewart, dissented on the ground

that a trial by jury in criminal

cases was not a requisite of fun-

damental fairness.

In Bloom v. Illinois, petitioner

had been convicted for crimin-

al contempt of court and sen-

tenced to jail for 24 months.

White reasoned that serious con-

tempt was so like other. serious

crimes that it should be sub-

ject to the jury trial provisions

of the Constitution. He said that

an even more compelling argu-

ment for a jury trial was the

need for protection against the

exercise of arbitrary official pow-

er in contempt cases. Respect of

judges and courts was not en-

titled to more consideration than

the interest; of the individual in

not being subject to serious

criminal punishment without the

benefit of the procedural protec-

tions that had been worked out

carefully over ihe years, How-

ever, he reaffirmed the principle

that the guarantees of the jury

trial did not apply to petty of-

fenses and stated that the pen-

alty actually imposed was the

best evidence of the seriousness

of the contempt offense. In a

companion case, Dyke v. Taylor

Implement Mfg. Co., Inc., the

petitioners had been convicted

of criminal contempt and given

a maximum sentence of ten days

in jail and a $50 fine. The Court

held that this was a petty of-

fense and that therefore there

was no federal constitutional

right to a jury trial.

Search and Seizure

In Terry v. Ohio, the Court,

though admitting that the pre-

valent police practice of `stop

and frisk'" was within the cov-

`erage of the Fourth Amend-

ment, held for the first time

that it could be justified in thy

absence of probable cause for an

arrest. In this case the afficer

saw men walking back and forth

in front of a store and believed

that they were "casing" it in or-

der to rob it tater, He stopped

them and found concealed wea-

pons on two of them in the

course of patting their outer

clothing, Warren, for eight jus-

tices, rejected the terminology

of "stop and frisk" and said that

the issue was whether the offi-

cer's action was justified in the

beginning and reasonable in

scope. Because there was no time

to get a warrant in this situation,

the police. conduct here is cov-

ered by the Fourth Amendment

clause that- prohibits unreason-

able searches and seizures, rather

than its warrant clause, Here it

was reasonable for the officer to

,investigate further the suspici-

ous conduct he had observed and,

in order to guarantee his own

safety, it was also reasonable

to conduct a limited search for

weapons, The search in these

circumstances must be limited

to the outer clothing, and the

officer must have reason to be-

lieve that he is dealing with an

armed and dangerous man. The

suspect's actions which cause the

officer to investigate further

must be such as to render the

police conduct "reasonable" by

objective criteria, Mere "good

faith" or a "hunch" is not suf-

ficient. Douglas dissented on the .

grounds that probable cause was

required for such a stop, In a

companion case, Sibron v. New

York, the Court held the seizure

of heroin unreasonable, since

the policeman had not limited

his search to one for weapons,

but rather reached directly into

`the suspect's pocket in order to

find the heroin. Future cases

in this area will turn on whether

the individual fact situations jus-

tified the officer's stopping of the

suspect for further investigation

in the absence of probable cause

for arrest,

In another case _ involving

search and seizure, Mancusi v.

De Forte, the Court held that a

union official could challenge a

warrantless search after the un-

ion's refusal to comply with a

subpoena requiring production

of documents for a union record.

Harlan's opinion said that it was

no longer required to have a

legitimate possession of the goods -

seized to object to a search and

seizure, but only to be legitimate-

ly on the premises and to have

the fruits of the search proposed

to be used against the person

objecting. He also said that it

did not matter that the union (c)

offical in this case shared an of-

fice with others.

To be concluded next month.

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1968

Page 3

Counsel for Indigents

Losers Must Pay

Attorney Fees

In San Mateo Co.

_ The Supreme Court of California was asked last month to

strike down a procedure in San Mateo County whereby con-

victed defendants in criminal cases are required to pay for

assigned counsel even though this counsel was assigned by

the court after a showing that the defendant was too poor to

hire his own lawyer. The pro-

cedure in San Mateo County is

that repayment of several hun-

dred dollars in counsel fees is

made a condition of probation

which the convicted defendant

must meet over a period of a

year while on probation. If he

fails to pay the money, proba-

tion can be revoked and he can

be sentenced on the original

charge.

Penalty for Exercising Right

ACLUNC attacks this proced-

ure on several grounds. First,

under the Sixth Amendment,

"the practice of requiring a con-

victed defendant to pay for the

County's cost in furnishing ap-

pointed counsel is nothing less

than a penalty charged to a per-

son guilty of a crime for his

exercise of a constitutional right.

