with the Provisional Committee to Aid Victims of Tart-Hartley, room 402, 189 West Madison Street, Chicago 2, Ill. (See National Guardian, December 23, 1907, p.3.)

As chairman of the Provisional Committee to Aid Victims of Taft-Hartley, Canter is a veteran of the Communist movement in the United States. In 1980, he was a Communist candidate for governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During that period, he served 1 year in a Massachusetts jail for carrying a banner "in Boston's Sacco and Vanzetti demonstration, denounc ing Governor Fuller as the murderer of these two workers ***** Canter was listed as an instructor at the Communist Abraham Lincoln School in Chicago, Il, during its 1943 fall session. (See Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Appendix IX, 1944, p. 292; Special Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the United States, Investigation of Communist Propaganda, pt. 3, vol. 4, 1930, p. 757; and HUAC, Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications, 1957, p. 5.)

In 1956, Canter was secretary of the James Keller Defense Committee of room 825, 481 South Dearborn Street, Chicago 5, Ill. This organization was apparently a defense front for James A. Keller who had been "ordered deported in 1953 on charges of past membership in the Communist Party." A 1955 indictment against Keller was dismissed last year when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of United States of America v. George I. Witkovich, that "an alien awaiting deportation was not compelled to answer questions about Communist activities." According to the June 23, 1957, issue of The Worker, Sunday edition of the recently defunct Communist Daily Worker, Canter wrote a congratulatory letter to this paper's editor. (See Daily Worker, May 17, 1957, p. 3; and Firing Line, July 1, 1957, pp. 6 and 7.)

The Provisional Committee to Aid Victims of Taft-Hartley is currently using the office facilities of the Chicago Joint Defense Committee to Defeat the Smith Act. Formerly known as the Claude Lightfoot Defense Committee, the Chicago Joint Defense Committee's October 1957 letterhead reflects their following officers: Leon Katzen, chairman; John T. Bernard, vice chairman; Geraldine Lightfoot, projects director and Richard Criley, publicity and research. Katzen, Bernard and Criley were identified as members of the Communist Party before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952. Both Katzen and Criley have been listed as Communist leaders. Like Canter, Geraldine Lightfoot and Katzen are former instructors of the aforementioned Abraham Lincoln School. (See HUAC, Annual Report, 1952, pp. 29 and 31; and HUAC, testimony of Walter S. Steele Regarding Communist Activities in the United States, 1947, p. 52.)

SPECIAL NOTICE. Our 28-page 1957 Firing Line index is now ready. Paperbound 1957 editions, with index, are available for $3 a copy. Send your letter requests directly to the National Americanism Commission, The American Legion, Post Office Box 1055, Indianapolis, Ind.

[From the American Legion Firing Line, vol. VI, No. 13, July 1, 1957]

RECENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In its December 31, 1956 report to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Internal Security Subcommittee sharply declared certain Supreme Court dec ions have "seriously restrained the course and progress of America's struggle #sonst its domestic Communist enemies." While these rulings have "created legi lative problems" in Congress, The American Legion, in a 1956 National Convention resolution, stated the Supreme Court "has, in all practical effect, repealed Article Ten of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution." For a better underFinding of the background of these aforementioned assertions, let us examine 13 of the following more important Supreme Court decisions in the field of internal smelly

1956 RULINGS

oncncanicealth of Pennsylvania v. Steve Nelson (April 2, 1956.) Steve "an acknowledged member of the Communist Party, was convicted in of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, of a violation Ova na Sedition Act and sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years 310,000 and to costs of prosecution in the sum of $13,000." While court affirmed the conviction, the Supreme Court of Pennteversed the lower court's ruling on the grounds that

only Federal law applied to such offenses.

(See Supreme Court of the United

States, No. 10—October Term, 1955, pages 1 and 2.)

In affirming the decision of Pennsylvania's high court, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress, "in enacting the Smith Act of 1940, the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the Communist Control Act of 1954, had intended to occupy the field of sedition to the exclusion of State legislation on the same subject, and that, accordingly, the Pennsylvania Sedition Act was unenforceable. As a result of this decision, comparable sedition laws in 41 other States were likewise rendered ineffective and the work of State legislative committees investigating Communist penetration was seriously curtailed." (See internal Security Subcommittee, Report for the Year 1956, Section XII, page 218.)

Three Supreme Court Justices filed dissenting opinions in this case. They declared "the State and national legislative bodies have legislated within constitutional limits so as to allow the widest participation by the law enforcement officers of the respective governments. The individual States were not told that they are powerless to punish local acts of sedition, nominally directed against the United States. Courts should not interfere. We would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania." (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-October Term, Minority Decision, 1955,

p. 9.)

