Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute Archives logo
| HOME | HISTORY | PUBLICATIONS | DOCKETS | FINDING AIDS |

CIVIL LIBERTIES DOCKET
Vol. I, No. 2
December, 1955
$5.00 per year
Search in this volume

Case Number: 
Enter a specific case number or use * as wildcard, e.g., 303.15, 303.*

Case Title: 
Enter keywords from the title of a case, e.g., carpenters union

Case Description: 
Enter keywords from the description of a case, e.g., segregation school
   
ABOUT THE CIVIL LIBERTIES DOCKET

The DOCKET is published 5 times each year, October to June, by the National Committee on Constitutional Rights and Liberties, Osmond K. Fraenkel, chairman, Ann Fagan Ginger, editor.

Concluded cases described in Vol. I, No. 1 will not be mentioned in this or future issues. Pending cases in which there has been no change in status since the last description are listed below and marked with an*. Where a change has occurred, the facts will not be repeated but will be referred to by page and only new matter will appear in this and subsequent issues.

I. EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

10. Freedom of Speech

10.1. New York v. Parrilli, et al. (NYC Mag. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 1. Tried Nov. 16, 1955 before Magistrate Bushel, who did not express interest in the motivation for Defs.' refusal to participate in Air Raid Drill (pacifism) or in constitutional issues raised. Sentencing Dec. 5.
10.21. U. S. v. UAW-CIO. (ED Mich., #35004.) For facts, see I DOCKET 1. Motion to dismiss filed Oct. 31, denying applicability of 18 U. S. C. 610 to expenditure for telecasting of political broadcast and raising First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment objections to statute as construed and applied, and objections based on Article I, Section 2 and Seventh Amendment. Motion scheduled for argument Dec. 12.
20. Freedom of Press

20.3a. Holmby Production, Inc. v. Vaughn, et al. (U. S. S. C., #338) (177 Kan. 728, 282 F. 2d 412.) Kan. State Bd. of Review disapproved movie "The Moon Is Blue" for featuring a "sex theme" throughout, with "too frank bedroom dialogue" and "many sexy words". Pl.-producer of film sought injunction in Wyandotte County Ct. to prevent Kan. authorities from interfering with exhibition of film. Bd., on re-examining order, again disapproved, this time for being "obscene, indecent and immoral and such as to tend to debase or corrupt public morals". Judge Miller ruled: state statute providing for censorship of motion picture that vested censor with unlimited restraining control over content repugnant to 1st and 14th Amdts.; word "obscene" too broad and vague as standard. Kan. Supreme Court reversed. Oct. 24, 1955: U.S.S.C. reversed Kan. Sup. Ct. ruling, held Kan. statute unconstitutional. George T. Morton, Jr., Esq., and James C. Wilson, Esq., 1500 Dierks Bldg., Kansas City, Mo.

See special issue on Obscenity and the Arts, XX Law and Contemporary Problems #4 (Aut. 1955).
20.5. Fla. ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, Sheriff. (Sup. Ct. Fla., #26,158.) For facts, see I DOCKET 2. After Fla. Sup. Ct. upheld contempt sentence, Trial Judge Adams ordered Def.'s $2500 bond forfeited and Def. to serve 6 months in prison. Judge's action based on fact that, in passing sentence, he fined Def. $750 "payable instanter, in default of which you shall serve 6 months". Since habeas corpus writ sued out, fine not paid. These orders on appeal to Fla. Sup. Ct.
20.6. U. S. v. Solow. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 2. Motion to dismiss indictment argued Nov. 28 before Judge Weinfeld; decision reserved.

Rogge, Zucker, Fabricant and Gordon, Esqs., 401 Broadway, and Philip Wittenberg, Esq., 70 W. 40th, all of NYC.
20.7. Smith v. Byrd. (Miss. Sup. Ct., #39,755.) Appellant-country editor criticized Holmes County Sheriff for alleged abuse of a Negro citizen. In suit for libel, editor found guilty, fined $10,000. Nov. 17, 1955: Miss. Sup. Ct. reversed.

Vardaman Dunn, Esq., and Watkins, Edwards and Ludlam, Esqs., all of Jackson, Mississippi.
20.7. California v. Howard. (Calif. 3d Dist. Ct. of App.) Def.-newspaperman convicted of contempt for refusing to reveal
- 34 -

source of quotation from union official during strike that "anyone has the right to refuse to handle hot apples". Employers believed statement could be used in court to prove union had recommended illegal secondary boycott, thus justifying anti-strike injunction. But quotation could not be introduced in evidence because Def. refused to say whether he had spoken to union official whom he had quoted in article to this effect. Nov. 9: Dist. Ct. reversed contempt conviction, holding that reporter might quote news source without having interviewed person personally.
20.9. Tirone v. Ramsey Journal and Russo. (N. J. Superior Ct.) Pl.-newspaper publisher filed suit for $400,000 against rival newspaper charging that Def.'s business mgr. and Republican county committeeman-columnist for Def.-paper bought all copies of Pl.'s paper from newsstands so they were unavailable to public; that Def. ass't postmaster refused to accept Pl.'s papers for mailing on technicality he had previously ignored. Pl. alleged motive was to prevent delivery of his paper prior to Nov. election because he supported independent candidates.

Paul Huot, Esq., Ramsey, N. Y.
20.20. NYC v. Weinstat. (Lower Manhattan Magistrates Ct.) Patrolman summonsed Def. for distributing handbills protesting murder of Emmet Till in Mississippi, charging violation of Sanitary Code against littering. At trial before Magistrate, patrolman said "I did not fully understand the law. This man is not guilty. I made a mistake by giving him a summons." Case dismissed.

Emanuel Redfield, Esq., 60 Wall St., NYC.
20.21. NYC v. Martin. (Bronx Magistrates Ct.) Facts and issues similar to Weinstat (20.20). Case dismissed. William J. Butler, Esq., 400 Madison Ave., NYC.

See "The Doctrine of Prior Restraint" by Thomas I. Emerson, XX Law and Contemporary Problems #4 (Aut. 1955).
30. Freedom of Religion

30.1. People's Church of San Fernando Valley, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 2. Appeal by Def. County Assessor pending. A. L. Wirin and Hugh R. Manes, Esqs., 257 S. Spring St., Los Angeles.
30.2. First Methodist Church of San Leandro v. Horstmann, et al. (Calif. Sup. Ct.)

and
30.3. First Unitarian Church of Berkeley v. Horstmann, et al. (Calif. Sup. Ct.) For facts on both cases, see I DOCKET 2. Findings and conclusions of law and judgment signed and entered Nov. 7, 1955 on consolidated cases, holding law unconstitutional in violating freedom of speech, and being discriminatory in requiring oaths from some but not all applicants for tax exemption.
30.4. American Unitarian Assn., et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al. *

And see cases at 430.
30.5. Ilse Scaccio—Pet. for naturalization. (CA 9.) Naturalization denied by Judge Goodman, who interpreted present oath requiring promise to do work of national importance to include work in munition plants. Pet., Jehovah Witness follower, would not accept such interpretation as violating 1st Amendment. Appeal pending to 9th Circuit. Lawrence Speiser, Esq., for A.C.L.U. of N. Calif., 503 Market St., San Francisco, Cal.
40. Freedom of Assembly
100. Freedom of Association—Governmental limitations on organizations
110. Federal conspiracy indictments—Smith Act

110.1. Yates, et al. v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3. Petition for certiorari granted Oct. 17; argument probably after March, 1956.
110.2. Fujimoto, et al. v. U. S. (CA 9.) *

And see Bouslog (560.2), Gladstein (560.1).
110.3. Wellman, et al. v. U. S. (CA 6.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3. Nov. 18, 1955: CA 6 unanimously affirmed conviction in opinion (Miller, Cir. Judge), largely repeating Dennis, Flynn, etc. Motion for rehearing being filed.
110.4. Huff, et al. v. U. S. (CA 9, #14320.) *
110.5. U. S. v. Mesarosh, et al. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3. Petition for certiorari granted Dec. 12, 1955.
110.6. Sentner, et al. v. U. S. (CA 8.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3. Appellants' brief due Jan. 27, 1956.
110.7. U. S. v. Kuzma, et al. (CA 3.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3. Appellants' brief filed.
110.8. U. S. v. Bary, et al. (CA 10.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4. 7 Defs. convicted, sentences from 2½ to 5 yrs., fines from $1,500 to $5,000; bond on appeal from $5,000 to $30,000. Defs. asking for permission to file typewritten copies of transcript, instead of printed copies. Def. brief due mid-Dec.

Forrest C. O'Dell, Esq., Symes Bldg., Denver; Mary Kaufman, Esq., 201 W. 85th St., NYC.
110.9. U. S. v. Brandt, et al. (ND ED Ohio, #21076.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4. Trial opened Oct. 31, 1955, now in progress. Prosecution used 5 witnesses in first 3 weeks.
110.10. U. S. v. Silverman, et al. (DC Conn.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4. Waiver of jury trial and motion for trial to Court filed Sept., with motion for hearing to present evidence in support; U. S. Atty. refused consent; motions denied Oct. 3. Civil action against U. S. Atty. and Judge for declaratory judgment and injunction filed, with request for convening of 3-judge court; application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Jury selection instituted; opening statements and introduction of Gov't's case begun, Nov. 3. Trial in progress.

Now of record: Catherine G. Roraback, Esq., 185 Church St., Arthur B. O'Keefe, Jr., Esq., 125 Temple St., Stanley A. Jacobs, Esq., 39 Church St., James O'C. Shea, Esq., 153 Court St., Paul C. Jamieson, Esq., Johnson Stoddard, Esq. and Edward Seltzer, Esq., all of New Haven, Conn.; Frank J. Donner, Esq., 342 Madison Ave., NYC.
110.12. U. S. v. Charney, et al. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4. Pre-trial motions argued Dec. 5; trial date: Feb. 27, 1956.
- 35 -

Newman Levy, Esq., 55 Liberty, Mary Kaufman, Esq., 201 W. 85th, Royal W. France, Esq., 104 E. 40th, Reuben Terris, Esq., 150 Nassau, all of NYC; Vincent Hallinan, Esq., 345 Franklin, San Francisco.
110.13. U. S. v. Mirabal, et al. (formerly listed as U. S. v. Santos Rivera, et al.) (U.S.D.C., Puerto Rico.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4. Motion (1) to quash indictment because rule that Grand Jurors read, write English bars majority of population, esp. workers and poorer sections argued; decision reserved. Motion (2) to dismiss because Commonwealth status of P.R. affects applicability of Smith Act and jurisdiction of Court raised in earlier habeas corpus proceedings, denied. Motion (3) to change requirement that all trial proceedings be in English when several Defs. don't understand that language not yet filed.
120. Federal seditious conspiracy indictments—18 USC 2384

120.1. U. S. v. Lebron, et al. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4. Petition for certiorari denied Oct. 24, 1955.
120.2. U. S. v. Valle, et al. (CA 2, #C145-293.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Argued Nov. 18, 1955 before CA 2. Decision awaited.
130. State anti-sedition indictment (post World War I statutes)

130.1. Pennsylvania v. Nelson. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Argued before U.S.S.C. Nov. 15 and 16, 1955.

Victor Rabinowitz, Esq., 25 Broad St., NYC and Herbert Thatcher, Esq., Ring Bldg., Washington, D. C.

