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

CIVIL LIBERTIES DOCKET
Vol. I, No. 3
February, 1956
$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, Nos. 1 and 2 will not be mentioned in this or future issues. Pending cases in which there has been no change in status since the description in the last issue are listed here 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. People ex rel. Hearn v. Muste, et al. (formerly entitled New York v. Parrilli, et al.) (Spec. Sess., App. Term, NY Co.) For facts, see I DOCKET 1, 33. Dec. 22, 1955: Mag. Bushel convicted 19 Defs., dismissed charge against 1 Def.; 7 Defs. had pleaded guilty Sept. 28. Sentences: suspended. Appeal filed for 18 Defs. Jan. 20. Issues on appeal: statute was unlawful delegation of war power by Congress to states and municipalities; Congress had no war power at time of Defs.' action; statute says on its face it will interfere with First Amdt. rights and is unconstitutional therefore; arrests denied Defs.' equal protection since others (incl. patrons at Yankee Stadium) were exempt from arrest for non-participation in Air Raid drill; Defs. should have been treated as exempt persons under statutory exemption applied to persons of "recognized" religious persuasions.

Kenneth Greenawalt, Esq., 1 Wall St., NYC; Prof. Harrop Freeman, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
10.2. U. S. v. UAW-CIO. (ED Mich., #35004.) *
20. Freedom of Press

20.5. Fla. ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, Sheriff. (Sup. Ct. Fla., #26158.) *
20.6. U. S. v. Solow. (SD NY.) *
20.9. Tirone v. Ramsey Journal and Russo. (N. J. Super. Ct.) * Paul Huot, Esq., Ramsey, N. J.
20.10. In Matter of Contempt of Court by Bozorth. (N. J. Super. Ct., Camden Co., #C 539-55.) Prosecution for contempt, Def. having written letter to newspapers criticizing in sharp language ruling of court in connection with proposed referendum on sale of liquor in Gloucester City. Court held: publication of article criticizing court in connection with matters no longer pending but finally disposed of is not contumatious but is protected by general concepts of freedom of speech. Such publication cannot constitute such a clear and present danger as to justify a holding of contempt.

Harold W. Bennett, Esq., 709 Market Street, Camden. N. J. See "Censorship Bulletin", new bi-monthly publication, by American Book Publishers Council, 2 W. 46th, NYC.

See "The People's Right to Know"—A Report on Government News Suppression, by Allen Raymond, Dec. 1955, Amer. Civil Liberties Union, 170 5th Ave., NYC.
30. Freedom of Religion

30.1. People's Church of San Fernando Valley, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App.) *

Amicus brief filed by A.C.L.U. of S. Calif., by Richard W. Petherbridge, Esq., 117 N. 5th, E1 Centro, Calif.
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, see I DOCKET 2, 34. Def. in both cases filed notice of appeal Jan. 6; record being prepared.
30.4. American Unitarian Assn., et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al. *

And see cases at 430.
- 52 -

30.5. Ilse Scaccio-Pet. for naturalization. (Imm. & Nat. Service—Wash.) For facts, see I DOCKET 34. Imm. & Nat. Service reversed position on work of national importance including defense plant work. Case referred back to Washington for administrative action.
30.6. Hughes v. Priest, U. S. Treasurer. (DC DC.) Pl.-professed atheist sought permanent injunction against use of fedl. funds to pay salaries or allowances to U. S.-employed chaplains. Issue: does use of part of income tax receipts to pay chaplains in Armed Forces and gov't dep'ts constitute denial of freedom of religion guarantee in First Amdt.? Dec. 20, 1955: Fedl. Judge Tamm held Pl. "does not have status to maintain the action"; complaint failed to set forth a cause of action. Dismissed. Frank C. Hughes, pro se, Minneapolis, Minn.
30.7. Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. of Alameda and City of Oakland. (Super. Ct., Alameda Co., #250074.) Pl.-small Humanist Church had speakers at Sun. morning services and Sun. afternoon forums on topics of current political and economic importance of interest to Pl.'s members, as well as Humanism. Pl. denied real property tax exemption on ground its property not used "solely and exclusively for religious worship", constitutional test for church tax exemption. At trial of Pl.'s suit to recover taxes paid, Defs. introduced evidence to show: discussion topics "leftist" in content; property also used by outside "subversive" organizations; Humanism not a religion. Trial ct. found. inter alia, other churches discussed similar topics, permitted use of premises by outside organizations. Ct. held Pl.'s property used "solely and exclusively for religious worship"; Pl. was entitled to church exemption. Def.'s appeal pending.

McMurray, Brotsky, Walker, Bancroft & Tepper, 785 Market St., and George Olshausen, Esq., 1238 Pacific Ave., all of San Francisco.
40. Freedom of Assembly

40.2. White v. Anson. (U.S.S.C.) Appts.-Jehovah's Witnesses sought to hold meeting on school property, Kanawah Co., W. Va. They allege compliance with all lawful requirements for use of facilities and that Bd. of Educ. had established policy of permitting other religious organizations to use property for religious purposes. In refusing permission had Bd. been guilty of unlawful and arbitrary discrimination against App'ts? Defense: Constitutions of W. Va. and U. S. prohibit use of school property for religious purposes. App'ts appealed from adverse Pa. ct. decisions to U.S.S.C., which dismissed appeal, Dec. 5, 1955.

Hayden C. Covington, Esq., 142 Columbia Hts., Brooklyn; Horace S. Meldahl, Esq., 209 Davidson Bldg., Charleston, W. Va.
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., #308.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3, 34. Jan. 23: upon granting of motion to appeal in forma pauperis, argument set for Oct., 1956.
110.2. Fujimoto, et al. v. U. S. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3. Date for argument to be set after U.S.S.C. decision in Yates (110.1).
110.3. Wellman, et al. v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 3, 34. CA 6 denied motion for rehearing. Petition for certiorari filed in U.S.S.C. by Jan 30.
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. Jan. 23: argument to be made after Yates (110.1); set over till Oct., 1956.

Donner, Kinoy and Perlin, 342 Madison Ave., NYC.
110.6. Sentner, et al. v. U. S. (CA 8.) *
110.7. U. S. v. Kuzma, et al. (CA 3.) *
110.8. U. S. v. Bary, et al. (CA 10.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4, 34. Jan. 6: CA 10 refused to grant App'ts' motion to delay filing briefs till U.S.S.C. decision in Yates (110.1) and Mesarosh (110.5). App'ts' brief due April 16; App'ee's due June 1.
110.9. U. S. v. Brandt, et al. (ND ED Ohio, #21076.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4, 34. Jan. 5: At conclusion of Gov't's case, Fedl. Judge McNamee ordered acquittal of one Def. because his participation in Communist activity appeared "only passive", mostly attending meetings with his wife, another Def. Defense putting in testimony of several Defs., librarians in public and university libraries, and expert testimony on Marxism.
110.10. U. S. v. Silverman, et al. (DC Conn.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4, 34. Jan. 10: during Gov't's presentation, Defs. moved for production of minutes of testimony of Gov't witness before grand jury, after showing of probable contradiction between grand jury and court testimony. Fedl. Judge Anderson examined grand jury minutes and gave portions to defense counsel for purposes of further cross-examination. Case continues.
110.12. U. S. v. Charney, et al. (SD NY.) For facts, see I DOCKET 4, 34. Defs. Fine, Jackson and Norman, indicted in 1951, but never served with indictment, in Dec., 1955 voluntarily surrendered to jurisdiction of Ct.; released on $20,000 bail. Pre-trial motion for postponement of trial until U.S.S.C. decision in Yates (110.1) and Mesarosh (110.5) denied Jan. 23. Trial date: March.
110.13. U. S. v. Mirabal, et al. (U.S.D.C., Puerto Rico.) *
120. Federal seditious conspiracy indictments—18 USC 2384

120.2. U. S. v. Valle, et al. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5, 35. Jan. 6: CA 2 affirmed conviction, Frank, J. concurring on ground there is conflict in circuits on question of when case to go to jury, is disturbed by CA 2 rule that if there is some credible evidence, case must go to jury. Since testimony of principal witnesses was impeached and judge sitting without jury would have had reasonable doubt of guilt, should case go to jury which might convict when judge sitting without jury would have acquitted? Frank concurred on basis of other evidence he found in record. Application for certiorari pending in U.S.S.C.
- 53 -

130. State anti-sedition indictments (post World War I statutes)

130.1. Pennsylvania v. Nelson. (U.S.S.C.) *
130.2. Pennsylvania v. Dolson. *
130.3. Kentucky v. Braden, et al. (Ky. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Def. Braden's brief filed in Ky. S. Ct.