The government has no right te

discourage the exercise of a con-

stitutional right or penalize ir

any manner its use, ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS 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_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch 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_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS 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 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS 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_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch 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_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS 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 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS 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_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch 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_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS 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 A

substantial number of persons

charged with crimes will wish

. to avoid the additional penalty

of payment of counsel and will

refuse appointment of counsel,

even though indigent, because of

this consideration. ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS 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_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch 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_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS 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 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS 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_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch 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_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS 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 ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS 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_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch 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_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS 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 In sum,

we are trifling with basic con-

stitutional rights in a demeaning

struggle to squeeze an infinitesi-

mal (relative to government ex-

penditures) amount of money

from an impoverished group of

our citizens. Just as initial ap-

pointment of counsel cannot be

conditioned on payment, pay-

ment may not be exacted at a

condition of withholding a jail

sentence."

Condition of Probation

These quotes are taken from

a petition for writ of habeas cor-

Pus filed in the California Su-

preme Court on September 24

in behalf of Jenifer Grey Allen.

who has been required to pay a

sum of money for her court-ap-

pointed attorney as a condition

of her probation. Miss Allen

had been going to college, but

now having the obligation to pay

a large sum of money, has been

required to go to work in order

to earn this money and avoid

jail. Even if we concede that

Miss Allen did receive valuable

services from the County and

could be required to be gain-

fully employed as a condition of

her probation, there is no get-

ting away from the argument

that many persons will seek to

avoid this extra expense by de-

clining an appointment of coun-

sel which will, in turn, defeat

the purpose of the Sixth Amend-

ment,

No Standards

Miss Allen also argues that the

procedures in San Mateo County

are applied haphazardly and

without any standards. There is

no way of telling which defend-

ants will be required to pay for

court-appointed counsel and

which will not and there is no

telling on what basis a particu-

lar judge makes such an order.

Next, the habeas corpus ap-

plication points out that in coun-

ties where there is a public de-

fender there is a requirement

that he shall defend "without

expense to the defendant' (Gov-

ernment Code Sec. 27706(a).

Thus a defendant in a county

with a public defender is guar-

anteed not to have to pay for as-

signed counsel, whereas counties

without a public defender may

require such payment. There is

no rational basis for such a dis-

crimination.

No: Precedent

The Supreme Court has dis-

cretion to turn down Miss AI-

len's application without reason,

as has already been done by the

Court of Appeal, but ACLU is

hoping that an order to show

cause will issue on the matter

so that the legal question can

be settled in California. There is

no court decision anywhere in

the nation approving of such a

reimbursement requirement for

court-appointed counsel.

Growing Academic

Freedom Crisis at U.C.

The Regents of the Univ. of California last month limited

guest lecturers to one appearance a quarter in courses for

university credit unless they hold appointments as. instruc-

tors. Moreover, the Academic Senate is required to formulate

"a set of explicit academic standards for the planning, staff-

ing, conduct and evaluation of

experimental courses" and re-

port by January, 1969.

Interference With Courses

Also, the press reports that

on the recommendation of Presi-

dent Charles Hitch, the Regents

voted to require the Academic

Senate to study how it might

share its responsibility for initi-

ating courses and curricula with

the chancellors and president

of the university, In the last

analysis, this would enable the

Regents to determine the con-

tent of courses at the university,

even though it is a faculty func-

tion. In consequence, the Uni-

versity is faced with its gravest

academic freedom crisis since

the loyalty oath controversy.

Cleaver Case Statement.

Following is the ACLUNC

statement submitted to the Re-

gents Los Angeles meeting with

respect to the problems arising

ACLU NEWS

OCTOBER, 1968

Page 4

out of the Eldrige Cleaver issue:

The American Civil Liberties

Union of Northern California

calls attention to the fact that.

protest to the proposed use of

Eldrige Cleaver to give some

lectures in a class at Berkeley

raises important questions of

academic freedom.

One Point of View

It is our understanding that

Mr. Cleaver, an articulate, mili-

tant spokesman for black revo-

lution, was merely asked to give

a few -lectures. He would thus

bring to a class studying social

change the representation of one

special point of view. Other

points of view, we understand,

would also be studied. Clearly,

Mr. Cleaver is an expert in his

field and clearly the position he

represents is one we all need to

know more about. It is essential

that students at the University

be confronted with various

points of view and it is equally

important for the welfare of a

ACLUNC Annual

Dues Raised

From $8 to $10

The ACLUNC board of direc-

tors last month voted to raise

the so-called "Annual" dues

from $8 to $10. At the same

time, the price of a subscription

to the ACLU News has been

raised from $2 to $2.50 per year.