Amicus briefs filed: by Civil Liberties Committee of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Religious Society of Friends, Philadelphia, Pa., by Walter C. Longstreth, Esq., 704 Bailey Bldg., Allen S. Olmsted, 2nd, Esq., 2301 Packard Bldg., and William Allen Rahill, Esq., 2730 Lewis Tower, all of Philadelphia; by American Civil Liberties Union, by Osmond K. Fraenkel, Esq., 120 Broadway, and Herbert Monte Levy, Esq., 170 Fifth Ave., both of NYC, and Julien E. Goldberg, Esq., 20 S. 15th St., Philadelphia; by Phil Feldman, et al., by Frank J. Donner, Esq., 342 Madison Ave., NYC.
130.2. Pennsylvania v. Dolson. *
130.3. Kentucky v. Braden, et al. *

And see S. End Federal Svgs. & Loan v. Roan, Braden and Wade (640.3).
130.4. Massachusetts v. Struik, et al. (Middlesex Sup. Ct., Crim. #40726, 40727, 40734, 40735.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Additional issue before Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.: whether indictments bad because of failure to allege intent to accomplish overthrow of State and Fedl. Gov'ts by force and violence. Decision awaited, may not be handed down until decision in Nelson (130.1).
130.5. Massachusetts v. Hood, et al. (Suffolk Cty. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Oct. 18, 1955, Schirmer, one of 7 co-Defs. in conspiracy indictment, appeared voluntarily at office of District Attorney. He was allowed to go on own recognizance until following day when matter was heard before Judge Voke. Bail: $2,000. Nov. 1st, Schirmer filed motions to quash, for bill of particulars and requesting an interlocutory report to Supreme Judicial Court. Counsel for Schirmer intend to bring this case in line with that of other six co-Defs.
140. Federal registration provisions—Internal Security Act of 1950

140.1. Communist Party of U. S. v. Subversive Activities Control Board. (U.S.S.C. #48.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Nov. 17, 1955: Case argued and submitted.
140.4. Brownell v. Labor Youth League. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. To be argued Jan., 1956.
140.5. Brownell v. Jefferson School. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Def.'s brief filed Dec. 6.
140.6. Brownell v. Civil Rights Congress. (SACB #106-53.) *
140.7. Brownell v. Natl. Council of American-Soviet Friendship. (SCAB #104-53.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Appeal from recommended decision of Hearing Officer has been argued before full Board. Decision awaited.
140.8. Brownell v. California Labor School in San Francisco. (SACB.) *
140.9. Brownell v. Californians for the Bill of Rights. (SCAB.) *
140.10. Brownell v. Washington Pension Union. (SCAB #114-55.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Prior to hearings, Def. Pension Union moved to disqualify Harry P. Cain as Hearing Officer because of declared bias, citing his statement while U. S. Senator that Def. was "a notorious Communist front". Motion denied. At hearing, Cain denied 16 motions to dismiss all or parts of Gov't's charges; granted motion to strike Gov't's contention that Communist Party itself secretly founded Def.-Union. Thereafter Dep't of Justice moved to disqualify Cain for bias against Def., after Def. said it does not wish to disqualify Cain because he has conducted hearings in "strictly impartial" manner. Hearing suspended while SACB considers Gov't's motion to disqualify.
140.11. Brownell v. Am. Comm. for Protection of Foreign Born. (SACB.) *
140.12. Brownell v. American Peace Crusade. (SACB #117-56.) Def.-dissolved organization received charges of Communist domination and infiltration. Motion for leave to intervene and to dismiss complaint filed Oct. 15, 1955 by former officer; opposed by Gov't. SACB ordered former officer, as intervenor, to answer allegations in petition before Dec. 5.

Royal W. France, Esq., 104 E. 40th, NYC.
150. Federal proceedings under Communist Control Act of 1954

150.1. Brownell v. Intl. Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers. (SACB.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Oct. 24: Preliminary motions argued before SACB, including charge that Brownell brought action against Def.-Union during hardfought strike and with intention of helping break the strike. Decision awaited.

And see Mine, Mill (165.1).
- 36 -

150.2. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Brownell. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Appeal pending from decision of Dist. Ct. adverse to Pl.
160. U. S. Attorney General's "listing" power under Executive Order 10450

160.1. National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell. (U.S.S.C. #496.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Resp.'s brief in opposition to petition filed Nov. 28. Pl.'s reply brief filed Dec. 7.

Petition for leave to file brief as amicus curiae filed Dec. 7 by the following members of California Bar: Walter Shatford, Temple City; Arthur A. Brooks, Jr. and C. Richard Maddox, Beverly Hills; Paul Roest, Canoga Park; James T. Phillips and Michael Stolzberg, Pasadena; Leigh Athearn, A. Philip Burton, Laura O. Coffield, Benjamin M. Davis, David E. Lombardi, John H. McSeeley, Jr. and Morgan V. Spicer, San Francisco; Kenneth Chantry, Nathan R. Herzberg, Xenophon Lang, Louis Lawson, Stanley R. Malone, Hugh Manes, Brian G. Manion, Lester A. McMillan, Rudolph Pacht, Kelsey Petterson, Anthony Randles, David Sokol and J. B. Tietz, Los Angeles.
160.3. Natl. Council of American-Soviet Friendship v. Brownell. (DC DC CA #2663-48.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Nov. 15: Judge Youngdahl granted Gov't's motion for summary judgment because of Pl.'s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. To be appealed.
160.4. Assn. of Lithuanian Workers v. Brownell. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Appeal pending in CA for Dist. of Col.
160.5. Natl. Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions, Inc. v. Brownell. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7. Administrative proceedings going forward concurrently.
160.6. Brownell v. Independent Socialist League. (Before Hearing Officer Morrissey, borrowed by Att'y Gen'l from SACB.) *
165. N.L.R.B. decertification of Unions

165.1. Intl. Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers v. N.L.R.B. (Precision Scientific Co., Intervenor.) (CA D.C., #122573.) Feb., 1954, N.L.R.B. issued order directing "administrative investigation" re truth or falsity of 7 Taft-Hartley non-Communist affidavits executed by secy.-treas. Travis between 1949-1953. Feb., 1955: N.L.R.B. issued order finding affidavits false, that members of union were aware of their falsity, therefore union had not been in compliance with requirements of 9h. Finding based on public statement of Travis resigning from Communist Party prior to signing first oath, which Bd. held was in fact statement that he did still believe in and support Comm. Party in its advocacy of violent overthrow of Gov't. Pl.-union sought preliminary injunction in D.C. for Dist. of Col. Feb. 11, 1955: Ct. denied certification to Pl.-union. Nov. 10, 1955: CA for Dist. of Col. reversed, on authority of Farmer v. Intl. Fur and Leather Workers Union, 221 F. 2d 862.

Nathan Witt, Esq., 9 E. 40th St., NYC.

And see Travis (240.7).
165.2. N.L.R.B. v. Lannom Mfg. Co. (CA 6.) Resp.-employer refused to obey N.L.R.B. order, based upon its unfair labor practice against Intl. Fur & Leather Workers Union. N.L.R.B. filed petition for enforcement of its order. Resp. moved to dismiss petition on ground that union not in compliance with 29 USCA 159(h), requiring filing of non-Communist affidavit. Such affidavit had been filed for period in question (1951) by Ben Gold, then Union president, but employer alleged Gold's indictment and conviction for filing false affidavit in 1950. (See Gold, 240.4.) Oct., 1955, CA 6 held: Court can and should look behind naked affidavit and, based upon finding of falsity as to 1950 affidavit by a jury, held there was lack of compliance in 1950 which continued as long as same conditions continued to exist. N.L.R.B. filed brief supporting position Court took; union filed brief opposing it, citing Farmer v. Intl. Fur & Leather Workers (CA D.C., 221 F. 2d 862), where Court held filing of affidavit was compliance and neither N.L.R.B. nor Court could go behind it. Motion to dismiss proceeding granted.

Harold Cammer, Esq., 9 E. 40th St., NYC.
170. State officials "listing" powers

170.1. Reply of World Fellowship, Inc. and Dr. Uphaus to Report by Wyman, N. H. Atty. Genl. (Superior Ct., Concord.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7. After service of new summons on Dr. Uphaus to conform to S. Ct. decision, argument set for Jan. 5, 1956 on question of whether Uphaus should be punished for contempt for refusal to give names of guests at conference and correspondence on 1st Amdt. grounds.

See cases at 301.
170.2. Kaplan, et al v. Bowker, et al. (members of Mass. General Court). (Supreme Judicial Ct. #54,734.) *
170.3. Tormey v. Bowker, et al. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., Suffolk Co., Eq. #68546.) *
170.4. Luscomb v. Bowker, et al. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., Suffolk Co.) *
180. Other state actions against organizations

180.1. Green v. Clancy. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7. Oct. 4: SD NY denied Pl.'s motion to dismiss. Dec. 5: U.S.S.C. denied Pl.'s motion for leave to file writs of mandamus and prohibition directing appointment of 3-judge court.
180.3. New York v. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, et al. (N. Y. Sup. Ct., NY County.) Suit by Atty. Genl. to require Def.-organization and former officers to account for $1,500,000 received by them, describe how moneys dispersed, and to require Defs. to make good any moneys expended for purposes other than those for which they were received. Action based on Atty. Genl.'s power, as representative of the people, to require organizations which raise money for charitable purposes to account for their funds, under cy pres doctrine. Motion filed by Def.-organization to dismiss complaint because it has dissolved to be argued Jan. 13, 1956. Motions by individual Defs. to dismiss for failure to state cause of action and because complaint exceeds powers of Atty. Genl. to be argued.

Gloria Agrin and Blanch Freedman, Esqs., 220 Broadway; Royal W. France, Esq., 104 E. 40th; Nathan Frankel, Esq., 521 Fifth Ave.; Samuel Neuberger, Esq., 217 Broadway; Arthur Schutzer, Esq., 25 Broad; O'Dwyer & Bernstein, Esqs., 40 Wall; O. John Rogge, Esq., 401 Broadway, all of NYC.
- 37 -

200. Freedom of Association—Governmental limitations on individuals
201. Federal membership indictments—Smith Act

201.2. U. S. v. Lightfoot. (CA 7.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. Nov. 1: Argued and submitted.

Additional amicus brief: American Civil Liberties Union, by Francis Heisler, Esq., 7 S. Dearborn, Warren Krinsky, Esq., 1st Natl. Bank Bldg., Henry Heineman, Esq., 135 S. LaSalle, and F. Raymond Marks, Jr., Esq., 19 S. LaSalle, all of Chicago.
201.3. U. S. v. Scales. (CA 4.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. Nov. 7: CA unanimously sustained conviction, by Parker, J. and upheld constitutionality of membership clause of Smith Act, citing Dennis and Frankfeld. Ct. held that Sec. 4f of Internal Security Act only forbids conviction for "mere membership in party", but "Membership with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the organization remains a crime", citing 50 USC 795. "* * * not necessary to his guilt that the def. take part in the teaching or have a hand in the preparation of documents of the Communist Party or even that he be shown to be familiar with the documents. All that it was necessary to show was that the party did advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence and that he became or remained a member during the period not barred by the statute of limitations with knowledge of that unlawful purpose." Petition for rehearing pending.
201.4. U. S. v. Blumberg. (ED Pa.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. Motion to dismiss indictment argued; awaiting decision.
201.5. U. S. v. Noto. (NY Roch. Dist.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. Motion to dismiss argued in Oct. before Judge Burke. Briefs submitted; decision awaited.