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, 40734, 40735.) *
130.5. Massachusetts v. Hood, et al. (Suffolk Cty. Sup. Ct.) *
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.) *
140.4. Brownell v. Labor Youth League. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 5. Pet.'s brief has been filed. Date for argument not yet set.
140.5. Brownell v. Jefferson School. (CA DC.) *
140.6. Brownell v. Civil Rights Congress. (SACB #106-53.) *
140.7. Brownell v. Natl. Council of American-Soviet Friendship. (SACB #104-53.) *
140.8. Brownell v. California Labor School in San Francisco. (SACB.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Hearings opened Jan., 1956, continuing.

140.9 See 160.7.
140.10. Brownell v. Washington Pension Union. (SACB #114-55.) *
140.11. Brownell v. Am. Comm. for Protection of Foreign Born (SACB.) *
140.12. Brownell v. American Peace Crusade. (SACB #117-56.) For facts. see I DOCKET 35. Def.-organization has filed answer to Pl.'s petition. Date for hearing not yet set.
140.50. Weinstock v. U. S. (CA DC.) Atty. Genl. Brownell petitioned to require United May Day Committee to register as "Communist-front" organization. Copy of petition served on Def.-Weinstock as "chairman, United May Day Committee". Def. moved to quash service on ground such Comm. not in existence, under that or any other name, on date of service thereof. Sept., 1954: indicted for making false statement in supporting affidavit; convicted Feb., 1955. Jan. 5, 1956: CA reversed (2-1), holding: denial of existence of organization known by particular name was not material to motion to quash petition to register, or petition itself.
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, 35. Answer to petition filed Jan. 23rd.

And see Mine, Mill (165.1.)
150.2. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Brownell. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Gov't filed opposition brief. Pl-union moved for advancement of argument and for stay of proceedings before SACB (see Brownell v. UE, 150.3). Motion pending.
150.3. Brownell v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers. (SACB #119-56.) Dec. 20, 1955: Pl. filed petition for order, after appropriate proceedings, determining that UE is a Communist-infiltrated organization under Sub. Activities Control Act of 1950, Sec. 3. Charge: persons comprising the effective management of Union are and for 3 yrs. preceding have been actively engaged in giving aid and support to Communist organizations and Communist activities and world Communist movement, and during same period UE has been made to serve and is serving such ends. UE motions filed Jan. 31.

David Scribner and Basil Pollitt, Esqs., 11 E. 51; Marshall Perlin, Esq., 342 Madison Ave., all of NYC.
160. U. S. Attorney General's "listing" power under Executive Order 10450

160.1. National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell. (U.S.S.C. #496.) *
160.3. Natl. Council of American-Soviet Friendship v. Brownell. (CA DC.) *
160.4. Assn. of Lithuanian Workers v. Brownell. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 6. Motion granted extending App't's time to file brief until 30 days after U.S.S.C. makes final disposition of Guild (160.1).
160.5. Brownell v. Natl. Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions, Inc. (Dept. of Justice.) Def. filed answer to interrogatories. There is no pending court action.

Stanley Faulkner, Esq., 9 E. 40th, NYC.
160.6. Brownell v. Independent Socialist League. (Dept. of Justice.) *
160.7. Brownell v. Californians for the Bill of Rights. (Dept. of Justice.) For facts, see former incorrect listing under 140.9, I DOCKET 6. *
165. N.L.R.B. decertification of Unions

165.1. Intl. Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers v. N.L.R.B. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 36. After CA reversal of DC, Fedl. Judge Kirkland refused to issue mandatory injunction forbidding N.L.R.B. to decomply Pl.-union, on minor procedural grounds. On appeal to CA DC.
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, 36. After argument Jan. 15, Judge Grant denied Def. Atty. Gen'l's demand that Uphaus give names of World Fellowship employees and furnish correspondence with speakers at Fellowship conference; granted demand that Uphaus produce guest list. Uphaus forthwith refused on First and Fourth Amdt. grounds; sentenced to prison until he purged himself of this contempt. Thereafter admitted to bail, $1,500. Appeal pending in N. Hamp. Sup. Ct.

See cases at 301.
- 54 -

170.2. Kaplan, et al. v. Bowker, et al. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., #54, 734.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7. Jan. 19: Mass. S. Jud. Ct. affirmed decision of single Justice dismissing petition for writ of mandamus on ground Pets. had no standing to ask for relief because Def.-Comm.'s report did not list Pets.
170.3. Tormey v. Bowker, et al. (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., Suffolk Co., Eq. #68546.) *
170.4. Luscomb v. Bowker, et al. (Mass. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7. Appellant's brief filed Feb. 13; to be argued in March term.
180. Other state actions against organizations

180.1. Green v. Javits. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 7, 36. Feb. 1: Motion denied to vacate order for examination of Pl.-witness in order to frame complaint under Soc. Wel. Law, Art. 10, on ground that law regulating charities does not apply to "political" organizations, and, if applied, is unconstitutional. Appeal pending.
180.3. New York v. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Co.) For facts, see I DOCKET 36. Feb. 2: Motion denied to vacate complaint because Def.-Comm. no longer in existence. Feb. 2: Motion to sever 17 Defs. on grounds they had not been active in organization since 1950 or had not been served (e.g., Def. Picasso) granted. Feb. 8: Motion to dismiss on other grounds argued.
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. Jan. 12: CA 7 affirmed conviction, holding Smith Act membership provisions constitutional and that Def. knew the Communist party had aimd of violent overthrow.
201.3. U. S. v. Scales. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8. 37. Jan. 16: petition for certiorari filed.

Telford Taylor, Esq., 400 Madison Ave., NYC.
201.4. U. S. v. Blumberg. (ED Pa.) For facts, see I DOCKET 8, 37. Trial date: Jan. 30.

Michael von Moschzisker, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa.
201.5. U. S. v. Noto. (NY Roch. Dist.) *
201.6. U. S. v. Weiss. (ND Ill. ED.) *
210. State anti-communist membership indictments

210.1. Ala. v. Knox. (Ala. Ct. of App.) *
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.) *

Amicus brief filed by Civil Liberties Union of Mass., by Howard S. Whiteside, Esq., 30 State St., Boston, Mass.
220. "Loyalty-security" dismissals of government employees—UN, US, states, cities

220.1. Leff, Duberg and Wilcox v. Evans. (Before Adm. Trib. of ILO.) *
220.1b. Bernstein v. UNESCO. (Admr. Trib. of UN.) For facts, see I DOCKET 37. Admr. Trib directed to reinstate Pl. or pay indemnity. UNESCO decided to pay indemnity.
220.3. Service v. Dulles, et al. (CA DC.) *
220.4. Re Taylor. (Int'l Organization Employes Loyalty Bd.) For facts, see I DOCKET 9, 37. Jan. 6: Bd., after rehearing, reversed its earlier decision and held "there is no reasonable doubt as to your loyalty."
220.5. Kutcher v. Higley. (CA DC.) *
220.6. Cole v. Young. (U.S.S.C.) (125 F. Supp. 284.) *
220.7. Berman v. Summerfield. (DC DC, #4475-55.) Pl.-Post Office employee dismissed under Gov't's loyalty program. Issues similar to Cole (220.6) including application of security program to employees in non-sensitive agencies and right of employee to confront and cross-examine those who bring charges against him. As in Cole, Pl. is entitled to veterans' benefits. Pleadings completed; briefs to be filed.

David I. Shapiro, Esq., 350 5th Ave., NYC.
220.8. Liner v. Summerfield. (DC DC, #4473-55.) Facts and issues similar to Berman (220.7) except that Pl. is not a veteran.

