H- Jflhhkwnfiiuium‘ H! .n .. .Lrwcx. . £5. Qflrwfi ' w . we . T . ‘ I... 31%;"... u ‘7):. . .11.... . .21.! ‘54? »\'.\l - kw... . . “oa\s. 4%.. 1:, I ' ’f‘.‘<‘- . \ .' ‘7 ’.,-f- ‘I ' MAN!" Q I‘ i \. of n o ..n u C e S r e P r a e Y ‘. r u o F ' 7A1. W V f - __ V . .2.”- F our Year Persecution oi/‘MANV' President Roosevelt has often professed to be an up- holder of the Freedom of the. .Press. On March 25, 1938 he declared that since 1789 the United States has. served as an asylum for political refugees from all over the worldand that he intends to continue leaving it a haven for political dissenters. In the face of this meritorious position, we bring forward the case of the more than four year persecution of the publication MAN! and of the 19-year- old persecution of its editor, Marcus Graham, as a form- idable challenge to the sincerity of President Roosevelt’s _ presumption as a defender of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of the Press. ' Lest anyoneshould think for one moment that the persecutions of MAN! and of its editor are but sole' ex- ceptions (and even if they were, they would still damn President Roosevelt’s claims as hypocritical), the rec- . ord of-the Labor ‘Department for the last six years reveals an unabated series of persecutions inflicted upon workers striking for better conditions and upon idealists who give expression to‘ ideas of a new social order- in ‘ place of the present. The attacks that the publication MAN'! has had to undergo during the last four of its six ye ars .- of existence, forms a chapter in the struggle for human liberty. That an Anarchist organ, and its editor, should ‘ be chosen first for this attack in a country of over' one hundred thirty million human beings, ruled for the last - five years by a self-styled “liberal” and “new deal” Government, reveals something. that should'arouse- the deepest ‘concern of every'true lover of liberty. I ‘' "MAN!" ,Mekes Its Appearance ‘ OnJanuary, 1933,. an eight pagefit-(tabloid form) mon- ' 'thly publication made its'appearancek‘in the city ofSan Francisco, California. It carried a significant but simple name, MAN -! (A ‘Journal of the Anarchist Ideal and Movement). It contained, no kind of paidadvertisement, and had no subscription price. ‘Its first issue stated: In making its initial appearance, MAN! offers no pro- grams, platforms or palliatives on any of the social issues _ confronting mankind. . . . MAN! has and shall have ideas to ' place before those who are willing to face the truth and act for themselves- If it. ‘aims at anything at all—it is for Man to regain confidence in himself, in his own great power to. ' achieve libenation from every forlm ‘ of ensl-avery that ‘now encircles 'him. . . . Every- social question will be'met consis- tently, without offering any! quarter to compromise, the doom of so manyideals and idealists. ' __2__.__ roun YEAR PERSECUTION or ‘"MAN!" . Subscription to MAN ! is free to all individuals and lib- raries. . . . M'AN! intends to subsist solely upon what the readers find it worth. Its continued appearance as a monthly will depend upon the support given voluntarily by the readers . . . . MAN! ought to interest 'the readers to the extent of making possible its appearance. If it does not succeed in ac-, ~ complishing this, it will have failed to win for itself the right to exist. , I How closely MAN! has lived up to its initial bow is attested to in the face ‘of untiring persecution at the hands of the authorities. In fulfilling its moral aim, MAN! proved that even in a commercially-ridden land, as is the United States, a true idealistic publication can subsist ‘without advertisements or a set subscription price. _ ‘ " It is the ver'y spirit of freedom with which every is- sue of'MAN! is imbued that aroused the hatred of the “servants of the people”, in reality—its oppressors and ruters—theofficials of the United States Government. Government's Attack Upon "'MANII" .Begins The Government’s attack upon MAN! and its readers through various parts of the country began in April, 1934, when, in the middle of the night of April 11, Im- migration officials entered the private residences of Vin- cent Fererro and Domenick Sallitto who were placed un- der arrest and whose homes were ransacked without a search warrant, Both men owned a small restaurant at 1000 Jefferson Street, Oakland, California. They rented out floor and office space to the Whitthorne and Swan Department Store, the