Charles J. McDonough, Esq., Walbridge Bldg., Buffalo.

And see Noto at 570.
201.6. U. S. v. Weiss. (ND Ill. ED.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. Oct. 27: Motion to dismiss filed; ruling due Jan. 20, 1956. Edmund Hatfield, Esq., 7 S. Dearborn, Chicago.
210. State anti-communist membership indictments

210.1. Ala. v. Knox. (Ala. Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. Appeal argued Nov. 29. Decision awaited.
210.3. Albertson v. Millard. (Mich. S. Ct.) *
210.4. Mass. v. Struik. (Middlesex Super. Ct., Crim. #40725.) *
210.5. Mass. v. Hood. (Suffolk Co., #11492; Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.) *
220. "Loyalty-security" dismissals of government employees—UN, US, states, cities

220.1. Leff, Duberg and Wilcox v. Luther Evans. (Before Adm. Trib. of ILO.) *
220.1a. Van Gelder, Pankey & Frome v. UNESCO. (Admr. Trib. of UN.) UNESCO ordered by UN Admr. Trib. to reinstate and pay indemnities to 3 employees dismissed for refusal to appear before U. S. Loyalty Bd. Facts identical to Leff (220.1) except that employees herein had permanent contracts; employees in Leff had only temporary contracts. Nov. 25, 1955: UNESCO decided not to appeal to Intl. Ct. of Justice but to pay $24,000 to Pls. Jacques Mercier, Esq., 36 rue de Bellechasse, Paris, France.
220.1b. Bernstein v. UNESCO. (Amdr. Trib. of UN.) Facts identical with Van Gelder (220.1a). Pending.
220.3. Service v. Dulles, et al. (DC DC, CA #4967-52.) For facts, see I DOCKET 9. Nov. 1: Record on appeal filed in CA for Dist. of Col.
220.4. Re Taylor. (Int'l Organization Employes Loyalty Bd.) For facts, see I DOCKET 9. Oct. 20-21: hearings held before Int'l Org. Employes Loyalty Bd., which requested Elizabeth Bentley to appear and testify, but took no action re her failure to respond. Taylor says charges against him based almost entirely on Bentley's testimony. Additional documentary evidence filed by Taylor Nov. 5; decision awaited.
220.5. Kutcher v. Higley. (CA D.C.) *
220.6. Cole v. Young. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 9. Nov. 21: U.S.S.C. granted certiorari.
220.50. In the Matter of Hamilton, Resp. v. Monahan, NYC Police Comm'r. (NY Ct. of App.) (285 N. Y. App. Div. 692.) Resp. took and passed examination for patrolman in NYC Police Dept. Proceeding under Art. 78 to direct Civil Service Comm. to certify him was successful, so name put on list. When Resp.'s name reached on list, Def.-Police Comm'r refused to appoint, in exercise of his discretion, based on Resp.'s signing nominating petition for Comm. Party candidate 10 yrs. ago. Second Art. 78 proceeding brought in Sup. Ct. Greenberg, J. held: Comm'r's refusal to appoint "arbitrary and capricious", directed Resp.'s appointment. Apr. 26, 1955: App. Div., 1st Dept., remitted case back to Special Term for trial to decide whether Comm'r had acted capriciously and arbitrarily. Leave to appeal from this decision to N. Y. Ct. of App. granted.

Weaver, Evans, Wingate & Wright, Esqs., 160 Broadway, NYC.

See "Government Employment and the Loyalty-Security Program" by David I. Shapiro, XV Lawyers Guild Rev. #4 (Winter, 1955).
222. "Loyalty-security" indictments re application for government employment (18 USCA 1001)

222.1. U. S. v. McDaniel. (ED Wash., S. Div., #C-4519.) Indictment charging Def. under 18 USCA Sec. 1001 with making false statements in application for job with Atomic Energy Commission in having answered "No" to questions of membership in organizations on Att'y Gen'l's list. Charge: membership in Nat'l Negro Labor Council and Wash. Pension Union (see 140.10), neither of which organizations was on list submitted to Def. Bail: $2500. Oct. 24, 1955: Judge Driver ordered bill of particulars to
- 38 -

BOD include photostatic copy of AEC questionnaire. Motion to dismiss pending.

John Caughlan, Esq., 702 Lowman Bldg., Seattle. See cases at 160.
225. "Loyalty-security" less - than - honorable discharges from Armed Services

225.3. Lt. Mitchell. (U.S. Air Force, 10th Air Force.)*
225.20. Harmon v. Stevens. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10. Argued Nov. 21st; decision awaited.
225.21. Name Withheld v. Herren, et al. (SD NY, CA #103-137.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10. Argued; decision awaited.
225.22. Bernstein, et al. v. Lt. Gen. Herren. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10. Nov. 21: Judge Edelstein dismissed Gov't's cross motion to dismiss complaint; held Pl.-soldiers had good cause of action. (1) "But a well recognized exception to the requirement of the exhaustion of administrative remedies exists where the action of the administrative body is jurisdictionally defective in the violation of the Pls.' legal rights under statute." (2) "But it is contended that the procedure under AR 604-10, insofar as it purports to authorize proceedings based upon conduct antedating induction, is not authorized and is illegal. With this position, on the basis of the assumptions made, I am in agreement. An honorable discharge encompasses a property right, as well as civil rights and personal honor. * * * Yet to put a soldier in jeopardy of a less than honorable discharge for acts committed prior to induction—and for acts which were not criminal—is scarcely less offensive to our notions of rudimentary fairness." Motion for preliminary injunction pending.

And see cases at 450.

See "Security Program in the Armed Forces" by Stanley Faulkner, XV Lawyers Guild Rev. #4 (Winter, 1955).
227. "Loyalty-security" denials of veterans' disability payments

227.1. Thompson v. Veterans Admin. (Vet. Adm.) Thompson, World War II veteran, received disability payments for tuberculosis contracted while in active service. After conviction under Smith Act conspiracy indictment (U. S. v. Dennis, et al.) disability payments were stopped on claim that, by his conviction, he has forfeited payments. Appeal pending before Central Comm. on Waivers & Forfeitures of Vet. Adm. Among issues raised are: (1) usurpation of judicial power by V.A. in construing Smith Act violation to constitute "rendering aid to enemies of U.S. and its allies"; (2) construction of 38 USCA 728 to include Smith Act conviction violates 1st Amendment and adds extra punishment not contained in Act; (3) action constitutes deprivation of property rights without due process. Robert Z. Lewis, Esq., 615 Columbus Ave., NYC.
227.2. Wellman v. Veterans Administration. (Vet. Adm.) Wellman, World War II veteran receiving disability payments for heart wound sustained in battle, was one of Defs. convicted in Smith Act conspiracy case (Wellman, 110.3). After conviction he was notified his disability payments would be stopped under Ser. 4 of P.L. 144, 38 USCA 728, which provides for suspensions of payments to anyone found guilty of treason, espionage, sabotage or rendering aid to enemies of U.S. or their allies. Upon appeal to Central Comm. on Waivers & Forfeitures in Vet. Adm., termination of payments approved on sole finding that conviction established he had been "rendering aid to enemies of U.S. or its allies". Appeal to be taken to courts. Sol Wellman, pro se, Detroit, Michigan.
230. "Loyalty-security" dismissals v. academic freedom

230.1. Matter of Hughes v. Bd. of Higher Education. (N.Y. Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10. Nov. 23: Ct. of App. unaimously affirmed App. Div., 1st Dept., decision, by Desmond, J. "The sole question before us on this appeal is as to whether a public school or a college teacher, dismissed because of Communist Party membership, has a right after dismissal to a court trial of the same charges * * * we answer that question in the affirmative."

And see cases at 440, 460.
240. Perjury indictments against trade union officials under Taft-Hartley oath

240.3. Jencks v. U. S. (CA 5, #15157.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10-11. Oct. 26: CA 5 affirmed conviction; affirmed denial of motion for new trial based on reversal of witness Matusow's testimony. Petitions for rehearing filed Nov. 16; pending.

And see: Matusow (545.2) and Witt (480.2).
240.4. Gold v. U. S. (CA DC, #12,352.)*

And see Cammer (560.4), N.L.R.B. (165.2).
240.5. U. S. v. Fisher. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Argued Dec. 15.
240.6. U. S. v. Bryson. (ND Cal. SD. #33,630.)*
240.7. U. S. v. Travis. (DC Colo., #14266.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Trial opened Nov. 28.

And see Mine, Mill (165.1).
240.8. U. S. v. Lohman. (CA 6.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Appeal pending.

And see cases at 165.
250. "Loyalty-security" dismissals in private employment

250.1. Black et al. on behalf of United Office and Professional Workers Union Local v. Cutter Laboratories. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Oct. 10: unlimited certiorari granted; oral argument Spring, 1956.

And see Klug (255.3).
250.2. Parker, et al. v. Lester, et al. (CA 9, #14081.) (112 F. Supp. 433.) Action brought by group of seamen to enjoin Commandant and other officers of local Coast Guard Area in enforcement of their regulations for screening seamen for merchant ships from determining whether they are "safe and suitable" for security clearance under provisions
- 39 -

of Magnuson Act, 50 USCA 191-2-4, and Exec. Orders 10173-10277 and 10352 issued thereunder. Under existing regulations, Commandant issued or withheld clearance on basis of his belief as to seaman's reliability for national security in light of certain standards, including advocacy of overthrow of Gov't by force or membership or affiliation with organizations on Att'y Gen'l's list. Appeal from denial of clearance to local bd. and national bd. provided for, but seaman had no access to information on which original decision was predicated, and appeal boards had advisory power only, Commandant having final authority to grant or withhold clearance. Dist. Ct. held: even mindful of Gov't security, "due process' required that seaman be advised of specific basis for determination where clearance was denied with such specificity as to afford him reasonable notice of basis and opportunity to refute; ordered that Pls. entitled to Bills of Particulars, but that Gov't need not disclose identity or source of information on which it acted. Oct., 1955, CA 9 held: Dist. Ct. relief insufficient; right to employment a property right, constitutionally protected and that need for Gov't security did not require denial of "due process" in traditional sense; seamen entitled to charges, right of confrontation and cross-examination and therefore held existing regulations invalid, granting injunction against their application. Court also held: no "exhaustion of administrative remedies" necessary since administrative lack of real appeal procedure and review made no relief there possible.

Gladstein, Andersen, Leonard & Sibbett, Esqs., 240 Montgomery, San Francisco, Cal.

And see cases at 470.