On April 25, 1956, 35 State Attorney Generals petitioned the Supreme Court "for rehearing of decision of April 2, 1956," and warned "it is dangerous to public safety as well as to State Security to leave the States impotent to regulate acts of sedition or subversion occurring within State borders." This petition declared "the majority opinion (of the Supreme Court) is believed to be in error in failing to have considered and ruled upon that portion of the record showing separable counts of the indictment against Steve Nelson charging criminal conduct with a view to overthrowing and destroying by force and violence the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well as the Government of the United States of America." (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10 October Term, 1955, Petition for Rehearing of Decision of April 2, 1956, pp. 1, 6, 7 and 8.)

The Attorney General of New York, in a separate brief filed with the Supreme Court on May 10, 1956, joined the other 35 State Attorney Generals in petitioning for a rehearing of the high court's decision in the Steve Nelson case. In the form of a brief order ignoring the State Attorney Generals' petition, the Supreme Court announced on May 14, 1956, it had refused to reconsider its April 2, 1956, decision invalidating State sedition laws. Fourteen bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives and two in the United States Senate, for remedial action to permit each State to enact anti-sedition legislation within its own limits. (See "Daily Worker," May 15, 1956, p. 8.)

2 Harry Slochower v. The Board of Higher Education of The City of New York (April 9, 1956.) Harry Slochower, an associate professor at Brooklyn College, New York City, appeared before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he had been a member of the Communist Party during 1940 and 1941. Shortly after his appearance before this congressional committee, "Slochower was notified that he was suspended from his position * * three days later his position was declared vacant 'pursuant to the provisions of Section 903 of the New York City Charter'." (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 23-October Term, 1955, pp. 2 and 3.)

In deciding this case, the Supreme Court reversed all lower court rulings and "held unconstitutional *** section 903 of the New York City charter, which provided for the discharge of any city employee who pleaded the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering a question relating to official matters." The Internal Security Subcommittee reported recently, "as a result of the Court's decision in this case, proceedings already have been commenced to compel the reinstatement of more than a dozen teachers in New York City educational institutions." (See Internal Security Subcommittee, Report for the Year 1956, Section XII, page 218.)

Dissenting from the majority opinion, three Supreme Court Justices wrote the "Court finds it a denial of due process to discharge an employee merely because he relied upon the fifth amendment plea of self-incrimination to avoid answering questions which he would be otherwise required to answer. We assert the contrary-the city does have reasonable ground to require its employees either to give evidence regarding facts of official conduct within

their knowledge or to give up the positions they hold *** Numerous colleges and universities have treated the plea of the fifth amendment as a justification for dismissal of faculty members. When educational institutions themselves feel the impropriety of reserving full disclosure of facts from duly authorized official investigations, can we properly say a city cannot protect itself against such conduct by its teachers?" (See Supreme Court of the United States. No. 23-October Term, Minority Decision, 1955, pages 2, 5, and 6.)

In another minority opinion, a fourth Supreme Court Justice declared "I dissent because I think the Court has misconceived the nature of Section 903 as construed and applied by the New York Court of Appeals, and has unduly circumscribed the power of the State to ensure the qualifications of its teachers." Complying with the Supreme Court ruling, Slochower was reinstated as a professor of German with back pay and interest of about $40,000. Upon his reinstatement, he was immediately suspended by Brooklyn College President Harry Gideonse, "on a broader charge of conduct unbecoming a member of the staff." On February 26, 1957, the eve before his scheduled appearance before the New York City board of higher education "on charges of misconduct," Slochower unexpectedly announced his intention to resign from the public school system. (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 23-October Term. Minority Decision, 1955, page 1; "The New York Times," February 27, 1957, page C-14; and "The Philadelphia Inquirer," February 27, 1957, page 14.) 3. Communist Party, U. S. A. v. Subversive Activities Control Board (April 30, 1956). The Supreme Court "reversed and remanded an order of the Subversive Activities Control Board directing the Communist Party of the United States to register with the Attorney General as a ‘Communist-action' organization, as required by the Subversive Activities Control (Internal Security) Act of 1950. The majority opinion pointed out that the testimony of three witnesses before the Board may have been tainted,' in view of evidence of their possible perjury adduced subsequently to the issuance of the Board's order." (See Internal Security Subcommittee, Report for the Year 1956, sec. XII, p. 218.)

Three Supreme Court Justices filed a dissenting opinion in this case. They argued that the Supreme Court "refuses to pass on the important questions relating to the constitutionality of the Internal Security Act of 1950, a bulwark of the congressional program to combat the menace of world communism. Believing that the Court here disregards its plain responsibility and duty to decide these important constitutional questions" Justice Tom Clark said "I cannot join in its action." (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 48October Term, Minority Decision, 1955, p. 3.)