Backus Distributing Company and the editor of;MAN!. . . w Ferrero and Sallitto were both charged with being “alien anarchists” since their sole “crime”, as the tran- scripts of the hearingsgiven to them reveal, consists in, their having rented out office space to MAN !. (To this “evidence”, as revealed in the transcripts, we shall re- _ turn soon.) One of the immigration officials who had participated in their arrest acted as judge and prose- ' outing attorney—behind closed doors. He forthwith recommended their being handed over to Fascist Italy, where their lives would be jeopardized. Luckily for Ferrero and Sallitto, a nation-wide pro- test by the liberty loving-elements of this country forced - the authorities to dismiss the deportation proceedings against Sallitto and to halt the deportation of Ferrero. Subsequent to, the arrest of Ferrero and Sallitto, part of the premises rented to the editor of MAN! was raided twice by the Immigration officials and the police. A mimeograph machine belonging to MAN! was smashed, and even a sealed box of crayons sent through the ___3__ "FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ARRAIGNED mails was’ broken open. At both raids the editor of MAN! was not even present. - - - Blackmail ‘Methods _Used by the Government During the same week of-April, 1934, agents of the Labor Department visited readers in various parts of the country and in some instances officially ordered them to appear at‘ the immigration offices. Every reader was questioned for- hours, as to his relation, if any, with the publication of MAN! or with its editor. Photographs of the editor were shown to most of those who were ques_ tioned. Warnings of deportation proceedings were given to each, and all were urged to desist from] any further reading of MAN! or from subscribing to it. (It was in order to protect our alien readersewho, according to the immigration laws do have a “legal” right to subscribe to an anarchist publication, that MAN !-was forced to change, its free subscription to that of a regular subscrip- tion price.) - In the city of San Francisco, agents of the Immigra- tion department visited the Labor College inorder to obtain information as to who had rented the main hall for the debate on March 25, 1934, on f the subject as to whether Marinus Van der Lubbe, the 24-year-old Dutch Communist who took the full blame for setting fire to the Reichstag—and paid for it with his, life— was an agent of the Nazis or a Revolutionist. The reason ‘for the Government’s interest was the participation in this debate of ‘Marcus Graham, as editor of MAN !, who defended Van der Lubb-e as a Revolutionist, e '. ' The Jack London Guild of San Francisco, a drama- tic organization that staged plays, for labor organizations freely, was likewise visited. The reason: it had on several occasions produced plays for the benefityof MAN !, and the‘ editor, Marcus Graham, had given a lecture‘ati'the Open Forum that the Guild held every Friday. When the General Officeofthe American Civil Lib- ' erties Union filed protests with the Labor Department against ‘this sort of underhand campaign. of intimida- tion upon MAN! and its editor, the. late'U. S; Commis- si-oner, 'O'ol.'__'jMcC'ormick, pleaded ignorance as to who had given-orders for this ‘nation-wide concerted cam- paign and promised to put a stop to it. The'C'ommissioner never made known as to #what he I“ found out”,-"and for > a short time it seemed as though the ‘campaign of intimi- dation had ceased. ' ' But it had not. I Arrest .'_ of Marcus 'Graham directed at , _ y. _ I Destroying "MANU .' e '1 - 'The arrest_"-of--~_'the editor on' ‘October -46, 1937, only brought the campaignof persecution against MAN-1 POUR ~YEAR PERSECUTION OF "MAN!" more directly- out in the open. The avowed purpose V could no longer‘be hidden: the aim was to strangulate the - journal. The chief reason now given by the Labor'iDe- partment. in re-opening the 19-year-old outstanding war- rant-of deportation against Graham states: r The alien is‘ now, and has for a ‘considerable period, ‘been the editor of a publication named “Man”,published in San Francisco. which publication is issued as a “Journal of the Anarchist'ldeal and Movement”. Copies of this publica- tion are now with the Central Office’s files in the case. The ordeals of Marcus Graham for the last nineteen years have but one parallel‘ and that only in fiction: Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s