See "How the Loyalty-Security Program affects Private Employment" by Henry Mayer, XV Lawyers Guild Rev. #4 (Winter, 1955).
255. Denial of Unemployment Compensation

255.1. Re Fitzpatrick. (Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review.)*
255.2. Re Albert. (Unemployment Compensation Referee.)*
255.3. In re Klug. (Wis. Unemp. Comp. Dept., Hearing No. 23293 C.) Employee, on application form of Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. filed 1953, listed only high school education. 1955: employer learned Klug had B.S. degree in Agronomy; discharged him for concealment. Co. contends it would have screened Klug further if it had known of university degree and thus would have discovered Klug's political "activities, affiliations, and tendencies" which it deemed to be "subversive or generally undesirable", and would probably not have hired him. Unemp. Comm. Deputy allowed benefits. Nov. 24, 1955: on appeal, affirmed: "employer has failed to establish that the employee's understatement of his education related to a significant factor that was material in determining his fitness for the work for which he applied, especially considering that in the ensuing two years of employment no fault was found with either his performance of services or his general conduct with relation to his employment. Under these circumstances he was not discharged because of wilfull and substantial disregard of the employer's interests amounting to misconduct. * * *"

M. Michael Essin, Esq., 623 N. 2nd St., Milwaukee. See Black (250.1).

And see cases at 475.
260. Actions against attorneys based on alleged political associations

260.2. In re Schlesinger. (Sub-comm. of Comm. on Offenses of Allegheny Cty., Common Pleas Ct., Pa.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Resp.-atty. has requested Allegheny County Bar Assn. to assist him in obtaining counsel prior to summation by Resp.
260.3. In re Steinberg. (Sub-comm. of Comm. on Offenses of Allegheny Cty., Common Pleas Ct., Pa.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. No report expected until conclusion of Schlesinger (260.2).

And see 420, 480, and 560.
270. Refusals to issue licenses on "loyalty-security" grounds

270.1. Appcal of Shonick. (Docket No. 8, District of Columbia Bd. of Appeals and Review.)*
270.2. In re Application of Dispatch, Inc., Erie, Pa., for Renewal of License of Television Station WICU. (Fedl. Comm. Comm., #11048, File BRCT-42.) Owner: Edward Lamb). For facts, see I DOCKET 12. Dec. 7: FCC H'g Exam. Sharfman recommended renewal of license, ruling "there is no proof that Lamb personally engaged in any subversive activity". Exam. disbelieved some Gov't "expert" witnesses (see Natvig, 545.1, Zuker, 550.1, at I DOCKET 23), and doubted witness Budenz' "prodigious powers of almost total recall of events so long ago, which must not have loomed large at the time they were supposed to have happened". But Exam. held FCC had been justified in conducting investigation. Recommendation becomes effective in 40 days unless reviewed by FCC.
280. Denial of passports on "loyalty-security" grounds

280.5. Zlatovski v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. Motion for summary judgment pending.
280.6. McIntire v. Dulles. (DC DC.)*
280.8. Boudin v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. Pl. moved for summary judgment and preliminary injunction; Def. moved for summary judgment. Nov. 22: Judge Youngdahl sent case back to Passport Office for hearing within 20 days; ruled hearing to be "quasi-judicial", with disclosure by Def. of evidence on which its denial of passport was based.
280.10. Foreman v. Dulles. (DC DC.) Action to compel issuance of passport; issues substantially the same as Nathan (280.1; I DOCKET 12). Motion for temporary restraining order denied. Issue has now been joined by service of answer.

Sidney Elliot Cohn, Esq., 1776 Broadway, NYC; van Arkel & Kaiser, Esqs., 1701 K St. N.W., Washington, D.C.
- 40 -

280.30. Robeson v. Dulles. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12-13. Gov't's motion for summary judgment granted. Appeal to CA from granting of motion for summary judgment and denial of motion for temporary injunction pending.
280.31. Golden v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Motion for preliminary injunction and summary judgment filed, but before argument passport issued.
290. Actions against the foreign-born based on alleged political associations

290.1. Crain v. Boyd, Distr. Dir. (CA 9, #14633.)*
290.3. U. S. v. De la Cruz. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Appeal pending.

See "Loyalty-Security and the Foreign-Born Citizen: Naturalization and Denaturalization Statutes" by Harry I. Rand, XV Lawyers Guild Rev. #4 (Winter, 1955).
300. Refusals to answer questions re political beliefs, affiliations,—contempt indictments
A. FEDERAL CASES
301. Before Congressional committees: based on First Amendment/no authority to ask

301.1. U. S. v. Lamont. (SD NY #145-216.)*
301.2. U. S. v. Unger. (SD NY #145-217.)*
301.3. U. S. v. Shadowitz. (SD NY #145-2.)*
301.4. U. S. v. O'Connor. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Def. found guilty after trial on Nov. 15; sentence: 1 yr. in jail (suspended), $500 fine. Ct. held: Committee had jurisdiction; refused to apply 1st Amendment on strength of Lawson (176 F. 2d 49, U.S.S.C. denied cert.). Appeal pending.
301.5. U. S. v. C. Davis. (WD Mich.)*
301.6. U. S. v. Watson. (DC DC.)*
301.7. U. S. v. Barenblatt. (DC DC Crim. #1154-54.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Trial adjourned to Jan., 1956.
301.8. U. S. v. Lorch. (SD Ohio.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Sept. 26: Judge Cecil decided Def.'s motion for bill of particulars. (1) Denied ground which sought to require Gov't to set forth certification of facts required to be made by Speaker of House (under 2 USC 194). Held indictment good without certification, but if Gov't cannot show certification, its case must fail. (2) Sustained ground which sought to require Gov't to set forth nature of question under inquiry to which questions in indictment were claimed to be pertinent. Order of decision not yet entered Nov. 18.
301.9. U. S. v. Russell. (DC DC, Crim. #1230.)*
301.10. U. S. v. Deutch. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Nov. 3: Dist. Ct. dismissed indictment on ground it had failed to allege that Def.'s refusal to answer was "wilful".
301.11. U. S. v. Markinson. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Upon request of Gov't, continued to Jan. 30, 1956 for trial.
310. Before Congressional committees: based on unwillingness to "inform"/lack of authority

310.2. U. S. v. Furry. (DC Mass. Crim., #54-390WA.)*
310.3. U. S. v. Kamin. (DC Mass. Crim. #54,389WA.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Jury trial commenced early Oct.; after applause for witness-Sen. McCarthy, mistrial moved by Def.; granted. Trial before Judge Aldrich without jury concluded in Nov. Counts dismissed: (3) Would Def. give names of Communists active with him in Communist Party; (4) Does Def. know E. Blum. Acquittal ordered at close of Gov't's case: (2) Did Def. know anyone teaching at Harvard or connected with Harvard who was either in his Communist cell or known by him to be Communist; (6) While he was Comm., paid member of Comm. Party, press organizer, did he then know anyone connected with Harvard who was also a Comm. Counts tried on merits; briefs filed Dec. 7: (1) Whether or not individuals known to Def. to be members of Comm. Party are now working in defense plants; (5) Did Def. know whether Blum had contacts with people handling Gov't classified material. Decision awaited on (1), (5).
310.4. U. S. v. Metcalf. (SD Ohio.)*
310.5. U. S. v. Arguimbau. (DC Crim. 1149-1954.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Nov. 2: Convicted after trial without jury before Judge Morris. Sentence: 1 yr. and $500 fine, suspended. Appeal taken.
310.6. U. S. v. Singer. (DC DC.)*
310.7. Watkins v. U. S. (CA DC #12,797.)*
320. During trial: based on Fifth Amendment privilege/refusal to "inform"

320.1. U. S. v. Phillips. (CA 9.)*
320.4. Yates v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Petition for rehearing denied. Petition for certiorari pending in U.S.S.C.
330. During deportation and denaturalization proceedings: lack of authority/refusal to "inform"

330.1. U. S. v. Minker. (USSC #625.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Decision awaited following Nov. argument.
330.2. Falcone v. Barnes. (USSC #716.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Decision awaited following Nov. argument. Anthony S. Falcone, Esq., 1213 1st Nat'l Bk. Bldg., Utica, NY.
330.3. Vivian v. U. S. (USSC #322.)*

And see Keller, 570.5.
340. Before Congressional committee: based on Fifth Amendment privilege

340.3. U. S. v. Dunham. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Oct. 19, 1955: Def. acquitted after trial. Ct. held: under
- 41 -

circumstances presented here, witness justified in refusing to answer questions re place of employment and education under 5th Amendment privilege.
340.4. U. S. v. Starkovich. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Argued: Dec. 16. Decision awaited.
340.5. U. S. v. Jackins. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Argued: Dec. 16. Decision awaited.
340.6. U. S. v. Fagerhaugh. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Argued Dec. 9 on questions of: use of 5th Amendment, lack of pertinency of questions, waiver of privilege, bad faith on part of Committee, failure to direct witness to answer. Decision awaited.
340.7. U. S. v. Grossman. (CA DC, #12,052.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Heard and submitted; decision pending.
340.8. U. S. v. Hoag. (DC DC.) *
350. Before Court or grand jury: based on Fifth Amendment privilege
351. Federal Immunity Statute invoked

351.1. U. S. v. Ullmann. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Argued Dec. 6; decision awaited.
351.2. U. S. v. Fitzgerald. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Appeal pending.
360. Inability/refusal to produce records before Congressional Committees

360.1. Flaxer v. U. S. (CA DC, #12,027.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Heard and submitted; decision pending.
370. Inability/refusal to produce records before Court/grand jury
380. Indictment for perjury before Congressional committees
B. STATE CASES
390. Before state official—based on First Amendment-equivalent

390.1. New Hampshire, by Wyman, Atty. Genl. v. Sweezy. (N.H. Sup. Ct., #4395.) For facts, see I DOCKET 17. Date of argument: Jan. 3, 1956.

Amicus briefs filed by: Academic Freedom Committee of Am. Civil Liberties Union, by George Soll, Esq., 170 5th Ave., NYC; Prof. G. H. Daggett, by Joseph Milimet, Esq.
395. Before state body—based on Fifth Amendment privilege-equivalent
396. State Immunity Statute invoked

396.2. Ohio v. Morgan. (Ohio Sup. Ct., #34,311.) *
396.3. Ohio v. Jackson and Terrill. *
396.4. Ohio v. Hupman, et al. *
396.5. Ohio v. Raley, et al. (Ohio Sup. Ct.) *
396.6. Ohio v. Slagle, et al. (Stark Co. Com. Pleas Ct., #15972.) *
396.7. Ohio v. Arnold, Thelma Furry, et al. (Ct. of App., 9th Dist., #4524-4531.) *
400. Sanctions against individuals for refusals to answer
A. BASED ON FLAT REFUSALS TO ANSWER
410. Denial of public housing—Gwinn Amendment oath

410.2. Lawson v. Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee, et al. (USSC, #354.) For facts, see I DOCKET 18. Def.'s petition for writ of certiorari denied Nov. 7, 1955. Def. has indicated it will not resist entry of judgment based on Wis. Sup. Ct. decision.
410.3. Dailey, et al. v. Housing Auth. of City of Seattle. (Wash. S. Ct.) *
410.4. Peters v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (NY App. Div., 2d Dept.) For facts, see I DOCKET 18. Argued; awaiting decision.
410.5. Weixel v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (NY App. Div., 2d Dept.) For facts, see I DOCKET 18. Argued; awaiting decision.
410.6. Levine v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (Sup. Ct., Bronx Co., #7289-1955.) *
410.7. New York City Housing Authority v. Sichel, et al. (1st Dist., Brooklyn.) For facts, see I DOCKET 18. Court decided in favor of Pl.-landlord on authority of Peters (410.4) and Weixel (410.5); stays on eviction granted to Dec. 31, 1955. Appeal pending.
410.8. Dupree v. Baltimore City Housing Authority. *
410.9. Wheatley, et al. v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority. *
410.10. Richmond Housing Authority v. Zumwalt. (Superior Ct., Contra Costa County.) Dispossess proceedings against tenants for failure to take oath of non-membership in Atty. Gen'l's list of organizations as required by Gwinn Amendment, dismissed by Municipal Judge Leo Marcallo, holding act unconstitutional. Appeal pending; briefs filed by both parties.