The student membership con-

tinues at $3 and the "Mr. and

Mrs." or "Family" membership

at $15 per year.

In raising the dues, the branch

followed the example of the na-

tional office which raised its so-

called "Basic" dues from $6 to

$10 per year. Faced with a

$250,000 deficit this year, the na-

tional office hopes to solve some

of its financial problems with

an increase in dues.

The ACLUNC also has finan-

cial problems but they are not

quite as serious as those of the

national office. This year's defi-

cit in the Operating Fund which

was expected to be in the neigh-

borhood of $17,000 may end up

at $12,000 It results from the

legislative program which was

undertaken before money was on

hand to pay for it.

The local increase in dues

should result in a $5,000 increase

in Operating Income. If member-

ship growth continues, the defi-

cit in the coming fiscal year,

beginning November 1, should

be held to about $7,000. Of

course, there are always pres-

sures for new programs. If new

programs are undertaken it is

hoped that they will be funded

separately.

"The Trial of

Eliz. Gurley

Flynn by ACLU'

The transcript of the proceed-

ings before the national ACLU

board on May 7, 1940 in which

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was oust-

ed as a member of that body by

a vote of 10 to 9 has been pub-

lished as a book entitled "The

Trial of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn

by the American Civil Liberties

Union." The book was edited by

Corliss Lamont, one of the nine

dissenters, and he has also writ-

ten an introduction.

Miss Flynn was charged with

membership in the Communist

Party and in two other charges

with making derogatory state-

ments about the ACLU board

and its members in the New

Masses and the Daily Worker.

The action against Miss Flynn

was based on the ACLU's "loy-

alty test" of February 5, 1940,

which ACLUNC strongly op-

posed.

That resolution was replaced

by two new statements in May,

1968. Mr. Lamont doesn't think

these statements are a great im-

provement over the "loyalty test"

since they require directors and

staff not only to be "unequivo-

cally committed to the object

of this Union" but also "to the

concept of democratic govern-

ment and civil liberties for all

people." Mr. Lamont interprets

"all people" to mean "all people

throughout the world." This, he

says, brings the ACLU "back to

the 1940 Resolution and enable

it, for instance, to bar as officers

those who give moral support

to some foreign state, perhaps

one recently freed from colonial-

ism, that considers certain non-

democratic controls justified."

democratic society to have po-

litical militants, of whatever col-

or or politics, confronted by the

tough, demanding questions of

our University students.

Freedom of Inquiry

Therefore the American Civil

Liberties Union of Northern

California urges the Regents of

the University of California to

stand firmly by the traditional

position of academic freedom

and re-assert that only a Univer-

sity allowed to be free to face

facts can remain truly a Uni-

versity.

Dictatorial Power

ACLU Challenge

Ends Berk's State

Of Emergency

Labor Day weekend in the City of Berkeley was, accord-

ing to City Manager Hanley, a "public calamity." Whatever

the characterization, a number of unfortunate incidents oc-

curred in Berkeley during the holiday

period. On Friday

night, after the conclusion of a lawful public assembly on

Telegraph Avenue, a group of

vandals broke some windows and,

when police officers arrived, a

policeman was shot in the leg.

On Sunday another peaceable

Assembly on Telegraph was in-

terrupted by an explosion in a

building two blocks away. Origi-

nally thought to be the result of

a bomb, the explosion may have

been caused by a gas main or

some other non-malicious source.

Dictatorial Power

Hanley's conclusion that Berke.

ley was the victim of "public

calamity" may have been poeti-

cally accurate but it was legally

disastrous. Hanley, under the

rubric of "public calamity," in-

voked a civil disaster ordinance,

which, he maintained, gave him

the power to pass "Rules and

Regulations" that made Prague

look like Hyde Park.

Legal Effort

To Stop Punitive

Induction Fails

ACLUNC's record in keeping

punitively-reclassified draft eligi-

bles free from threat of crimi-

nal punishment was shattered

last month when Federal Dis-

trict Judge Alfonso J. Zirpoli

refused to issue a preliminary in-

junction preventing the induc-

tion of Joel M. Kugelmass into

the armed services. Kugelmass is

a student at Brandeis University

and had been reclassified from

2S to 1-A because he returned

`his draft card to his local board

as a protest to the war in Viet-

nam.

Student Classification

Unfortunately, in a letter ac-

companying his draft card, he

stated that he did not want a

student classification or any oth-

er classification, nevertheless,

ACLU counsel were able to ob-

tain restraining orders prevent-

ing the Selective Service System

from ordering Kugelmass to re-

port for induction for a period

of approximately five months.