immortal “Les Miser- ables”. Still, there'is a striking dissimilarity‘ between the character of'Jean Valjean‘a'nd that of Marcus Gra- ham. Jean Valjean was the‘ hounded man of the “law upholders”—wh0 had. once committed what society terms. as a crime. -But Marcus Graham has never been charged with any kind of an overt crime—except the one of having thoughts of his own and of having had the courage to express them in print and oral deliveries. ‘ - i ' I . ' ' ' ' "MAN! '5" Guilt ‘An examination of __the.ftranscripts of the'hearings given to Vincent Ferrero‘and ‘Domenich Sallitto‘ (the printed record in the case‘ of‘ Ferrero occupies no less than 147 pages) reveals. that the greater part of the space is taken up with excerpts from various articles that have ~ appeared in MAN !. wade!‘ not hold that ‘anything- that has appeared in the pages of MAN! is of a criminal nature, it would therefore prove‘ of interest‘ to now bring forth some of the‘choice excerpts that thenauthorities do consider as criminal (although they never had the courage and honesty to bring criminal charges against the-editor of MAN! or against any of its collaborators)‘ ——since they used these against ‘both Ferrer'o' and Sallitto. Some of‘these excerpts follow. " ' - s . ' i .The ‘Governments can ‘only. exist so long as the masses submit and pay’ tribute to'them in the form of taxation. The ribh, are allowedto institute all sortslof fraudulent‘ schemes, to'cheat and rob, to lie and covet‘, to grab and hold the‘ wealth coined out of the sweat-of the brow, flesh and blood of the toilers in factories, mines and on the soil, as from the dead and wounded in wars.- For the robbed and wronged masses it is even unlawful to partake of the products that they have themselves produced ‘with/the aid of nature! . . . The wronged and exploited can only end their misery when th-ey begin to realize that no power on earth except themselves are capable of bringing this about. To achieve this the State must die. IT CAN DE AT THE VERY MOMENT WHEN THE'MAS- SES BEGIN TO STOP HEEDING- ITS .LAWS 0R SUBMIT- TING 'I‘O ITS-IMPOSE-D TAXATIONS! —- From an editorial, ‘Julyy1933. -. ,_ .. .: ' . __5___ mssnom or THOUGHT ARRAIGNED ' The Anarchists aim to abolish- the State as an institution . inherently inimical to freedom, and substitute a system where- in everyone will be equal in opportunities from the time of his or her birth, where there will be no class enjoying more privilege than the rest and where everyone will be free to cooperate in the best manner for which he is fitted for the welfare of the community and his own self. Thus, voluntary mutual help becomes the guardian of freedom and justice.-—. From an article by Maxm-illian Olay, July 1933. . The methods‘of the people will be much more in ‘ac- - cordance with science than those of the economists who draw so many distinctions between instruments of production and articles of consumption. The people understand that this is just the point where the revolution ought. to begin; and they will lay the foundations of the only economic science worthy of the name—a science which might be called; “The Study of ‘the Needs of Humanity, and of‘ the Economic Means to satisfy them.”—From an article by Peter. Kropotkin, Feb_~ ruary, 1934. ‘ Assassination, the bug-a-boo all traducers of the anarchist idea and movement fall back upon, did not miss the zealous Government frame-up agents, as this excerpt from the printed transcripts (p. 7 2)shows: ‘ The following is quoted from the article “Roosevelt, the symbol of Shameless Wrong; Guiseppe, the implacable ideal- ist.” The whole article praises Zangara for the “Assassina- tion of a Tyrant”, as the article states in part, "From the ghetto or pushcart comes the lowly cham- pion of humanity, and his assassination of a tyrant dramatizes the age-old struggle." ' No intelligent person can fail to note the striking difference between the impression that the dis- . torters of the Government aim to create and the 23 wordiquotationl Falsehood number one: the article is entitled “Guiseppe Zangara” and not as they imply. Falsehood number two: Harold Preeoe, the author of the said article, (MAN !, March, 1934) did not praise Zangara for the “assassination of a Tyrant” but penned a literary study explaining the background for such an act as Zangara'committed: the present unjust society. iBriefly, then, these are the “criminal” thoughts that served as the basis for the attempt to exile