Joseph Landisman, Esq., 413 10th St., Richmond, Calif. and Lawrence Speiser, Esq., A.C.L.U. of N. Calif., 503 Market St., San Francisco, Calif.
410.11. San Francisco Housing Authority v. Thorner. (San Francisco Muni. Ct.) Issues same as Zumwalt (410.10). Judge Caulfield gave judgment to Pl.-Housing Auth. Matter still pending.

Franklyn Brown, Esq., and Lawrence Speiser, Esq., A.C.L.U. of N. Calif., 503 Market, San Francisco.
420. Actions against attorneys

420.3. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California and Committee of Bar Examiners. (USSC.) Suit by Pl.-applicant for admission
- 42 -

to the Bar to reverse Def.'s refusal to admit, despite Pl.'s successfully passing Bar examination. Def.-Comm.'s refusal based on failure to show "good moral character" in that, during Comm. hearings Pl. was accused of former membership in Communist Party, was identified by witness as having participated in Comm. Party meetings, and refused to answer any questions re political activities on ground that this violated his rights under 1st Amendment. Awaiting decision on petition for certiorari. Edward Mosk, Esq., 5305 Yucca St., Hollywood, Calif.

And see 260, 480, 560.
430. Loss of individual tax exemptions (Calif.)

430.1. Speiser v. Randall. (Calif. Superior Ct., Contra Costa County.) For facts, see I DOCKET 19. Calif. Supreme Ct. refused to hear appeal and referred back to intermediate appellate ct. Briefs filed.

Lawrence Speiser, Esq., A.C.L.U. of N. Calif., 503 Market, San Francisco, and Joseph Landisman, Esq., 413 10th St., Richmond, Calif.
430.2. Prince v. City & County of San Francisco. (Calif. Supreme Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 19. Record being prepared after notice of appeal filed Sept. 26, 1955.
430.3. Lehrer v. Hall. (Calif. Superior Ct.—Marin County.) *
430.4. Bliss v. Quinn. (Calif. Superior Ct.—Los Angeles.) *

And see cases at 30.
440. Attacks against academic loyalty oaths

440.1. Savelle and Nostrand v. U. of Wash., et al. (Thurston Cty. Superior Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 19. Temporary restraining order continued pending hearing; Atty. Gen. has filed answer. No date set yet for hearing; probably not heard until Wash. Sup. Ct. decides Dailey (410.3).
440.2. Lens v. Chicago Bd. of Education. (Chi. Cir. Ct.) Pl.-teacher seeks temporary injunction to prohibit Def.-Bd. from requiring loyalty oaths from city school teachers under new Broyles law. Ct., in declining to issue injunction and continuing case, indicated Chicago teachers need not worry about non-filing of oath until this or other test case goes to Sup. Ct. Pl. contends Def.-Bd. excluded from operation of law as part of city gov't; oath unconstitutional under 1st Amdt. Statute permits teachers to continue teaching despite failure to file oath, but pay is withheld. Pl. argues law can have only harassing purpose and is unwarranted intrusion into liberty of conscience.

Counsel supplied b Ill. Div., American Civil Liberties Union.
B. BASED ON CLAIM OF FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE
450. Refusal of honorable discharge from Armed Services

450.3. St. Helen v. Lt. Gen. Wyman, et al. (CA 9, #14,619.) *
450.4. Marshall v. Lt. Gen. Wyman, et al. (ND Calif. S. Div., #34533.) *

And see cases at 225.
455. Dismissal from government employment

455.1. Lerner v. Transit Authority. (#15187-1954 App. Div., 1st Dept., N.Y.) For facts, see I DOCKET 19. Appeal scheduled for Jan., 1956.
460. Dismissal from academic employment

460.3. Slochower v. Bd. of Education. (USSC, #466.) For facts, see I DOCKET 20. Appeal argued Oct. 18. Appt.'s basic argument: operation of N.Y.C. Charter, Sec. 903 resulting in his dismissal penalized him for exercising a federally protected right, i.e., to assert 5th Amendment. Privilege having been raised while being interrogated by Senate Comm., which had nothing to do with N.Y.C. school system, situation here different from any interrogations by school authorities. Further, summary dismissal without hearing was denial of due process. City argued 5th Amendment point had not been raised in N.Y. courts and was, therefore, not before court; city had right to draw inferences from invocation of 5th Amendment, regardless of whether question related to employee's fitness, and right of court review of dismissal satisfied requirement of due process, if any was needed.
460.5. Steinmetz v. Calif. State Bd. of Ed. (USSC, #288, Misc.) For facts, see I DOCKET 20. Oct. 1: petition for writ of certiorari filed.
460.6. Mass v. San Francisco Bd. of Education. (Cal. Supreme Ct.) Mass, school teacher, had been dismissed under State Dilworth Act for refusal to answer questions of Velde Un-American Activities Committee, and invoking 5th Amendment. Pl. also refused to answer questions when asked by school board before whom he was cited to appear. He had, however, given school board an affidavit several years before in which he had admitted membership in Communist Party from 1947-49. In action for re-instatement, Superior Ct. Judge decided against Pl. On appeal, Ct. of Appeals, 1st Dist., affirmed. Appeal now pending in Calif. Supreme Ct.

Lawrence Speiser, Esq., for A.C.L.U. of N. Calif., 503 Market St., San Francisco, Calif.
460.7. Schuyten v. Contra Costa Bd. of Education. (Sup. Ct. Contra Costa Co., Cal.) Facts similar to Mass (460.6). Pls., teachers, had refused to answer questions of local Burns Comm., were dismissed under provisions of Dilworth Act. Superior Ct. decided against Pls.; appeal pending in Ct. of Appeals, 1st Dist.

Joseph Genser, Esq., 340 11th, Richmond, Calif. and Lawrence Speiser, Esq., A.C.L.U. of N. Calif., 503 Market St., San Francisco, Calif.
460.8. Philadelphia Bd. of Education v. Beilan. (Com. Pleas Ct.) 1952: Appellee-teacher refused to discuss his alleged 1944 activity in Communist Political Ass'n with School Supt. 1953: Appellee invoked 5th Amdt. before House Comm. on Un-American Activities re political questions. Suspended on these 2 grounds for "incompetency" and "wilful and persistent violation of the school laws", Appellee appealed to Ct. under PL 30, Art. XI, Sec. 1132, as amended, 24 PS Sec. 11-1132. Oct. 20, 1955: Ct. unanimously reversed action of Supt. of Public instruction and set aside discharge. Ct. held: although teacher dismissed
- 43 -

for reasons stated above, proceedings actually concerned solely with suspected disloyalty, but "No attempt was made to prove" his disloyalty, as required by Sec. 217, Pechan Act, PL 1726, 65 PS 211. Refusal to answer questions "not relevant to the issue of his present competency as a teacher." Purpose of Teachers' Tenure Act (PL 309, Sec. 1205) would be undermined and teachers would have no semblance of security if such refusal should warrant dismissal. No school law or regulation violated by refusal to answer.

John Rogers Carroll, Esq., and Thomas D. McBride, Esq., both of Land Title Bldg., Philadelphia.

And see cases at 230 and 440.
470. Dismissal from private employment

470.1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), et al. v. General Electric Company. (CA DC, #12,628.) For facts, see I DOCKET 20. Argued before Judges Edgerton, Washington and Danaher; awaiting decision.

And see cases at 250.
475. Denial of unemployment compensation

475.2. Garfield v. Division of Employment Security and Allis Chalmers. (Mun. Ct. Boston, #410636.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21. Nov. 17, 1955: Court vacated decision disqualifying Pl. for claiming 5th Amendment because employer's exhibits (re use of 5th) not made in regular course of business and before beginning of civil proceeding. Record discloses no "legally competent substantial evidence to support * * * allegation * * * petitioner was guilty of deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employing unit's interest."
475.3. Kilpatrick v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Ct., #669433.) Application for review of decision denying unemployment compensation to employee who had been discharged because in testimony before Ohio Un-American Activities Commission he had invoked 5th Amendment. Decision pending.

Philip Bartell, Esq., Engineers Bldg., Ohio.

Amicus brief filed by Ohio Civil Liberties Union, by Sydney S. Friedman, Esq. and Nelson G. Karl, Esq., both of Engineers Bldg., Cleveland.

And see cases at 255.
480. Disbarment of attorneys

480.1. Sheiner v. Florida. (Dade County Circuit Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., #167991-H.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21. Case now pending in original court. State taking depositions of witnesses. Motion to compel Pl.-atty. to answer petition on specifications as to which he asserted 5th Amendment denied.

And see 260, 420, 560.
II. RIGHT TO FAIR PROCEDURES AND TRIAL—FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

510. Use of evidence illegally obtained—Fourth Amendment
511. Wiretapping

511.1. New York v. Broady. (NYC Genl. Sess. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21. Jury trial in progress week of Nov. 28th. Judge Goldstein dismissed 2 counts of illegal wiretapping because evidence showed taps placed on phones at request of telephone subscribers, which is legal.
511.2. Pennsylvania v. Chaitt. (USSC., Oct. Term, 1955, #141.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21. Oct. 10, 1955: certiorari denied.
511.4. Wirin v. Parker, L.A. Police Chief. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21. Super. Ct. denied injunction against Def.-Police Chief on ground that a taxpayer (such as Pl.) does not have sufficient interest to secure such relief. On appeal.
520. Right to indictment by grand jury of one's peers—Fifth Amendment
521. Challenge based on presence of Government employees
522. Challenge based mainly on absence of economic cross-section

522.1. Dow v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 22. Petition for certiorari filed Aug., 1955; pending.
523. Challenge based mainly on absence of members of minority groups