Previous Ruling

Judge Zirpoli based his denial

on the fact that the Ninth Cir-

cuit Court of Appeals several

years ago decided a case wherein

they held that there was no il-

legality in punitively reclassify-

ing a registrant who turned in

his draft card in violation of Se-

lective Service regulations re-

quiring a registrant to carry a

draft card. ACLU staff counsel

Marshall Krause argued that this

same question is now before the

United States Supreme Court in

the case of David Oestereich v.

Selective Service System and

would be argued this fall. Judge

_Zirpoli nevertheless felt bound

to follow the previous decision.

Civil Trial Scheduled

- After the denial of the pre-

liminary injunction Mr. Kugel-

mass was faced with the prob-

lem of whether or not he was

to report for induction. Since he ~

had a number of technical defen-

ses to the validity of the induc-

tion order in addition to the bas-

ic defense that the punitive sys-

tem is unconstitutional, Kugel-

mass decided not to report for

induction and to test the validity

of the induction order in court.

A civil trial on this matter is now

scheduled for November 18 and

will precede any criminal trial

arising out of the failure to re-

port for induction.

Meetings Banned

Hanley's Rules, ratified by the

City Council at its Tuesday meet-

ing, made all meetings in public

places throughout Berkeley ille-

gal and prohibited anyone from

"loitering" in Berkeley from

8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Literally

read, the Rules prohibited the

City Council from meeting, made

attendance at churches unlawful,

proscribed labor picketing and

made it dangerous to wait for a

bus, The Rules were selectively

enforced and the City Council

was permitted to meet, people

worshipped unmolested and, un-

less selling the Berkeley Barb,

it was fairly safe to stand on

Streets outside the Telegraph

area. -

Chapter Project

The legal challenge to the

Rules and Regulations and the

ordinance which Hanley main-

tained gave him the power to

promulgate such rules was hhan-

dled primarily by ACLUNC's

Berkeley-Albany chapter. They

sought an order restraining the

enforcement of the rules from

Federal Judge Burke on Friday,

September 6. Unfortunately, the

volunteer attorneys, Lee Cake

and Larry Duga of Berkeley,

were unfamiliar with Federal

procedures and their original

complaint did not properly 4l-

lege jurisdiction by the Feder-

al Court. Judge Burke gave them

until Monday to submit an

amended complaint and _ set

Wednesday as the date for hear

ing the legal arguments. Cake

and Duga, with the assistance of

Paul Halvonik, spent the week-

end redrafting the complaint.

The amended complaint was

filed on Monday. On Tuesday,

the day before the federal hear-

ing, Berkeley decided the ca-_

lamity was over and rescinded its

repressive rules. The federal

hearing, therefore, was called off.

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP,

MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION

Date of filing: Sept. 21, 1968.

Title of publication: AMERICAN

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS.

Frequency of issue: Monthly,

_ Location of known office of publi-

cation: 503 Market St., San Francisco,

Calif. 94105.

Location of the offices of the pub-

lisher: 503 Market St., San Francisco,

Calif. 94105.

Name and address of publisher:

American Civil Liberties Union of No.

Calif., Inc., 5083 Market St., San Fran-

cisco, CA 94105.

Name and address of editor: Ernest

`Besig, 503 Market St., San Francisco,

CA, 19105.

Managing editor: None.

Owner (If owned by a corporation,

its name and address must be stated

and also immediately thereunder the

names and addresses of stockholders

owning or holding 1 percent or more

of total amount of stock): American

Civil Liberties Union of Northern

California, Inc., 503 Market St., San

Francisco, CA 94105. aS

Stockholders: None.

Known bondholders, mortgagees,

and other security holders: None.

Extent and nature of circulation:

Average No. copies each issue .

during preceding 12 months:

Total No. coupies printed ....11,350

Paid circulation:

Sales through dealers and

Canriers,: Cts ee -_

Mail subscriptions ...............-.

Total paid circulation .

Free distribution: ........

Total distribution ........... te

Office use, left-over, etc. .... 800

TROUT ATS ices Ss en S850)

Actual number of copies of single

iene published nearest to filing

date:

Total No. copies printed ....10,200

Paid circulation:

Sales through dealers and

carriers, etc, ........ a

Mail subscriptions .

Total paid circulatio

Free distribution sae

Total distribution =. 2. .....= 9,608

Office use, left-over, etc. ... 592

10,200

I certify that the statements made

by me are correct and complete:

ERNEST BESIG,

Editor