David I. Shapiro, Esq., 350 5th Ave., NYC.
220.20. Nagin v. Zurmuhlen. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.) Pl.-engineer, with 32 yrs. service, discharged from position as NYC civil engineer on charges of failing to cooperate with City's security program. He brought proceeding to review discharge and to permit retirement under State Retirement Law, urging that NY Security Risk Law unconstitutional; that his was not a sensitive position; that his alleged "failure to cooperate" was actually caused by illness. Heard and submitted.

Paul Ross, Esq., 160 Broadway, NYC.
220.50. In the Matter of Hamilton, Resp. v. Monahan, NYC Police Comm'r. (NY Ct. of App.) *
222. "Loyalty-security" indictments re application for government employment (18 USCA 1001)

222.1. U. S. v. McDaniel. (ED Wash., S. Div., #C-4519.) *

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.) Jan. 24: Fedl. Judge Youngdahl dismissed action for lack of jurisdiction holding civilian courts have no authority to review types of discharges granted by military. Judge indicated Congress should be informed if Army had changed its policy of
- 55 -

granting discharges solely "on basis of actual military service rendered and not on matters extraneous to such service".
225.21. Name Withheld v. Herren, et al. (SD NY, CA #103-137.)*
225.22. Bernstein, et al. v. Lt. Gen. Herren. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38. Preliminary injunction denied. Action for declaratory judgment pending. Fedl. Judge Edelstein denied stay of Army Field Bd. security hearings pending appeal in CA 2 from denial of temporary injunction, because Pls. failed to show irreparable injury. Jan. 28: CA 2 denied stay pending appeal. Jan. 30: Pls. filed petition for stay in U.S.S.C.; pending.
225.23. Bland v. Hartman, et al. (SD Calif., S. Div., CA #1852-SD.) Dec. 29, 1955: Def. delivered Pl. facts and interrogatories and asked Pl. to accept separation from Reserve "under other than honorable conditions" in lieu of submitting to processing under Armed Forces security regulation, with notice this type of separation would result in (excess of $10,000) deprivation of G.I. benefits. Jan. 11: Pl. offered to resign from Reserves if given honorable discharge, so no requirement of national security would justify admr. proceeding. Jan. 16, 1956: Pl.-Naval Reserve Lt. filed action for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment to prevent hearing before Naval security bd. Jan. 17: temporary restraining order denied. Jan. 17: hearing before Naval security bd. on charges that, after Pl.'s active duty during WW II and receipt of 4 medals and awards, and after honorable separation and release to inactive duty in 1946 and no further service in reserves, Pl. and wife were involved in activities of organizations on Atty. Gen'l's list, Pl. member of interracial council, Pl. worked for organization cited by Calif. Comm. on Un-Am. Activities; Pl. officer of organization of which listed organization gained control, Pl. participated in Rosenberg case picket line. Defs. moved to dismiss action for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, to join an indispensable party, to exhaust administrative remedy and for mootness because Defs.' undisclosed recommendation to Chief of Personnel left him no more power re Pl.'s status. Briefs to be filed.

Daniel G. Marshall, Esq., 4041 Marlton Ave., Los Angeles.

And see cases at 450.
227. "Loyalty-security" denials of veterans' disability payments

227.1. Thompson v. Veterans Admin. (Vet. Adm.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38. Jan. 25: Pl.'s brief filed with Admr. of Veterans Affairs.
227.2. Wellman v. Veterans Administration. (Vet. Adm.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38. Jan. 1956: Finance Officer of VA demanded Pl.-disabled vet. return to Gov't all moneys ever received from U.S. as disability benefits, i.e., $9,581.85. VA also ordered a new physical examination to determine whether Pl. is disabled at all.
227.3. Re Kutcher. (Vet. Adm.) Kutcher, disabled vet. of WW II, received $329 monthly disability payment. Because of espousal of Socialist Workers Party (org. on Att'y Gen'l's list), and of alleged open opposition to present U.S. Gov't while engaged in Korean conflict, VA threatened to stop benefits under Pub. Law 144, Sec. 4 (78th Cong.). (See Wellman, 227.2, I DOCKET 38.) Hearing without accusers confronting him was accorded, and, after public demand, held openly, contrary to usual practice. After hearing, charges dismissed; benefits restored. Joseph L. Rauh, Esq., 1631 K St., NW, Washington, D.C.; John Szilard, Esq.

And see 220.5, 410.13.
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, 38. Trial date on charge of Communist Party membership: Jan. 25.

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

240.3. Jencks v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 10-11, 38. Petition for certiorari pending.

And see: Matusow (545.2) and Witt (480.2).
240.4. Gold v. U. S. (CA DC, #12,352.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Jan. 12, 1956: CA, sua sponte, set case for rehearing early Feb. on all issues. Jan. 16: CA directed further briefs on applicability of perjury rules to prosecution under 18 USCA 1001 (False Statements Act) for filing affidavit required by 9 (h) Sec. of Taft-Hartley. Briefs filed by both parties by Jan. 30.

And see Cammer (560.4).
240.5. U. S. v. Fisher. (CA 9.)*
240.6. U. S. v. Bryson. (CA 9.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11. Def.'s brief on appeal filed Feb. 15.
240.7. U. S. v. Travis. (DC Colo., #14266.) For facts, see I DOCKET 11, 38. Dec. 21: convicted by jury on all 4 counts. Motion for new trial to be argued Feb. 15. Def. at large on original bail.

And see Mine, Mill (165.1).
240.8. U. S. v. Lohman. (CA 6.)*
240.9. U. S. v. Killian. (DC Ill., #55 CR 626.) Minor trade union official charged with filing false Taft-Hartley affidavit in 1952 on 2 counts: 1) membership in Communist Party; 2) affiliation with Communist Party. Motion to dismiss indictment pending.

Meyers and Rothstein, Esqs., 188 W. Randolph St., Chicago.

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.)*

And see Rose (475.4).
- 56 -

250.2. Parker, et al. v. Lester, et al. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 38-39. Justice Dept. granted 2 months in which to file petition for certiorari, until March 24.
250.3. Hutchin v. Rohr Aircraft Co. (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego.) Def. fired Pl.-employee Dec. 17, 1955 after he distributed pamphlets for Socialist Labor Party near Def. plant. Pl. sued employer for dismissal, claiming violation of Calif. Labor Code provision that "employer may not discharge or threaten to discharge an employee to coerce or influence the employee to refrain from political activity." Def. charged suit did not state cause of action because no rule of Co. against political activity alleged. Judge Turrentine ruled for Pl., holding the right to political activity so fundamental that courts will protect it even in absence of legislation protecting it.

Marshall Ross, Esq. and A. L. Wirin, Esq., 257 S. Spring St., Los Angeles.

And see cases at 470.
255. Denial of Unemployment Compensation

255.1. Re Fitzpatrick. (Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review.)*
255.2. Re Albert. (Unemployment Compensation Referee.) * And see 475.
257. Denial of Social Security benefits

257.1. Matter of Bittleman, Mindel, Foster. (Social Security Bd.) 3 recipients of Social Security retirement benefits instituted administrative proceeding within S. S. Bd. seeking review of Bd.'s action in cutting off benefits to them. In Bittleman and Mindel cases, S. S. Bd. says App'ts have been convicted under Smith Act and hence are not entitled to benefits. In Foster case, S. S. Bd. contends that, as employee of Communist Party, App't is not entitled to benefits. Appeal pending.