523.2. People v. White. (USSC Misc., #36, 1955 Term.) For facts, see I DOCKET 22. Certiorari denied.

Petition for leave to file brief amicus filed by Los Angeles-Hollywood-Beverly Hills Chapters, National Lawyers Guild, by Stanley Fleishman, Esq., 1741 Ivar St. and John W. Porter, Esq., 112 W. 9th St., both of Los Angeles.
523.3. Georgia v. Reece. (USSC). Def.-Negro arrested Oct. 20, 1953, indicted 3 days later for rape, convicted Oct. 30. Ga. S. Ct.: reversed because of errors in trial ct. On retrial, convicted; Ga. S. Ct. affirmed. Before U.S.S.C., Def. argued Negroes systematically excluded from Ga. grand and petit juries which heard his case; unconstitutionality of Ga. law requiring Def. to challenge composition of grand jury before indictment returned as violation of 14th Amdt. due process provisions. Dec. 5, 1955: U.S.S.C. unanimously reversed, by Clark, J., holding: 1) systematic exclusion of members of Def.'s race from indicting grand jury is denial of equal protection; 2) such systematic exclusion existed here, where no Negro had served on jury in 18 yrs.; 3) Def. had not had opportunity to challenge composition of grand jury before indictment
- 44 -

dictment returned, since jury impanelled 8 days before arrest and adjourned and reconvened 2 days after arrest by order not listing Def. as one against whom a case would be presented. Remanded for consideration of question of grand jury composition.
523.4. Louisiana v. Poret and Labat. (USSC.) Defs. indicted for rape. Def.-Poret fled La. thereafter; La. found him in Tenn. prison; not released till term expired. On return to La., Def.-Poret moved to quash indictment on ground of exclusion of Negroes from grand jury. Trial ct. convicted; La. S. Ct. affirmed, holding motion came 1½ yrs. too late. Dec. 5, 1955: U.S.S.C. affirmed conviction (6-3) by Clark, J., upholding constitutionality of La. statute requiring that objections to grand jury composition be raised before end of 3d judicial day after end of term, or before trial, whichever is earlier. "Louisiana may attach reasonable time limitations to the assertion of Federal constitutional rights." Douglas, J., dissenting (joined by Warren, C.J., Black, J.): "His flight was a wrong that could be punished. But it is dangerous doctrine to deprive a man of his constitutional rights in one case for his wrongful conduct in another." Black, J., dissenting (joined by Warren, C.J., Douglas, J.); Def. had no "reasonable opportunity" to challenge grand-jury make-up.
523.5. Louisiana v. Michel. (USSC.) Def.-Negro convicted of waylaying 2 white girls. La. stat. re date of making objections to grand jury composition same as Poret (523.4). Issue: whether court appointed counsel in time for challenge to composition within statutory time. La. S. Ct.: affirmed conviction. Dec. 5, 1955: U.S.S.C. affirmed (6-3) by Clark, J.; Warren, C.J., Black, J. and Douglas J. dissenting.
525. Grand jury procedures
527. Right to jury trial—Fifth Amendment

527.1. U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles. (USSC, 1955 Term, #3.) (113 F. Supp. 330, 114 F. Supp. 468, 215 F. 2d 22.) Pet. arrested by military authorities 5 months after honorable discharge, taken to Korea to stand trial on charge of murder committed while airman there, under 50 U.S.C. Sec. 553 (provides that termination of Service shall not relieve anyone from trial by court-martial for serious offenses committed while in Service). Ct. of Appeals upheld the Act. Nov., 1955, U.S.S.C. (by Black, J.) held statute unconstitutional as invasion of Art. III which invests all judicial power in courts, and as denial of guarantee of jury trial, court declaring that person discharged from service is civilian and not subject to military.

Wm. A. Kehoe, Jr., Esq.

U.S. Army subsequent to Toth decision abandoned plans to court-martial 3 "turncoat" prisoners of war who were dishonorably discharged by Defense Secy. Wilson after they refused repatriation during prisoner exchange after Korean armistice.
530. Police violence and coerced confessions—Fifth Amendment

530.2. Cranor, Sup't, Wash. State Pen. v. Gonzales. (CA 9, #14245.) Habeas corpus proceeding by Def., convicted of murder in State Ct., on ground that confession used against him extorted by violence or fear of violence. Issue of voluntary nature of confession submitted to jury in trial, with other issues. U.S.D.C. found as a fact, on evidence independently introduced outside trial record, that confession extorted by violence and in violation of rights guaranteed by 14th Amdt. Issue before CA 9: right of Dist. Ct. to hear independent evidence where issue had been passed upon by jury and State Ct. CA affirmed Dist. Ct. ruling sustaining writ, holding Dist. Ct. had such power and that record of trial could not disclose whether jury had rejected or accepted confession (distinguishing Stein v. NY, 346 U.S. 156).

R. Max Etter and Ellsworth I. Connelly, Esqs., Spokane & Eastern Bldg., Spokane, Wash.
530.3. Admr. of Fields v. NYC & Applebaum. (Sup. Ct. Kings Co., NY, #2679/1952.) Decedent Negro man, 26 yrs. of age, was shot by Def. Applebaum, NYC policeman, and killed. Action brought in behalf of widow and 4 children for damages for wanton killing. Defense claimed shooting was in line of duty, that deceased was leaving scene of minor automobile accident. Trial resulted in verdict for Defts. Appeal now pending in App. Div., 2nd Dept. William Podell, Esq., 26 Court St., Brooklyn, N.Y.
540. Due process—Fifth Amendment

540.2. Hyun v. Landon. (USSC, #201.) (219 F. 2d 404 (CA 9).) Pet. contests deportation order to South Korea. Oct. 10, 1955: U.S.S.C. granted certiorari limited to question whether Immigration Service taking deposition from witness in Hawaii for use in Pet.'s Calif. hearing violated due process and constitutional standards of fair hearing when Pet. financially unable to procure counsel to represent him in Hawaii.

Amicus brief filed by A.C.L.U., S. Calif., by A. L. Wirin and Hugh R. Manes, Esqs., 257 S. Spring, Los Angeles. And see cases at 290.
545. Due process—Actions against recanting witnesses

545.1. U.S. v. Natvig. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. Oct. 7, 1955: argued before CA for Dist. of Col. The principal error alleged was Trial Judge Holtzoff's refusal to permit Gov't witnesses to be questioned as to whether they had permitted Mrs. Natvig to give evidence that they knew to be false.
545.2. Matusow v. U.S. (CA 5.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. Argued Nov. 15, 1955: awaiting decision.
545.3. U.S. v. Matusow. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. Tentative trial date: Dec. 19.
550. Due process—Right to acquittal/new trial based on perjured testimony, new facts

550.1. U.S. v. Zuker. (Immigration Service, Cleveland Office.)*

And see Lamb (270.2).
550.3. Salemi v. New York. (USSC, #261-1955 Term.)*
550.4. Illinois v. Miller. (Ill. Sup. Ct.)*
- 45 -

552. Right to speedy and public trial—Sixth Amendment

552.1. U.S. v. Provoo. (USSC, #195, 1954 Term.) Provoo indicted, tried and convicted in S.D. N.Y. for treason while prisoner of war in Japan. After conviction, Def. moved to vacate judgment on ground he was not tried in proper district under 18 USCA 3238, which required that for offences committed outside country, person must be tried in district where first "found". He had been discharged at Fort Jay, N.Y. and then apprehended on treason charge, but had first been brought to Ft. Meade. Motion to vacate denied (124 F. Supp. 185). CA 2 held: not tried in proper venue, reversed conviction (215 F. 2d 531). Reindicted in Md. D.C., Def. moved to dismiss on ground that oppressive delay in being tried (occasioned by having first been indicted in wrong district), violated guarantee of speedy trial in Sixth Amendment. Motion granted, indictment dismissed. On appeal to U.S.S.C. Dist. Ct. order affirmed per curiam, without opinion, Oct. 17/55.
555. Confrontation of witnesses—Sixth Amendment
And see Parker (250.2), Boudin (280.8), Hyun (540.2).
560. Indirect restrictions on right to counsel—Sixth Amendment

560.1. Re Gladstein. (DC Hawaii.)*
560.2. Re Bouslog. (Sup. Ct. of Terr. of Hawaii, #30441.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24. Motion to dismiss disciplinary proceedings overruled, Chief Justice dissenting as to charge re interviewing juror and submitting affidavit, feeling this is solely matter for U. S. Dist. Ct. Return due Dec. 2; hearing date: Jan. 9, 1956.
560.3. Re Braverman. (Md. Ct. of App., #108.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24. Appellant's brief has been filed and presents the following questions: Petition is demurrable because of the failure to allege specific statutory ground for disciplinary action; Appt. not guilty of crime involving moral turpitude and no proper finding was made by disbarring tribunal below; even if guilty of Smith Act violation, Appt. did not commit crime involving moral turpitude; disbarment order deprived Appt. of his constitutional rights under 1st and 14th Amendments and Md. Declaration of Rights, Arts. 1, 17 and 23; in view of severe punishment already suffered by Appt., ends of justice require that he be not disbarred.

Leave to file amicus brief granted to National Lawyers Guild.
560.4. Cammer v. U.S. (USSC, Summary Docket #110.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24. Oct. 10, 1955: certiorari granted.

And see 260, 420, 480.
570. Excessive bail/parole conditions—Eighth Amendment

570.1. Ohio v. Lumer. (Cleve. Muni. Ct.)*

See Stein (110.12); bail question pending on appeal to CA 2.
570.2. U.S. v. Stein. (CA 2.)*
201.5. U.S. v. Noto. (NY Roch. Dist.) Def., indicted under Smith Act membership provision, held pending appeal from $30,000 bail order. CA 2: upheld $30,000 bail, Clark, J., dissenting. Nov. 21: Dist. Judge Harlen reduced bail to $10,000. (See Noto, 201.5 supra.)

Charles McDonough, Esq., Walbridge Bldg., Buffalo, N. Y.
570.3. Nukk, et al. v. Shaughnessy. (SD NY.) (125 F. Supp. 498, 76 S. Ct. 114.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24. Application originally heard before statutory 3-judge court, which upheld Gov't's contention that "no case or controversy" was present, dismissed petitions without considering merits. Oct. 24, 1955: U.S.S.C. held, per curiam, cases do present "case or controversy" (citing Rochester Telephone Corp. v. U.S., 307 U. S. 125), reversed and remanded for consideration on the merits. Now pending in SD NY.
570.4. Resnikoff v. Horton. (ND Ill., ED, #1970.) Complaint filed by deportee for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief challenging constitutionality of supervisory parole provisions of Walter-McCarran Act, similar to Nukk (570.3). Nov. 23: 3-judge statutory court heard argument, found: there has not been presented to it a substantial Federal Question involving the unconstitutionality of this Statute.

Cyril D. Robinson, Esq., 20 E. Jackson St., Chicago.
570.5. U.S. v. Keller and Witkovich. (ND Ill., ED, #55 CR 608, 607.) Indictments of deportees for violation of supervisory parole provisions of Walter-McCarran Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(d) (3), see Nukk (570.3), Resnikoff (570.4). Charges based on Defs. having "wilfully fail to answer and reply to" a series of questions concerning their association and activities, membership in Communist Party and other organizations, etc., invoking 5th Amendment. Arraignments Nov. 10th, following release on $4,500 bail each.

Pearl M. Hart, Esq., 30 N. LaSalle, Chicago.

And see cases at 330.

See "The Loyalty-Security Program—Its Effect in Immigration and Deportation" by Blanch Freedman, XV Lawyers Guild Rev. #4 (Winter, 1955).
580. Cruel and unusual punishment and treatment—Eighth Amendment

580.1. Ohio v. Hashmall. For facts, see I DOCKET 24-5. As outgrowth of Hashmall sentence, Trial Judge Wanamaker sought certiorari (State ex rel. Wanamaker, Judge v. Miller, U.S.S.C.) to force Ohio Sup. Ct. to erase part of its opinion (160 O. S. 565) which said Judge probably had given consecutive sentences because Def. believed to be a Communist, and this was abuse of discretion. Nov. 7, 1955: U.S.S.C. denied certiorari.
580.2. Wisconsin v. Horowitz, alias Brown. (Milw. Cty. Munic. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 25. Motion to dismiss information filed on ground, among others, that no offense is charged. Briefs filed in Nov. Hearing on motion to be set in December.
580.3. DeSilva v. TWA. (SD NY, #99198.)*
- 46 -

585. Extradition resulting in cruel and unusual punishment—Eighth Amendment

585.2. In re Willie Reid. (Felony Court, Manhattan.)*
585.3. In re Rev. DeLaine. (Felony Ct., Manhattan.) Def., S. Caro. minister active in N.A.A.C.P. and in initiating Briggs case (610.3), seeking relief from extradition to S. Caro. on charge of assault and battery with intent to kill. After threats, burning down of his home and church, Oct. 10, 1955, DeLaine's home surrounded and he and wife shot at. DeLaine fired back at crowd, including Sheriff who had told him to shoot back next time cars threatened him to help identify attackers. Nov. 26: Def. surrendered to NYC Dist. Atty.; released in custody of African Methodist Episcopal Bishop. Case adjourned to Dec. 28.