In strong language, Justice Clark's minority opinion declared "I have not found any case in the history of the Court where important constitutional issues have been avoided on such a pretext *** in this case the motion itself was wholly inadequate and even if the testimony of all three challenged witnesses were omitted from the record the result could not have been different. There is no reasonable basis on which we could say that the Court of Appeals has abused its discretion. I abhor the use of perjured testimony as much as anyone, but we must recognize that never before have mere allegations of perjury, so flimsily supported, been considered grounds for reopening a proceeding or granting a new trial. The Communist Party makes no claim that the Government knowingly used false testimony, and it is far too realistic to contend that the Board's action will be any different on remand."

Continuing his dissenting opinion, Justice Clark stated: "The only purpose of this procedural maneuver is to gain additional time before the order to register can become effective. This proceeding has dragged out for many years now, and the function of the Board remains suspended and the congressional purpose frustrated at a most critical time in world history. Ironically enough, we are returning the case to a Board whose very existence is challenged on constitutional grounds. We are asking the Board to pass on the credibility of witnesses after we have refused to say whether it has the power to do so. The constitutional questions are fairly presented here for our decision. If all or any part of the act is unconstitutional it should be declared so on the record before us. If not, the Nation is entitled to effective operation of the statute deemed to be of vital importance to its well-being at the time it was passed by the Congress * * ་་་ (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 48-October Term, Minority Decision, 1955, pp. 3, 5, and 6.)

The Firing Line of May 15, 1957, page 43, reported the Subversive Activities Control Board, in a reaffirmed order (modified report) dated December 18, 1956, "recommended that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit affirm the Board's order entered April 20, 1953, requiring the Communist Party of the United States to register as a Communist-action organization under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950." The constitutional question of the aforementioned act "will undoubtedly be raised again and passed upon by the (Supreme) Court on a future appeal." In a tactic to forestall registration as agents of a foreign power, representatives of the Communist Party on June 6, 1957, used the Clinton E. Jencks v. U. S. A. case (See p. 8 of this issue) to demand access to confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation reports. (See Internal Security Subcommittee, Report for the Year 1956, sec. XII, p. 219; and the New York Times, June 8, 1957, p. 10.)

4. Kendrick M. Cole v. Philip Young et al. (June 11, 1956). Kendrick M. Cole, a food and drug inspector for the New York District of the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, was suspended without pay in November 1953 "pending investigation to determine whether his employment should be terminated." When confronted with charges of alleged subversive activities, he declined to answer these charges or request a hearing. Subsequently, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, determined that Cole's "continued employment was not 'clearly consistent with the interests of national security' and ordered the termination of his employment." (See Supreme Court of the United States. No. 442-October Term,

1955, pp. 2 and 3.)

After Cole's appeal to the Supreme Court, the judicial body upset the Government's decision in this case, and ruled a "Federal employee can be fired as a securty risk only if he holds a 'sensitive' position." Cole's position with the Food and Drug Administration was classified as nonsensitive. Speaking before the 38th annual convention of the Department of Pennsylvania American Legion in July 1956, the chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Francis E. Walter, declared: "The United States Supreme Court's recent decision Overturning the law under which Federal employees could be fired for alleged Communist associations has had the effect of opening the entire Government 'to the infiltration of our mortal enemies'." (See the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 21, 166, p. 1; and Daily Worker, June 12, 1956, p. 1.)

In a dissenting opinion, three Supreme Court Justices clearly remarked: "We believe the Court's order has stricken down the most effective weapon against subversive activity available to the Government *** (and) might leave the Government honeycombed with subversive employees *** It is not realistic to say that the Government can be protected merely by applying the act to sensitive jobs. One never knows just which job is sensitive." (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 442-October Term, Minority Decision, 1955, pp. and 5.)

5. Steve Nelson (Stephen Mesarosh) et al. v. United States of America (October 10, 1956.) Five Communist Party leaders in western Pennsylvania, Lamely, Steve Nelson, William Albertson, Benjamin L. Careathers, James H. Dolsen and Irving Weissman, convicted of advocating the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, were freed and granted new trials by another Supreme Court ruling. The Court stated that Joseph D. Mazzei, a principal Government witness "may have lied" in the defendants' first trial. Two weeks prior to the high court's decision, the United States Departnent of Justice asked the Supreme Court "to send the case back for determisation as to Mazzei's credibility. It said it believed the testimony he had given Vas the truth, but statements he made before other tribunals had cast doubt on his credibility." With three dissenters, the Supreme Court denied the Governaent's motion and vacated a lower court judgment. (See the New York Times, October 11, 1956, p. C-19; and the Washington Post and Times Herald, October 11, 1956, p. 1.)