Harry Sacher, Esq., 342 Madison Ave., NYC.
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.) *
260.3. In re Steinberg. (Sub-comm. of Comm. on Offenses of Allegheny Cty., Common Pleas Ct., Pa.) *

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

270.1. Appeal of Shonick. (Docket #8, D.C. 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. *
280. Denial of passports on "loyalty-security" grounds

280.5. Zlatovski v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. Case closed upon issuance of full passport.
280.6. McIntire v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12. Motions for summary judgment by Pl. and to dismiss complaint by Def. pending.
280.8. Boudin v. Dulles. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 12, 39. Pl. appealed from DC decision directing "quasi-judicial" hearing. CA asked Def. to disclose information on which passport refusal was based. Def. said it knew names of some of informants used against Pl. and also used "informants whose identity is not known to the Dept. but whose credibility has been evaluated and made know to the Dept. by the Gov't agency furnishing the information." CA said Def. did not answer its questions responsively when asked if he had information that Pl.'s conduct when on temporary passport in 1954 was adverse to interests of US. Appeal pending.
280.10. Carl Foreman v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 39. 1953: Pl. asked to surrender passports in London. Basic charge by Def. was that Pl. had not really resigned from Communist Party as he had testified, or, if he had, was still under its discipline. No witnesses appeared against Pl. at departmental hearing. On eve of argument of motion for summary judgment, passport issued.
280.30. Robeson v. Dulles. (CA DC.) *
280.31. Golden v. Dulles. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13, 40. Passport submitted when applicant submitted affidavit denying current Communist Party membership.
280.32. Kent v. Dulles. (DC DC.) Facts same as Robeson (280.30). Action filed Dec. 14, 1955.

Leonard Boudin, Esq., 25 Broad, NYC; Forer and Rein, Esqs., 711 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C.
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.) *

And see cases at 540.
300. Refusals to answer questions re political beliefs, affiliations—contempt indictments
301. Before Congressional committees: based on First Amendment/no authority to ask
A. FEDERAL CASES

301.1. U. S. v. Lamont. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Gov't has filed record on appeal.
301.2. U. S. v. Unger. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Gov't has filed record on appeal.
301.3. U. S. v. Shadowitz. (CA 2.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Gov't has filed record on appeal.
301.4. U. S. v. O'Connor. (CA DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13, 40. Record on appeal filed Jan. 3.
- 57 -

301.5. U. S. v. C. Davis. (WD Mich.) For facts, see I DOCKET 13. Feb. 2: argument on motions addressed to pleadings.
301.6. U. S. v. Watson. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Feb. 6: trial date.
301.7. U. S. v. Barenblatt. (DC DC Crim. #1154054.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Trial date: March 5.
301.8. U. S. v. Lorch. (SD Ohio.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14, 40. Dec. 7: Ct. order filed requiring U. S. to state in bill of particulars filed on or before Feb. 1, 1956 particular subject of inquiry, within scope of resolution fixing duties of House Un-American Activities Comm., of sub-Comm. conducting hearings involving Def. U. S. Atty. assumes trial date late spring or early fall.
301.9. U. S. v. Russell. (DC DC, Crim. #1230.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Trial date: Feb. 13.
301.10. U. S. v. Deutch. (DC DC.) *
301.11. U. S. v. Markinson. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Jan. 31: Def. convicted of contempt for refusing to answer question before House Un-American Activities Comm. re whether she had ever worked for Gov't. Fedl. Judge Curran held: question "too remote" from danger to justify Def.'s use of Fifth Amdt.
301.12. U. S. v. Sacher. (DC DC.) Def.-attorney indicted for contempt of Senate Internal Security sub-committee for refusal to answer questions re political beliefs while appearing as counsel for client-witness. Bases for refusal: improper, undignified questions having no legislative purpose. Jan. 6: Def. pleaded not guilty; at liberty on $1,000 bail. Motions filed early Feb.

Forer and Rein, Esqs., 711 4th St. NW, Washington, D.C.
301.13. U. S. v. Gojack. (DC DC.) Def.-district pres., United Electrical Workers Union indicted for contempt of House Un-American Activities Comm. for refusal, on First Amdt. grounds, to answer questions re communism. Def.'s motions due Feb. 5.

David Scribner, Esq., 11 E. 51st; Frank Donner, Esq., 342 Madison Ave., both of NYC.
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, 40. Jan. 5: Judge Aldrich, in a long opinion, held: 1) Def. had no constitutional justification under First, Fourth, Fifth or Ninth Amdts. for refusing to answer questions requiring naming persons he knew to be Communists; 2) these questions were pertinent to matter under inquiry by Sub-comm. on Investigations; 3) Congress did not give authority "to this particular Committee extensive enough to cover the subject matter of this particular inquiry". "This is a criminal prosecution. There is a burden on the government, which is not to be met by speculation. The government established through its own witnesses the subject of investigation. * * * On its face the investigation was of private and not of government operation, * * * and was outside the jurisdiction of the Committee." Def. therefore acquitted on 2 remaining counts of indictment.
310.4. U. S. v. Metcalf. (SD Ohio.) *
310.5. U. S. v. Arguimbau. (DC Crim. 1149-1954.) For facts. see I DOCKET 14, 40. Appeal to CA DC withdrawn.
310.6. U. S. v. Singer. (DC DC.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Jan. 18: Fedl. Judge Matthews denied Def.'s motion to dismiss indictment on ground Comm. exceeded its authority in questioning Def. re persons he knew at Harvard to be Communists and whether he attended meetings with them. Jan. 20: Judge Matthews acquitted Def. on 12 counts; convicted Def. on 10 counts ruling that Def. had not properly claimed privilege against self-incrimination as to them.
310.7. Watkins v. U. S. (CA DC #12,797.) For facts, see I DOCKET 14. Jan. 26: CA for DC reversed conviction (2-1), holding questions asked Def. by House Un-American Activities Comm. not pertinent to purposes for which Comm. created. Questions re presence of Communists in union between 1942 and 1947 "had little or nothing to do" with legislative problems created by Communists in unions in 1954 when hearing held and purpose of Comm. "on this occasion was exposure". Def. had declined to answer "any questions with respect to those with whom I associated in the past", claiming no statute required him to answer.
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., #547.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15, 40. Certiorari granted Jan. 16, assigned for hearing with Yates (110.1).
330. During deportation and denaturalization proceedings: lack of authority/refusal to "inform"

330.1. U. S. v. Minker. (U.S.S.C., #625.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Jan. 16: U.S.S.C. unanimously affirmed CA 3 reversal of Pet.'s contempt conviction. Frankfurter, J., held: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 did not grant Imm. officials power to summon naturalized citizens as "witnesses" in denaturalization proceedings in which they might become involved as defendants.
330.2. Falcone v. Barnes. (U.S.S.C., #716.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Jan. 16: U.S.S.C. unanimously reversed CA 2. which had held Imm. Service did have power to subpoena naturalized citizens in their own (prospective) denaturalization cases. See Minker, 330.1, companion decision.
330.3. Vivian v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #322.) For facts, see I DOCKET 15. Jan. 23: petition for certiorari denied.
330.4. Lansky v. Savorctti. (U.S.S.C., #100.) Facts and issues similar to Minker (330.1). Jan. 23: certiorari granted; judgment reversed by U.S.S.C., citing Jan. 16 decision in Minker.

And see Keller (540.5).
- 58 -

340. Before Congressional committee: based on Fifth Amendment privilege

340.4. U. S. v. Starkovich. (CA 9.) *
340.5. U. S. v. Jackins. (CA 9.) *
340.6. U. S. v. Fagerhaugh. (CA 9.) *
340.7. U. S. v. Grossman. (CA DC, #12,052.) For facts, see I DOCKET 16. Jan. 12: CA reversed with direction to enter judgment of acquittal.
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.) *
351.2. U. S. v. Fitzgerald. (CA 2.) *
360. Inability/refusal to produce records before Congressional Committees

360.1. Flaxer v. U. S. (CA DC, #12,027.) *
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. Sweezey. (N.H. Sup. Ct., #4395.) *

Amicus brief filed by American Civil Liberties Union, by George Soll, Esq., 50 Broadway, NYC.
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