Richard E. Carey, Esq., 209 W. 125th St., NYC.
III. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS—CIVIL RIGHTS—FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

A. IN ELECTIONS

601.1. McDonald v. Key, et al. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 26. Nov. 15, 1955: U.S.S.C. denied certiorari, so that decision of CA 10 stands: Oklahoma statute requiring word "Negro" to be printed on ballot after Pl.-candidate's name unconstitutional. CA also ruled Pl. must file separate suit for damages for violation of Equal Protection clause.
B. IN EDUCATION
610. Public elementary and high schools

610.1. Brown v. Bd. of Education. (DC Kan.) For facts, see I DOCKET 26. Sept., 1955: Further hearing; Def.-Bd. progressing satisfactorily in compliance with U.S.S.C. decisions. Ct. retained jurisdiction.
610.2. Davis, et al v. County School Bd. (Prince Edward County, Va.)*
610.3. Briggs v. Elliott. (Clarendon County, S. C.)*
610.4. Clemons v. Bd. of Ed. of Hillsboro. Ohio. (CA 6, #12494.)*
610.6. Romero, et al. v. Weakley, et al. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 26. After decision by CA 9 (see Burleigh (610.7)), Def. officials of Imperial County signed stipulation Dec. 1, 1955 concluding case. Stipulation provides: 1) School districting henceforth solely on basis of pupil population; neutral zone system permitting arbitrary school assignments to be eliminated; 2) pupils in all grades assigned to schools on basis of nearness to homes; 3) no inter-zone transfers to be made on basis of race, creed, color or national origin; 4) teachers to be hired and assigned solely on basis of teaching qualifications, regardless of race.
610.7. Burleigh, et al. v. Weakley, et al. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 26. Oct. 10, 1955: CA 9 reversed, holding: persons claiming that their rights have been abridged through segregation and discrimination because of race or nationality may exercise their choice as to whether they desire relief from fed'l ct. or state ct.; fed'l ct. may not require Pls. to turn to state cts., after they have sued in fed'l ct.; in any event, fed'l judge is more likely to be free from local pressures and hence can be more fair in adjudicating whether there has been segregation and discrimination in a local community.
610.8. Hall, et al. v. St. Helena Parish School Bd., et al. (ED La., Bat. Rge. Div., CA #1068.)*
610.9. Bush, Jr., et al. v. Orleans Parish School Bd., et al. (ED La., CA #3630.) For facts, see I DOCKET 27. Dist. Judge Wright, scheduled to hear case Nov. 14, requested Chief Judge Hutcheson of CA 5 to convene 3-judge court. Dec. 2: heard before 3-judge court.
610.10. Matthews v. Launius, Pres., Bearden School Dist., et al. (WD Ark., El Dorado Div., #570.) For facts, see I DOCKET 27.

L. Clifford Davis, Esq., 401½ East 9th, Fort Worth, Texas.
610.11. Steiner v. Simmons. (Dela. S. Ct.)*
610.12. Covington, et al. v. Edwards, Supt. of Schools of Montgomery Co., et al. (MD N. Caro., Rockingham Div., CA #323.) For facts, see I DOCKET 27. Pls. amended suit making clear that they were attacking only segregation provisions of state education law and not provisions for support of public school system generally. Fed'l Judge Hayes ruled that 3-judge ct. not necessary to hear action; ruling withheld on case.
610.13. Dobbins v. Virginia. (Va. Ct. of App.)*
610.14. Borough, et al. v. Jenkins, et al. (ED Okla., #4006-Civil.) Suit against sup't of schools at all-Negro Red Bird community for refusing to grant transfers to 14 Negro students which would permit them to attend integrated schools. Trial date: Nov. 30, 1955.

Ada Lois Fisher, Esq., 1129 Bellevidere, Okla. City, Okla.; U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 2600 Flora St., Dallas, Tex.; Thurgood Marshall, Esq., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
610.15. Bell, et al. v. Rippey, et al. (ND Tex., CA #6165.) Suit to compel immediate abolition of racial segregation. Oct. 16, 1955: dismissed without prejudice on ground that Dallas provides equal school facilities for whites and Negroes and that U.S.S.C. ruling requires that districts shall do away with segregation after having worked out a proper plan. Appellants have given notice of appeal.

U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 2600 Flora St., Dallas, Texas.
610.16. Kelly, et al. v. Bd. of Education. (MD Tenn., Nash. Div., CA #2094.) Suit filed Sept. 23, 1955 by relatives of 21 Negro children denied admission to white schools. Three-judge court asked to set aside Tenn. segregation laws and constitutional provisions. Order entered Oct. 17, by consent extending time to answer to Nov. 16.

Z. Alexander Looby and Avon Williams, Esqs., 327 Charlotte Ave., Nashville, Tenn.; Thurgood Marshall, Esq., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
- 47 -

610.17. McSwain, et al. v. County School Bd. of Anderson County, Tenn., et al. (ED Tenn., CA #1555.) Suit to compel immediate desegregation. Motion pending for entry of final decree granting school authorities time to work out program of integration in the public schools.

Z. Alexander Looby, Esq., 419 4th Ave., Nashville, Tenn.; Avon N. Williams, Jr., Esq., 511 E. Vine St., Knoxville, Tenn.; Carl A. Cowen, Esq., 101½ W. Vine St., Knoxville, Tenn.; Thurgood Marshall, Esq., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
610.18. Jean, et al. v. Bd. of Education. (ND Ga., CA #3923.) Suit filed Sept. 19, 1950 to secure equal school facilities for approximately 20,000 Negro children. Suit pending subject to disposition of motions.

A. T. Walden, Esq., 200 Walden Bldg., E. E. Moor, S. S. Robinson and S. S. Thomas, Esqs., 175 Auburn Ave. N.E., all of Atlanta, Ga.; Thurgood Marshall and Robert L. Carter, Esqs., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
610.19. Corbin, et al. v. County School Bd. of Pulaski County, Va. (CA 4, #5921.) (177 F. 2d 924.) CA 4: reversed dismissal of suit to compel Pl. admission to white public high school.
610.20. Abernathy, et al. v. Izard, Bd. of Educ. Pres., Van Buren, et al. (DC Ark., Ft. Smith.) Pl.-Negro parents brought suit Oct. 28, 1955 seeking immediate integration; asked immediate hearing before 3-judge ct. Nov. 7: Fed'l Judge Miller denied motion for 3-judge ct. because no constitutional questions involved.
610.21. Dunn, et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of Greenbrier County, et al. (SD W. Va., CA #1693.) Pl.-Negro students suing to end segregation by their parents, as next friends. Pending. T. G. Nutter, Esq., 609½ Virginia St. E., and Willard L. Brown, Esq., Brown Bldg., Washington & Shrewsbury Sts., both of Charleston, W. Va.
610.50. Matlock v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs. (Okla. S. Ct.) *
610.51. Bd. of Supervisors of Hanover County v. Bd. of Educ. of Hanover County. (Va. S. Ct. of App.) *
610.53. McKinney, et al. v. Blankenship, et al. (Texas S. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 27. Oct. 12: Tex. S. Ct. unanimously upheld Dist. Ct. decision refusing to block use of state funds in integrated schools; held Tex. constitutional sections and statutes requiring segregation in public schools "unconstitutional and void".
610.54. Doby, et ano. v. Brown, et al. (MD N. Caro., CA #337.) Suit to prevent school board from condemning Pls.' land for construction of segregated school. Nov. 4, 1955: Dist. Ct. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Sedbury, Clayton and Sanders, Esqs., Charlotte, N. C.
610.55. Hoxie School Dist. #46, et al. v. Brewer; Guthridge; White America, Inc., a corp.; Citizens Comm. Representing Segregation in the Hoxie Schools, unincorp. assn.; Johnson, Copeland; and White Citizens Council of Arkansas, unincorp. assn. (ED Ark., #J-918.) Nov. 1, 1955: Fed'l Judge Trindle issued temporary injunction against Defs. interfering with racially-integrated public schools; held Ark. has no law requiring segregation in public schools. Overruling Defs.' motion for dismissal of Pl.-School Bd.'s complaint, Judge said: "The school board has tried to follow the law. All you've shown so far is that your people have worked to get the board to disobey the law." Dec. 8: suit begun before retired Judge Reeves of Mo.

Penix & Penix, Esqs., Jonesboro, Ark.; Edwin Dunnaway, Esq., Union Life Bldg., Little Rock, Ark., for Pl.-Bd. And see Brewer (610.56).
610.56. Brewer, et al. v. Howell, Bd. of Educ. Pres., Hoxie. (Ark. Chancery.) Suit by pro-segregationists to oust Def.-Bd. members for alleged irregular fiscal and employment policies. Nov. 26: Def.-Bd. member ordered to bring into ct. records of lumber co. with which he is affiliated. (Segregation is not mentioned in suit, but see Hoxie (610.55).) Trial reconvenes after Jan. 1, 1956.
610.57. Adams, et al. v. LeBlanc, La. Atty. Genl., et al. (ED La.) Pet. challenging $100,000 appropriation of public funds to fight integration litigations on local level, claiming that money cannot be used in defense of state laws which violate 14th Amdt. to U. S. Constitution (i.e., Act 555, withholding state bd. of educ. sanction from desegregated schools, and Act 446, authorizing parish school sup'ts to assign children to public schools). Defs. moved to dismiss. Pl. filed brief Dec. 1 in opposition.

A. P. Tureaud, Sr., Esq., 1821 Orleans Ave., New Orleans, La.
615. Suits by Negro teachers in connection with integration

615.1. Wise v. Gasaway, et al. (ED Ark., CA #2736.) Suit to secure equal salaries for Negro and white teachers. Case pending filing of amended pleadings and briefs.

Harold Flowers, Esq., Masonic Temple, Pine Bluff, Ark.
620. Colleges and universities

620.1. Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control of Fla. (Fla. S. Ct.) *
620.2. Tureaud v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. and Agric. and Mech. Coll., et al. (CA 5.) For facts, see I DOCKET 27. CA 5 granted Def.-Univ.'s motion for rehearing.
620.3. Williams, et al. v. Prather, et al. (DC La.) *
620.4. White v. Smith, et al., officers of Bd. of Regents of U. of Texas. (DC Tex., Civ. #1616.) *
620.5. Atkins v. Mathews, Pres., N. Texas State College. (ED Tex., CA #1104.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28. Sept. 10, 1955: Pl.'s motion for preliminary injunction denied. Trial date: Nov. 28.