1957 RULINGS

6. Ben Gold v. United States of America (January 28, 1957.) Ben Gold, former president of the now defunct International Fur and Leather Workers Union, "swore before the National Labor Relations Board on August 30, 1950, hat he was not a member of the Communist Party nor affiliated with it. He had announced his resignation a few days previously." The Government subsequently claimed Gold "lied when he made the oath, required by the Taft-Hartley Act, and that the resignation had no real meaning." He was indicted in 1953 and was later convicted of falsifying the non-Communist affidavit. (See the Washington Post and Times Herald, January 29, 1957, p. A-10.)

In a split decision ordering a new trial, the Supreme Court held that when the Federal Bureau of Investigation inadvertently questioned three members of the Gold jury in "probing an unrelated case," such action by the FBI was " 'official intrusion into the privacy of the jury.' It acknowledged the violation was unintential but this 'does not remove the effect of the intrusion'." Resulting from this decision, the Government announced on May 9, 1957, its dismissal of the Gold case "since the alleged commission of the crime, and careful reappraisal of the evidence against Gold has led to the conclusion that certain material evidence is not available. 'Considering this loss of testimony in light of the age of the case it was concluded that Gold could not be successfully retried'." (See the Washington Post and Times Herald, May 10, 1957, p. A-12.)

im

Four Supreme Court Justices filed dissenting opinions. Three charged that the FBI interviewing incident had "no effect upon the jurors adverse to the defendant." In a very strongly worded separate minority opinion, Justice Clark declared: "I am *** disturbed by the refusal of the Court to decide * portant questions urged upon us *** Among these are the applicability of the perjury rule of evidence to the false statement statute *** admissibility of evidence of prior activity in the Communist Party to disprove the sincerity of a resignation therefrom, the use of expert witnesses to prove continuing membership and the correctness of the Court's charges as to membership in the Party, etc. *** The refusal of the majority (this Supreme Court decision) today to pass upon them thus deprives the Federal judiciary of this Court's opinion, which renders today's error multifold. It will cause undue hardship in the trial of all of these cases, not only on the Government but on the defendants as well ✶✶ ✶" (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 137— October Term, Minority Decision, 1956, p. 2.)

7. Rudolph Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of the State of New Mexico (May 6, 1957). In examining Rudolph Schware's application for admission to the New Mexico State Bar, the Board of bar examiners denied "Schware the right to take the bar examination" because of his admissions concerning membership in the Communist Party from 1932 to 1940 and other criminal activities. After appealing to the New Mexico Supreme Court, this body concurred with the State in denying Schware's motion. This Court stated ("Schware's membership in the Communist Party), together with his other former actions, in the use of aliases and record of arrests, and his present attitude toward those matters, were the considerations upon which (we approved the denial of his application.)" Adversely, claiming "there is nothing in the record which suggests that Schware has engaged in any conduct during the past 15 years which reflects (against) * * * his character", the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that Schware's "past membership in the Communist Party does not justify an inference that he presently has bad moral character ***. There is no evidence in the record which rationally justifies a finding that Schware was morally unfit to practice law." (See United States Supreme Court, No. 92—October Term, 1956, pp. 6, 7, 13, 14.)

8. Raphael Konigsberg v. The State Bar of California and the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California (May 6, 1957). Raphael Konigsberg, in applying for admission to the California State Bar, the "State Committee of Bar Examinuers *** refused to certify him to practice law on the grounds he had failed to prove (1) that he was of good moral character and (2) that be did not advocate overthrow of the Government of the United States or California by unconstitutional means." Like the aforementioned Schware decision, the Supreme Court upset the State's ruling and upheld the right of Konigsberg to practice law. In his dissenting remarks, a Supreme Court Justice claimed "what the (Supreme) Court has really done *** is simply to impose on California its own notions of public policy and judgment. For me, todays' decision represents an unacceptable intrusion into a matter of State concern." (See Supreme Court of the United States, No. 5—October Term, Minority Decision, 1956, pp. 1 and 36.)

9. United States of America v. George I. Witkovich (April 28, 1957). George I. Witkovich, a former employee of the Slovanian-English language newspaper Prosveta, was ordered deported in 1953 for membership in the Communist Party. When the United States attempted to deport him to Yugoslavia, that country refused to admit Witkovich. Remaining in the United States, he was subject to the supervision of the Attorney General, which was made possible by a statute of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. In October 1955, he was indicted "for having refused to answer questions about his activities, including whether he had attended Communist meetings since the deportation order was issued."