410.3. Dailey, et al. v. Housing Auth. of City of Seattle. (Wash. S. Ct.) *
410.4. Peters v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (NY Appl. Div., 2d Dept.) For facts, see I DOCKET 18. (NY Law Jour., Dec. 30, 1955.) Ct. affirmed dismissal of proceeding, but not for the reasons given by official referee. Ct. held: 1) Williamsburg Project constructed under U. S. Housing Act of 1937 within meaning of Gwinn Amdt.; 2) Pet., whose eviction was threatened because of refusal to sign oath, may maintain proceeding despite failure to allege membership in proscribed organization; 3) Resp. exceeded its statutory authority in requiring Pet. to certify non-membership in any organization on entire Atty. Gen'l's list. Gwinn Amdt. only referred to organizations Atty. Gen'l designated as "subversive", but list of 200 organizations contained 5 other categories of organizations besides "subversive" ones; 4) No need to decide issue of unconstitutionality of oath provision. Pet.'s rights may be adequately protected whether it is or not (citing concurrent decision in Weixel (410.5)).
410.5. Weixel v. N. Y. C. Housing Authority. (NY App. Div., 2d Dept.) For facts, see I DOCKET 18. (NY Law Jour., Dec. 30, 1955.) Ct. reversed motion to dismiss and judgment for Def. Ct. held Def. was not authorized, under Gwinn Amdt., to require oath of non-membership in organizations in Atty. Gen'l's consolidated list. (See Peters decision, 410.4.) Complaint states good cause of action; Resp. to answer within 10 days.
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.) *
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.) *
410.11. San Francisco Housing Authority v. Thorner. (App. Dept., San Francisco Superior Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 41. Jan. 20: Heard and submitted, with opportunity for Def. to submit reply brief.
410.12. Los Angeles Housing Authority v. Cordova. (App. Dept., Calif. Sup. Ct., for Los Angeles Co., #8851.) (130 Cal. App. 2d 883.) After passage of Gwinn Amdt., Pl. demanded oath from all tenants that they don't belong to organizations on Atty. Gen'l's list. Def. refused to sign; Pl. sued to evict. Def. admitted facts; raised issue of constitutionality of Gwinn Amdt. Trial Ct. granted Pl.'s motion for summary judgment. App. Dept. reversed, holding oath unconstitutional if facts as set forth in Def.'s answer, i.e., if only reason for eviction notice was failure
- 59 -

to sign oath. On remand, facts stipulated to. Trial Ct. ruled for Def.-tenant. App. Dept. affirmed. Pl. may file petition for cert. in U.S.S.C.

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Esqs., 257 S. Spring St., Los Angeles.
410.13. Kutcher v. Housing Authority of Newark. (N.J. Sup. Ct.) Facts similar to Zumwalt (410.10). Dec., 1955: N. J. Sup. Ct. unanimously affirmed Super. Ct. ruling dismissing eviction proceeding in face of stipulation that Pl.-tenant was member of Socialist Workers Party, holding: 1) Gwinn Amdt. limited to subversive orgs. while Atty. Gen'l's list contained many not designated as subversive; 2) even proof of membership in subversive organization without proof of knowledge of its character would not justify eviction. No notice of appeal has yet been filed.

Rothbard, Harris and Oxfeld, Esqs., 744 Broad, Newark, N.J.
420. Actions against attorneys

420.3. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California and Committee of Bar Examiners. (USSC.) *
430. Loss of individual tax exemptions (Calif.)

430.1. Speiser v. Randall. (Calif. Superior Ct., Contra Costa County.) *
430.2. Prince v. City & County of San Francisco. (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., Div. 1.) For facts, see I DOCKET 19. Pl.-App't's opening brief due Feb. 16.
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.) *
440.2. Lens v. Chicago Bd. of Education. (Chi. Cir. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 42. After consolidation with Pickus v. Chicago Bd. of Education, additional arguments had; decision awaited. Issue: Broyles Oath Bill denies merely compensation and therefore does not even purport to carry out legitimate legislative function, and therefore is unwarranted intrusion on rights of free speech and assembly; it is discriminatory measure; it denies due process and is a bill of attainder.

Henry Heineman, Esq., and Bernard Weissbourd, Esq., 135 S. La Salle, and F. Raymond Marks, Jr., Staff Counsel, Chicago Div., ACLU, 19 S. La Salle, Chicago.

And see cases at 230, 460.
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. (ND Calif.) Dec. 1955: heard and submitted on Army's motion to dismiss.
450.4. Marshall v. Lt. Gen. Wyman, et al. (ND Calif., S. Div., #34533.) For facts, see I DOCKET 19. (132 F. Supp. 169.) June 7, 1955: Chief Judge Roche denied relief in injunction and declaratory judgment action because: 1) since Pl. already discharged, injunctive relief beyond Ct.'s power; 2) even if not discharged prior to service of temporary restraining order, Ct. without power to compel Army to offer honorable discharge, since type of discharge is matter for decision by Army; 3) if relief confined to declaratory judgment, it would be futile, since Defs. asserted they had no authority to reinstate Pl. to former status in Army; 4) Secy. of Army and Adjutant Genl. indispensable parties (under Williams v. Fanning, 332 U. S. 190); 5) Pl. failed to exhaust administrative remedies (38 USC 693 and 5 USC 191). Nov. 12: Army Discharge Review Bd. found Pl. properly discharged, denied appeal.

See 450.5.
450.5. Marshall v. Brucker. (DC DC, #5036-55.) Pl. received undesirable discharge after Field Bd. hearing; Army Discharge Review Bd. denied appeal (see 450.4). Pl. suing to review discharge based on charges: Pl. believed to be communist sympathizer, Pl. claimed constitutional privilege on Army's loyalty certificate; Pl.'s parents allegedly communist sympathizers. Complaint filed Nov. 16, 1955; Def.-Secy. of Army's answer due Feb. 1.

Charles H. Marshall, pro se, 4041 Marlton Ave., Suite 260, Los Angeles.

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

455.1. Lerner v. Transit Authority. (#15187-1954 App. Div., 1st Dept., N. Y.) *

And see cases at 220.
460. Dismissal from academic employment

460.3. Slochower v. Bd. of Education. (U.S.S.C., #466.) *
460.5. Steinmetz v. Calif. State Bd. of Ed. (U.S.S.C., #288, Misc.) *
460.6. Mass v. San Francisco Bd. of Education. (Calif. Supreme Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 42. Feb. 6: oral argument before Calif. Supreme Ct.
460.7. Schuyten v. Contra Costa Bd. of Education. (Sup. Ct. Contra Costa Co., Cal.) *

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

470.1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), et al. v. General Electric Company. (CA DC, #12,628.) *

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

475.3. Kilpatrick v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Ct., #669433.) *

Philip Bartell, Esq., Society for Savings Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio.
- 60 -

475.4. Rose v. American Motors Corp. (Wis. Ind. Comm., #22801.) Pl.-assembler invoked Fifth Amdt. privilege before House Un-American Activities Comm. Unfavorable newspaper publicity resulted in discharge by Def.-employer on alleged ground of understatement of educational background on job application. Dec. 29, 1955: App. Trib. held: entitled to unemp. compensation benefits. Def. petitioned for review; pending.

M. Michael Essin, Esq., 623 N. 2nd St., Milwaukee, Wis.

And see cases at 255.
480. Disbarment of attorneys

480.1. Sheiner v. Florida. (Dade County Circuit Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., #167991-H.) *

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

510.1. Rea v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) Def. indicted in DC N. Mex. for unlawful acquisition of marijuana. DC granted Def.'s motion to quash search warrant because it violated 14th Amdt. due process clause, and granted motion that marijuana seized be suppressed as evidence against him. Def. then arrested under N. Mexican state law on complaint by U. S. narcotic agent who had conducted illegal raid. Def. moved that agent be held in contempt for violating DC order of suppression. DC denied motion; CA 10 affirmed. Jan. 16: U.S.S.C. reversed (5-4), Douglas, J., holding: Fedl. policy of strict standards for searches and seizures "is defeated if the Fedl. agent can flout them and use the fruits of his unlawful act in either Fedl. or state proceedings."
511. Wiretapping

511.1. New York v. Broady. (NYC Genl. Sess. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 21, 43. Dec. 8, 1955: Jury found Def. guilty on 16 counts of wiretap conspiracy. Ct. suspended sentence on 12 counts; 1-2 yrs. to run consecutively on 2 counts; 1-2 yrs. to run concurrently on 2 counts.
511.4. Wirin v. Parker, L.A. Police Chief. (Super. Ct., #590862.) *
511.5. Sugden v. U. S. (U.S.S.C., #555.) Defs., employers of Mexican labor on their Ariz. farm, indicted for conspiracy to violate immigration laws by using private radio system to warn employees who entered U. S. illegally to hide during Gov't round-ups. Defs. had obtained license to install radio system, but before obtaining operating licenses, FCC engineer "monitored" conversations over system, and testified as to conversations before indicting grand jury. U.S.D.C.: suppressed monitored conversations and dismissed indictments because "tainted" by use of evidence illegally obtained. CA 9 reversed, holding prohibitions against disclosure of monitored evidence did not apply to messages sent by persons without operating licenses. Jan. 23: U.S.S.C. granted cert.
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. (U.S.S.C.) *
523. Challenge based mainly on absence of members of minority groups
525. Grand jury procedures
527. Right to jury trial—Fifth Amendment

527.1. U. S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 44. Cite: 76 S. Ct. 1.

William A. Kehoe, Jr. and Kane & Koons, Esqs., 1331 G St. NW, Washington, D.C.
527.2. U. S. ex rel. Covert v. Reid. (DC DC, #87-55.) Habeas corpus proceeding in which Pet. had been held in custody charged with crimes committed while abroad, accompanying U. S. Army forces. Court granted writ holding that since Pet. had all her life been a civilian, she was entitled to a civilian trial. Resp. has filed a notice of appeal.