U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 2600 Flora St., Dallas, Texas; Thurgood Marshall and Robert L. Carter, Esqs., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
620.6. Whitmore, et al. v. Stilwell, et al. (CA 5, #15473.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28. Nov.: CA 5 reversed Dist. Ct.,
- 48 -

ordered Def. Texarkana Jr. College, tax-supported school, to admit qualified Negro applicants.
620.7. Lucy, et al. v. Adams, et al. (CA 5.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28. After U.S.S.C. dissolved stay of execution till Jan. 6, 1956 on Dist. Ct. order to Def.-Univ. to admit Pls., Def.-Univ. refused to admit Pls. on ground registration for fall term was closed. Pls. asked Dist. Ct. to find Univ. Dean of Admissions guilty of contempt for failing to admit them; Judge Grooms rejected motion. Dec. 7, 1955: argument before CA 5 on Def.'s appeal from order granting injunction and declaratory judgment.
620.8. Booker, et al. v. Tennessee Bd. of Education, et al. (WD Tenn., CA #2656.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28. Oct., 1955: Dist. Ct. Judge Boyd ruled Negroes could enter Def.-college under gradual integration plan proposed by Def.-Bd. By Dec. 1, attorneys had not yet submitted findings and conclusions to ct.
620.11. Frasier, et al. v. Bd. of Trustees, Univ. of N. Caro., et al. (MD N. Caro., CA #260.) Suit before 3-judge statutory court to enjoin Defs. from denying admission to Pls. and others having qualifications. Sept. 21, 1955: Ct. directed Defs. to receive and process applications of Pls. and other Negroes similarly situated, possessing necessary qualifications for admission.

C. O. Pearson, Esq., Box 1427, Durham, N. C.; E. H. Gabsden, Esq. and M. E. Johnson, Esq., both of Durham, N. C.
620.12. Ward v. Regents, University System of Georgia, et al. (ND Ga., CA #4355.) Suit filed June 23, 1952 seeking admission to Univ. of Georgia Law School for Pl. and others similarly situated. Case pending a/c Pl. in military service. A. T. Walden, Esq., 200 Walden Bldg., Atlanta, Ga.; Thurgood Marshall, Esq., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
C. IN HOUSING
630. Public

630.1. Detroit Housing Commission v. Lewis. (CA 6, #12305.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28. Oct. 5: CA 6 affirmed Dist. Ct. decision, and remanded for further proceedings if necessary in light of Brown (610.1). Appellee moved for entry of final judgment in Dist. Ct.; Ct. held not necessary. (On date of argument in CA (April, 1955), App.-Commission began integrating Negro families into established white project.)
630.2. Heyward v. Savannah Housing Authority, et al. (CA 5.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28. Oct. 14, 21, 1955: Dist. Ct. judge granted Def.-U. S. Gov't motion for summary judgment and Def.-Housing Auth. motion to dismiss on ground that separate-but-equal still applies in housing. On appeal.
630.3. Ward, et al. v. Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, et al. (SD Ohio.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28. Nov. 14, 1955: Judgment entered for Pl. enjoining segregation in public housing.
630.4. Watts v. Housing Authority of Birmingham District. (DC Ala.) *
630.5. Askew, et al. v. Benton Harbor Housing Commission, et al. (WD Mich., S. Div., CA #2512.) Suit to enjoin Defs.' admitted policy of housing whites and non-whites in separate housing projects and to enjoin denial of admission of Negro veterans to so-called veterans' housing project. Pending.

Alphonse Lewis, Jr., Esq., 142 Michigan St. N.W., Grand Rapids; John W. Roxborough, II, Esq., 402 Tobin Bldg., 1308 Broadway, Detroit, Michigan; Thurgood Marshall and Constance Baker Motley, Esqs., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
630.6. Davis v. St. Louis Housing Authority, et al. (ED Mo., CA #8637.) Facts and issues similar to Lewis (630.1). Pending.

Frankie M. Freeman and R. L. Witherspoon, Esqs., 4105a Easton Ave., St. Louis, Mo.
640. Private

640.1. Johnson, et al. v. Levitt & Sons, Inc.; Mason, et al. of FHA; Higley, et al. of Veterans Adm. (CA 3.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28-9. Appeal withdrawn by Pl.

And see Slaton (696.1).
640.3. S. End Fed'l Svgs. & Loan v. Roan, Braden and Wade. (Jeff. Cir. Ct., Chanc. Branch, 2d Div., Ky.) Def. Braden and wife bought house in so-called white neighborhood and transferred it to Negro couple, Def. Wade and wife. Def. Wade continued to occupy house despite dynamiting which led to prosecutions in Braden (130.3). June 14, 1954: Pl., holding first mortgage, sued to foreclose because Bradens had not obtained Pl.'s consent to transfer to Wades, under contract clause: "That no conveyance shall be made * * * without the written consent of the association". Defs. contend clause designed to avoid U.S.S.C. refusal to enforce housing restrictive covenants (Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1). Trial Dec. 2; pending till Dec. 16.

Conrad J. Lynn, Esq., 141 Broadway, NYC and Eubank Tucker, Esq., Louisville, Ky.
D. IN EMPLOYMENT

650.1. Syres and Warrick and Local Union No. 254, Oil Workers Intl. Union v. Oil Workers Intl. Union, Local #23, and Gulf Oil Corp. (CA 5, #15286.) *
650.2. Complaint against Esso Standard Oil Co., et al. (Before sub-comm. of President's Comm. on Government Contracts.) For facts, see I DOCKET 29. Nov. 3, 1955: N.L.R.B. Examiner declined to issue complaints in these cases because it did not appear there was sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings. Employees appealing to N.L.R.B. General Counsel.
E. IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS
660. Recreational facilities

660.1. Dist. of Col. v. Central Amusement Co., Inc. (DC #6766-55.) For facts, see I DOCKET 29. Dec. 5, 1955: Municipal Judge Howard found Def. guilty on 2 counts of violating 1870 law prohibiting any place of amusement from closing its facilities to Negroes. $55 fine on each count suspended.
660.2. Dawson, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and Lonesome, et al. v. Maxwell and Commrs. of Forests and Parks of Maryland, et al. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 29. Nov. 7, 1955: U.S.S.C. affirmed CA 4 decision at 220 F. 2d 386, declining to establish "guideposts" requested by Md. officials as to extent of desegregation decision in Brown (610.1).
- 49 -

660.3. Fletcher v. Coney Island Inc. (Ohio S. Ct., #34569.) *
660.4. Tate, et al. v. Dept. of Conservation and Development. (CA 4.) For facts, see I DOCKET 29. Def., by Va. Atty. Genl., appealed Dist. Ct. decision.
660.5. Byars, et al. v. White, Mayor of San Antonio, et al. (DC Tex., Civ. #2109.) *
660.7. Charlotte Park and Recreation Comm., et al. v. Barringer, et al. (N. Car. S. Ct.) *
660.8. Crutcher v. Hayes. (Mid. Dist. Tenn.) *
660.9. Holmes, et al. v. City of Atlanta. (USSC, #396.) (124 F. Supp. 290, 223 F. 2d 93 (CA 5)). For facts, see I DOCKET 30. Nov. 7, 1955: U.S.S.C. vacated judgment and instructed Dist. Ct. to follow Md. rulings that segregation in public recreation is unconstitutional. (See Dawson and Lonesome, 660.2.)

Robert L. Carter, Esq., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
660.10. Harvey v. Morgan. (Tex. Ct. Civ. App.) *
660.11. Odom, et al. v. Berin dba Steak Bar, et al. (Denver Superior Ct., CA 5-1416.) *
660.12. Nebraska v. Peony Park. (Douglas County Ct.) Action under Neb. Civil Rights Law charging Def. with discrimination against Negro swimmers at A.A.U. Swimming Meet Aug. 27, 1955. 2 Negro participants barred from meet because Park barred Negroes from pool. Sept. 7, 1955: ct. fined Def. $50 and costs. Additional civil suits settled out of court.
660.13. New York v. Dupuy, et ano. (Lake George, NY.) Dec. 2, 1955: Def.-barber shop owners convicted by jury after trial of violating N.Y. Civil Rights Act (Sec. 40) for discriminating because of race in refusing to give a hair cut to orchestra leader Lowery. Judge Glassbrook imposed $100 fine; jury decided against awarding damages to Lowery.
670. Transportation

670.1. Flemming v. S. Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (CA 4.) *
670.2. Virginia v. Ritter. (Richmond Police Ct.) *
670.3. Keys v. Carolina Bus Co. (Interstate Commerce Commission.) For facts, see I DOCKET 30. Nov. 25, 1955: in companion decision to N.A.A.C.P. (670.4), I.C.C. held Def. Co.'s segregation regulation unlawful and ordered segregation ended within 6 weeks.
670.4. N.A.A.C.P. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. (I.C.C. #31423.) For facts, see I DOCKET 30. Nov. 25, 1955: I.C.C. held: segregation on trains and buses (see Keys (670.3)) and in public waiting rooms in railway and bus terminals must end by Jan. 10, 1956, following Brown (610.1). Separate-but-equal doctrine no longer can prevail; segregation subjects Negroes to prejudice and disadvantages harmful to their sociological development; segregation in inter-state transportation violates Interstate Commerce Act.
680. Miscellaneous facilities

680.2. Davis v. Brownell, et al. (CA DC.) *
F. IN FAMILY MATTERS
690. Adoption and custody

690.2. Re Custody of Sidney Branch. (Wash. S. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 31. Appeal has been dismissed on motion of mother, who is applying for modification of decree in Superior Ct. on ground that father has failed to establish stable home for the child, thus eliminating civil liberties issue.
690.3. Smith v. Smith. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., #15881.) *
690.4. Adoption of Hildy Ellis. (Mass. Sup. Judicial Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 31. Probate Judge Reynolds appointed a Detective as Hildy's guardian and ordered him to find child, who, with foster-parents, has been unavailable for judicial action for several months. Hearing Nov. 23 before Supreme Court Justice on foster parents petitions. Pending.
692. Marriage and divorce

692.1. Naim v. Naim. (USSC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 31. Nov. 14, 1955, U.S.S.C., per curiam, vacated judgment and remanded to Va. Sup. Ct. of App. because of inadequacy of record as to relationship of parties to the Commonwealth of Va. at time of marriage in N. Caro. and upon return to Va., and failure of parties to bring to U.S.S.C. all questions relevant to disposition of case.
G. IN PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY
695. Actions under Federal Civil Rights Act
696. Actions under State statutes to suppress mob violence

696.1. Slaton v. City of Chicago. (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist.) Action against Def.-City to recover damages for personal injuries under Ill. Act to Suppress Mob Violence, Ch. 38, Secs. 512-517, Ill. Rev. Stat., 1953. Pl.-Negro injured by mob near Fernwood Park Housing Development 2 days after Negro families admitted as tenants, August, 1947. Trial Ct. sustained motion to direct jury to bring in not guilty verdict. Nov. 22, 1955: Ill. App. Ct. reversed, holding: "The mob desired and it effected control in the area by force and violence for the purpose of ousting the Negroes from the public housing project, off the streets and out of the area for what they wrongfully assumed to be a collective or community interest. The mob challenged the sovereign police power of the State and its delegation to the local authorities. We are of the opinion that it was the legislative intent in enacting the law to impose a penalty upon the community in the form of additional taxes when its members participate in or allow the condition to arise that we find in the instant case." Opinion, by Robson, J., contains excellent and detailed English and American history of municipal liability for damage to property and person by riot.

Fleetwood M. McCoy, Esq., 7 W. Madison, Chicago.