Frederick Bernays Wiener, Esq., 1025 Conn. Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
530. Police violence and coerced confessions—Fifth Amendment

530.2. Cranor, Sup't. Wash. State Pen. v. Gonzales. (U.S.S.C.) (116 F. Supp. 92; 226 F. 2d 83 (CA 9).) For facts, see I DOCKET 44. Jan. 9, 1956: U.S.S.C. denied petition for cert. by State of Washington on behalf of Cranor.
530.3. Admr. of Fields v. NYC & Applebaum. (Sup. Ct., Kings Co., NY, #2679/1952.) *
530.4. Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, Warden. (U.S.S.C., #45.) (176 Pa. Sup. 387, 107 A. 2d 595.) Pet., in 1945 at age 21, pleaded guilty in Pa. ct. to 30 counts of burglary, larceny, forgery and false pretence with 300 yrs. maximum penalty. Convicted; 17½-35 yr. sentence. 1953: Pet. filed habeas corpus petition in Pa. ct. alleging conviction invalid under due process clause of 14th Amdt. because: 1) guilty plea was result of coercion and threats
- 61 -

by state officers, 2) not advised of right to counsel. Pa. denied some allegations, urged laches. Ct. dismissed petition without hearing; App. Ct. affirmed. Jan. 9, 1956: U.S.S.C. reversed, held allegations of incommunicado confinement for 72 hrs. and threats to safety of Pet.'s family raised questions requiring hearing even though denied in Pa.'s answer. Ct. held that number, seriousness and complexity of charges could not be understood by layman and Pet. should have been advised of right to counsel. Hearing ordered in Pa. ct. (76 S. Ct. 223).

Marjorie Hanson Matson, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa., and Herbert Monte Levy, Esq., A.C.L.U. counsel, 170 Fifth Ave., NYC.
540. Due process—Fifth Amendment

540.2. Hyun v. Landon. (U.S.S.C., #201.) *

Margolis, McTernan and Branton, Esqs., 112 W. 9th, Los Angeles.
540.3. Nukk, et al. v. Shaughnessy. (SD NY.) *
540.4. Resnikoff v. Horton. (ND Ill., ED, #1970.) For facts, see former incorrect listing under 570.4, I DOCKET 45.

Matter withdrawn and discontinued Dec. 16, 1955.
540.5. U. S. v. Keller and Witkovich. (ND Ill., ED, #55 CR 608, 607.) For facts, see former incorrect listing under 470.5, I DOCKET 45. Motions to dismiss indictments and briefs by both sides filed in Jan. Date of arraignment not yet set.
540.6. Sentner v. Colarelli. (ED Mo.) Facts and issues similar to Nukk (540.3). Jan. 19: 3-judge statutory ct. heard motions for summary judgment; decision awaited.

Sydney L. Berger, Esq., Koenig Bldg., Evansville, Ind.; R. L. Witherspoon, Esq., 1518 N. Sarah St., St. Louis, Mo.
540.7. Gonzales v. Landon. (U.S.S.C., #111.) Jan. 1956: U.S.S.C. held standard of proof required in denaturalization cases, which is "clear, unequivocal and convincing", is equally applicable to expatriation cases, reversing 215 F. 2d 955. Pet. was alleged by Gov't to have remained in Mexico to avoid military service during war and lower ct. had so held.

W. S. Maycock, Esq., A. L. Wirin, Esq., 257 S. Spring St., Los Angeles.

And see cases at 330.
545. Due process—Actions against recanting witnesses

545.1. U. S. v. Natvig. (CA DC.) *
545.2. Matusow v. U. S. (CA 5.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. Jan. 27: CA 5 reversed conviction because Def. had not received trial on issue of possible contempt. While witness on motion for retrial in Jencks (240.3), Def. testified he had testified falsely in Jencks trial. Judge denied retrial, held Def. in contempt on ground he was involved in scheme to obstruct justice, had lied in testimony for retrial. At hearing on motion to show cause why Def. shouldn't be held in contempt, Gov't offered no proof, just record of Def.'s 2 appearances in ct. CA 5 held Def. didn't participate in scheme in presence of ct., therefore entitled to trial re existence of alleged scheme, 18 USC 401, Fedl. Rule 42b of Crim. Proc.
545.3. U. S. v. Matusow. (SD NY.) *
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. (SD NY, Civ. #106-300.) (306 N.Y. 863, 348 U.S. 890, 308 N.Y. 863, 309 N.Y. 210, ...... U.S. .......) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. Certiorari denied Jan. 16 by U.S.S.C. Jan. 25: Fedl. Judge Kaufman set hearing on Def.'s habeas corpus petition for Feb. 9 and on motion to stay setting execution date.
550.4. Illinois v. Miller. (Ill. Sup. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 23. After arguments in Ill. S. Ct., State's Atty. confessed error. Case now before trial court; full corum nobis hearing in Jan.
552. Right to speedy and public trial—Sixth Amendment

552.1. U. S. v. Provoo. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 45.

Frederick J. Green, Jr., Esq., Equitable Bldg; John Martin Jones, Jr., Esq., Md. Trust Bldg.; David Ross, Esq., Mathiesen Bldg.; Theodore C. Waters, Jr., Esq., 10 Light St., all of Baltimore, Md.
555. Confrontation of witnesses—Sixth Amendment
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, 45. Affidavits of disqualification filed by Resp. against Justices Stamback and Rice. Held: by J. Stamback in opinion that statute of disqualification not applicable to appellate justices and not timely filed, but sua sponte excused himself; J. Rice, concurring, refused to excuse himself; Chief J. Towse, dissenting, because J. Rice likewise should have excused himself. Circuit Judge McKinley appointed to replace J. Stamback. Briefs due from Bar Assn. and Resp. Feb. 23; oral argument March 1.

John McTernan, Esq., 112 W. 9th, Los Angeles; Myer C. Symonds, Esq., 63 Merchant St., Honolulu, T.H.
560.3. Re Braverman. (Md. Supreme Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24, 45. Briefs filed; motion to postpone argument till decision in Yates (110.1), Mesarosh (110.5) pending.

Amicus brief filed by National Lawyers Guild, by Osmond K. Fraenkel, Esq., 120 Broadway, NYC.

And see 560.3a.
560.3a. Re Braverman. (DC Md.) Fedl. Judge Thomsen instituted disbarment proceedings against Atty. Braverman; Resp.'s answer to show cause order due Feb. 14. (And see pending state disbarment action, 560.3, I DOCKET 24.)
560.4. Cammer v. U. S. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 24. Jan. 24: in argument before U.S.S.C., Ct. ordered Gov't
- 62 -

to submit memorandum on the practices it uses to investigate grand jurors. Decision reserved.

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

570.1. Ohio v. Lumer. (Cleve. Muni. Ct.) *
570.2. U. S. v. Stein. (CA 2.) *
201.5. U. S. v. Noto. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 45. Nov. 21, 1955: J. Harlan, after consultation with other JJs., set $10,000 bail, holding Def. should not be penalized for Fifth Amdt. refusal to disclose whereabouts 1951-55 by having bail set at $30,000. Reversed CA 2, at 76 S. Ct. 255.
570.3. See 540.3.
570.4. See 540.4.
570.5. See 540.5.
580. Cruel and unusual punishment and treatment—Eighth Amendment

580.2. Wisconsin v. Horowitz, alias Brown. (Milw. Cty. Muni. Ct.) For facts, see I DOCKET 25. Jan. 3: Motion to dismiss argued; decision awaited.
580.3. DeSilva v. TW A. (SD NY, #99198.) *
585. Extradition resulting in cruel and unusual punishment—Eighth Amendment

585.2. In re Willie Reid. (Felony Ct., Manhattan.) For facts, see I DOCKET 25. Decision postponed Jan. 1955 on motion by Pet.'s sister that Pet. had never been legally convicted in Fla. and therefore not subject to extradition.

Lewis Flagg, Esq., 1 Kingston Ave., Brooklyn, for NAACP; Milton Friedman, Esq., 342 Madison Ave., NYC.
585.3. In re Rev. DeLaine. (Felony Ct., Manhattan.) For facts, see I DOCKET 46. Jan. 16: Proceedings dismissed because no extradition papers had reached NY from S. Caro. by date set.
III. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS—CIVIL RIGHTS—FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

A. IN ELECTIONS
B. IN EDUCATION
610. Public elementary and high schools

610.1. Brown v. Bd. of Education. (DC Kan.) *
610.2. Davis v. County School Bd. (Prince Edward Cty., Va.) *
610.3. Briggs v. Elliott. (Clarendon Cty., S. C.) *
610.4. Clemons, et al. v. Bd. of Ed. of Hillsboro, Ohio. (CA 6, #12494.) For facts, see I DOCKET 26. Jan. 5: CA 6 reversed Dist. Ct. ruling, directed Dist. Ct. to issue permanent injunction to end all racial segregation in Def. schools on or before opening of Sept., 1956 school term, and to admit Pl.-children immediately. Def. filed motion for rehearing, claiming immediate admission of Pls. impossible.
610.7. Burleigh, et al. v. Weakley, et al. (CA 9.) *
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.) *
610.10. Matthews v. Launius, Pres., Bearden School Dist., et al. (WD Ark., El Dorado Div., #570.) *
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, 46. Dec. 16: Fedl. Judge Hayes permitted Pls. to amend suit to add allegation that County school sup't and school bd. are officers of State of N. Caro. Pls. seek injunction to prevent segregation in county schools and ruling that N. Caro. school segregation law is unconstitutional.
610.13. Dobbins v. Virginia. (Va. Ct. of App.) *
610.14. Borrough, et al. v. Jenkins, et al. (ED Okla., #4006-Civil.) For facts, see I DOCKET 46. Dec. 16, 1955: 3-judge panel dismissed suit by Pl.-Negro students against Def.-Negro Sup't to force him to cancel their transfers from all-Negro school to newly-integrated school in their district. Ct. held: "Because of the def. school districts' good faith strides towards complete integration, this ct. would have no disposition to use its equitable authority to compel Red Bird to renounce all financial right flowing from the transfers in question for the present school term, in order to force complete and immediate integration. Under the conditions existing in the def. districts, such districts are entitled to this added time to complete, in orderly fashion, their desegregation program."
610.15. Bell, et al. v. Rippey, et al. (CA 5.) *
610.16. Kelly, et al. v. Bd. of Education. (MD Tenn., Nash. Div., CA #2094.) For facts, see I DOCKET 46-7. White Fisk U. Prof. Rempfer filed petition to amend suit to seek Ct. order compelling Def. to admit his 2 children to nearby Negro elementary schools rather than to white schools over a mile from his home. Case at issue. Date of argument to be set in March.
610.17. McSwain, et al. v. County School Bd. of Anderson County, Tenn., et al. (ED Tenn., CA #1555.) For facts, see I DOCKET 47. Jan 4: Fedl. Judge Taylor denied Defs.' motion for summary judgment, granted motion for final decree providing segregation of Anderson Co. high school students be discontinued by reasonable date, i.e., not later than beginning of fall term, 1956.
610.18. Jean, et al. v. Atlanta Bd. of Education. (ND Ga., CA #3923.) *
- 63 -

610.19. Corbin, et al. v. County School Bd. of Pulaski County, Va., et al. (DC Va.) For facts, see I DOCKET 47. Dec. 15: mandate of CA 4 issued; case sent back to DC for trial.

Hill, Martin and Robinson, Esqs., 623 N. 3d, Richmond, Va.
610.20. Banks, et al. v. Izard, Bd. of Educ. Pres., Van Buren, et al. (DC Ark., Ft. Smith.) *

D. L. Grace, Esq., 615 Rogers Ave., Ft. Smith, Ark.; U. S. Tate, Esq., 2600 Flora St., Dallas, Texas.
610.21. Dunn, et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of Greenbrier County, et al. (SD W. Va., CA #1693.) For facts, see I DOCKET 47. Jan. 3: Ct. made findings and suggestions for desegregation of Defs.' schools and continued case until recommendations fully complied with.
610.22. Taylor v. Bd. of Educ. of Raleigh Co. (DC W. Va.) In answer to suit by Negro-Pl. for integration, Def.-Bd. said it will integrate. Dec. 21, 1955: Fedl. Judge Moore ordered integration by Feb., 1956.
610.23. Jackson v. Rawden. (ND Tex., Dal. Div.) Suit by Negro students for injunction against continued segregation in schools. Nov. 7, 1955: hearing on temporary injunction.

U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 2600 Flora St., Dallas, Texas.
610.24. Avery, et al. v. Randel, et al. (ND Tex., Wichita Falls Div.) Suit filed Dec., 1955 by parents of 20 Negro pupils for admission to white elementary school near city's Negro residential district. Pls. request 3-judge Ct. to hear case. Def. alleges that school involved will become Negro school when new one is opened for white children.

U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 2600 Flora St., Dallas, Texas.
610.25. Moore v. Harry, et al. (DC Md., #8615.) Pls.-Negro elementary school students, many of whom live in integrated Gov't-sponsored housing project near Army Center, are within walking distance of existing white school but must be transported as far as 15 miles to a Negro school. Suit for desegregation filed Dec. 10.

Tucker R. Dearing, Esq., 716 N. Gay, Linwood Koger, Jr., Esq., 1607 W. North Ave., both of Baltimore, Md.; Jack Greenberg, Esq., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W. 43rd, NYC.
610.26. Willis, et al. v. Walker, et al. (WD Ky.) Petition filed Jy. 1955 with Def.-Bd. of Educ. of Adair Co. to abolish segregation in elementary and high schools. Aug. 30: After registering Pls. and other Negro children in white schools, Def.-Bd. ordered them ejected. After suit brought, 3-judge Ct. convened but determined it was without jurisdiction; case then submitted to Fedl. Judge Swinford, who ruled, Jan. 1955: for Pls., ordered immediate integration of Negro high school students. Because of greater number of Negro elementary school students and other more difficult problems, he ordered integration of elementary schools by Sept., 1956. Citing U.S.S.C. decision in Brown (610.1), Ct. said: "The defs., by their answers, plead the overcrowding of existing school buildings and the inadequacy of transportation facilities. I think that these conditions are to be taken into consideration by the ct. in fixing the date of integration, but I do not think either of them is a defense for unlimited delay. * * * The ct. does not question the good faith of the defs., but good faith is not the test. There must be `compliance at the earliest practicable date'." Suit concluded by Defs.' compliance with orders.

James Crumlin, Esq., Louisville, Ky.
610.27. Carson, et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of McDowell Co. (CA 4. #7096.) Pls.-Negro students brought suit for admission to white schools in McDowell Co., N. Caro., asked hearing before 3-judge Fedl. Ct. Dec., 1955: 3-judge Ct. held Pls. had not exhausted remedies in state courts under 1955 state law providing local school bds. with complete authority over assignment and enrollment of pupils, and that pupils can appeal from such bds.' decisions directly in state Superior Ct. Ct. also treated case as one involving individual Pls., and not as class action.

Herman L. Taylor and Samuel S. Mitchell, Esqs., 125 E. Hargett St., Raleigh, N. Caro.
610.51. County School Bd. of Hanover Co. v. Shelton. (Va. S. Ct. of App., #4545.) For facts, see I DOCKET 27. Nov. 30. 1955: Appeal granted. Jan.: record being printed. Argument: April or June session.
610.54. Doby, et ano. v. Brown, et al (MD N. Caro., CA #337.).*
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.) For facts, see I DOCKET 47. In 2-day trial Dec. 8-9, Pls. called 5 Negro parents as witnesses who testified they had been visited by delegations of white men, incl. named Defs., who urged them to keep their children out of newly-integrated public schools, and in some cases threatened them. Briefs filed by both parties early Jan. Decision awaited.
610.56. Brewer, et al. v. Howell, Bd. of Educ. Pres., Hoxie. (Ark. Chancery.) *
610.57. Adams, et al. v. LeBlanc, La. Atty. Genl., et al. (ED La.) For facts, see I DOCKET 47. Dec. 1955: Fedl. Judge Lindsay upheld Defs.' motion to dismiss, holding that, in spending funds to support state laws which have not yet been invalidated, Def.-Atty. Genl. was doing his "sworn duty". Pls. were "expressing a legal conclusion, unsupported by any judicial decree" when they "alleged the unconstitutionality" of La. segregation laws.
610.58. Riddle v. Bd. of Co. Commrs. of Wagoner Co. (ED Okla.) Pls.-Negroes seek injunction against use of public funds for improvement of segregated school. After suit filed in Nov., 1955, Defs. went to Okla. S. Ct. for writ of prohibition against US DC hearing suit.

U. Simpson Tate, Esq., 2600 Flora St., Dallas, Texas and Ada Lois Fisher, Esq., 1734 NE 7th St., Oklahoma City, Okla.
610.59. Cook, Atty. Genl. v. Valdosta Board of Education. (Lowndes Co. Sup. Ct.) As a result of N.A.A.C.P. petition for desegregation of public schools, Def.-School Bd. announced it would "think about" integration. State Atty. Genl. sued to enjoin Bd. from even thinking about desegregation, and to test validity of Ga. law prohibiting use of public funds to operate integrated schools. N.A.A.C.P. filed motion to intervene.

Donald Hollowell, Esq., Atlanta, Ga., for N.A.A.C.P.-intervenor.
- 64 -

610.60. Jordan v. Bd. of Elections. (Cir. Ct., Richmond.) Dec., 1955: Pl.-Negro atty. sought injunction to prevent Va. state referendum on whether to amend Va. Const. to permit use of public funds to educate children in private schools, claiming the purpose of proposed constitutional change was illegal as a plan to maintain segregated schools in definance of U.S.S.C. decision in Brown (610.1). Judge Snead refused to grant injunction because ct. could not question motive of legislature.
615. Suits by Negro teachers in connection with integration

615.1. Wise v. Gasaway, et al. (ED Ark., CA #2736.) *
615.2. Brooks, et al. v. Bd. of Educ., et al. (ED Mo., #551.) Nov., 1955: 8 Pls.-Negro teachers filed suit (under 28 U.S.C. 1331) for damages of $4,000 for each Pl., a declaratory judgment and injunction restraining Def. Bd. from denying employment on racial grounds and from making any distinction whatsoever because of race or color in employing public school teachers. Apr., 1955, after Def. decided to discontinue segregated schools for Negroes, Pls., who had taught for Def. for at least 3 yrs., were notified they would not be rehired. Pls. invoke 14th Amdt. and Fedl. statutes in behalf of their right to contract, be employed and follow teaching profession without discrimination because of race or color. Def. Bd. admits dismisslas and that if they were based solely on race or color "such action would have been illegal, arbitrary, wrongful and violative of Pls.' personal and individual rights, as secured to them by * * * laws and Const. of U.S."

Thurgood Marshall, Robert L. Carter, and Elwood H. Chisholm, Esqs., N.A.A.C.P., 107 W 43rd, NYC.

And see 650.
620. Colleges and universities

620.1. Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control of Fla. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 27. Fla. S. Ct. decided that commission should be appointed to determine when Pl. and other Negro students should be admitted to Def. without creating confusion, etc. Pl.-student filed petition for writ of mandamus or certiorari in U.S.S.C.
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, 47. CA 5 on rehearing, affirmed earlier decision for Pl.
620.3. Williams, et al. v. Prather, et al. (DC La., #5000S.) *
620.5. Atkins v. Mathews, Pres., N. Texas State College. (ED Tex.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28, 47. Dec. 8, 1955: Fedl. Judge Sheehy decided for Pl., ordered Def. to admit Pl. in Feb., 1956, and made decision applicable to other Negro students seeking admission.

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.) *
620.7. Lucy, et al. v. Adams, et al. (CA 5.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28, 48. CA 5 upheld Dist. Ct. Jan. 16: Ct. denied motion to stay injunction as it applied to other Negroes similarly situated. Petition for rehearing filed by Def.-Univ. Pls. preparing to enroll at beginning of semester, Feb. 1.
620.8. Booker, et al. v. State of Tennessee Board of Education, et al. (CA 6, #12,775.) For facts, see I DOCKET 28, 48. Pls. appeal docketed Jan. 10 from D. Ct. decision approving Def.'s "stair step" plan for desegregation of state colleges, starting Feb. 1 with admission of Negroes to Memphis State College.
620.8a. Tennessee Federation for Constitutional Government v. Tenn. State Treas. (Tenn. Co. Ct., Nashville.) Jan. 25: Pl. requested Ct. order prohibiting Def. from allotting money to Memphis State College, because it plans to admit Negroes into desegregated classes.
620.11. Frasier, et al. v. Bd. of Trustees, Univ. of N. Caro., et al. (U.S.S.C.) For facts, see I DOCKET 48. Def. filed petition for certiorari; Pls. filed motion to dismiss or affirm 3-judge Ct. decision.
620.12. Ward v. Regents, University System of Georgia, et al. (ND Ga., CA #4355.) For facts, see I DOCKET 48. Trial date: Feb. 20.
C. IN HOUSING
630. Public

630.2. Heyward v. Savannah Housing Authority, et al. (CA 5.) *
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.) For facts, see I DOCKET 48. Motion for summary judgment pending.
630.6. Davis v. St. Louis Housing Authority, et al. (ED Mo.. CA #8637.) For facts, see I DOCKET 48. Dec. 28: Fedl. Judge Moore held Pls. eligible for public housing and should be admitted without regard to race or color, and ordered units now assigned exclusively to Negroes to be opened to whites. He ruled that Def. had a racial segregation policy which violated U. S. Constitution and laws and said that both Negroes and whites formerly lived in areas now occupied by the housing projects and that money for the projects came from both races.
640. Private

640.3. S. End Fed'l Svgs. & Loan v. Roan, Braden and Wade. (Jeff. Cir. Ct., Chanc. Branch, 2nd Div., Ky.) For facts, see I DOCKET 48. Trial resumed Feb. 8.
D. IN EMPLOYMENT

650.1. Syres and Warrick and Local Union No. 254, Oil Workers Intl. Union v. Oil Workers Intl. Union, Local No. 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.) *
650.3. Jeanpierre v. State Commission Against Discrimination. (NY Co. Sup. Ct., Spec. Term, Pt. I.) Pet.-Negro flyer
- 65 -

brought Art. 78 proceeding to challenge finding by Def.-SCAD dismissing his complaint against Pan American World Airways System for discriminating against him when refusing him employment as flight steward. First suit ever brought against SCAD alleging it was arbitrary and capricious in dismissing complaint. Pet. alleges Def. ignored racial inquiry directed at him by one of Pan American's personnel supervisors and failed to hold conference or hearing, though confessing "some suspicion" that Pan American was guilty of racial discrimination in that no Negro had ever been hired in any flight capacity. Allegations: 1) SCAD kept matter for almost 11 mths. before making decision; 2) white applicants for same job were hired though their work records were as "inconsistent", according to employer's standards, as Pet.'s; 3) Commr. in charge of processing Pet.'s complaint attempted to and actually arranged for Pan Am to give Pet. another job as "cargo representative" (non-flight capacity). Feb. 7: argument before Judge Greenberg.

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

See "Your Rights * * * under State and Local Fair Employment Practice Laws"