Ferrero and Sallitto, for the attempt to intimidate readers of MAN !, for the renewed attempt to exile Marcus Graham upon an admittedly invalid 1_9-year-old deportation warrant,‘ - and for the chief aim ofthe Government: to bring about the strangulation of MAN !. Freedom of Thought and Freedom of the ' Press the Sole Issues ' MAN !, its editor and all those responsible for its six years of existence not only do not consider any'of the excerpts brought forward by the authorities against Ferrero and Sallitto as criminal, but feel proud ___6__ FOUR ‘YEAR PERSECUTION OF "MAN!" I in being charged with the above quotediuncompromising ‘ thoughts and stand taken. by MAN !. If in the year of 1938 the taking of such-a‘ positionv is being considered a “criminal” offense, it emphasizes, then, that we still live in a criminal society which fully deserves every possible exposure, condemnation and ridi- cule. . The persecution of MAN! is but an honor-testament of the fulfillment of its undertaken tasks and responsi- bilities as an organ of the ideal—Anarchy—wherein true Justice and Freedom would be the common natural order of things. . ‘ MAN! has put up a brave and uncompromising strug- gle during its whole life in behalf of the propagation of a Free society. It is possible that the autocrats of the Government may. succeed, by their insidious cam- paign of blackmail-intimidations, in stifling the. voice of . MAN !, as reaction has often succeeded in doingin the past with other voices of truth. Such a victory will prove but a momentary one. New voices of Justice and Freedom—of Anarchy—will arise. For truth cannot be vanquished forever by lies, justice by injustice, freedom > by oppression. The future belongs to the Liberated Man freed of every form of exploitation, oppression and rulership. This is the true significance of all past battles in behalf of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression. This is the significance of Marcus Graham’s 19-year-old ordeal and the persecution MAN! has been undergoing since 1934. _ _ ' @733 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Since the publishing oi this pamphlet is not a commercial venture we have taken the liberty to reproduce on Page One the very appropriate drawing of Ellis from the magazine "KEN", only substituting the title of our pamphlet. The Case of Marcus Graham Arrested in April, 1919, at Paterson, N. I. Imprisoned in - County Jail two Weeks. Taken to Ellis Island and imprisoned another two weeks. Charged with pos- session of literature expounding the philosophy of Anarchism. Ordered deported to Canada. Canada refused to accept him. _ . Arrested a second time in February, 1921, in the Main ublic Library of New York City. Brutally mal- treated by the Bomb Squad during a 24 hour third degree. Jailed at Ellis Island six months. Govem- ment renews attempt to execute 1919 deportation warrant. ~ - Arrested a third time in 1930 at Yuma, Arizona. Charged with possession of two copies of "An Anthology of Revolutionary‘ Poetry", a volume that he had compiled and published in 1929 and which repre- sents 400 poets of world renown. Held imprisoned ' for two weeks in the Iails of Yuma, Arizona, El Centro, San Pedro and Los Angeles, Calif. Arrested a fourth time in October. 1937, at Los Angeles. Calif. -Charged with being editor of an anarchist monthly, "MAN 1", since its' inception in ]anuary,_ 1933.‘ Imprisoned over a Week. Iailed a fifth time Ianuary 14, 1938. at Los Angeles, Cal.. when the "liberal" Federal Iudge, Leon R. Yank— Wich, sentenced him to six months imprisonment for refusing to testify against himself in the Immi— gration Department's attempt to execute the 19-year- old deportation Warrant. Imprisoned again over a Week. _ Now out an a thousand dollar bond on the 1919 Deporta- tion charge and on another thousand dollar bond, pending’ a decision of the Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upon ludge Yankwich's sentence. - Sentence reversed by higher court. On October 28, 1938, Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed six months sentence for "contempt of court" upon sole ground of self-incrimination. Condoned rulings of lower court on central issue of case—enforcement of nineteen-year-old admittedly invalid deportation warrant. Remanded case to lower court to deter- mine which questions are self-incriminating and to hold Graham in "contempt of court" if he still refuses to answer other questions. Attorneys’ Brief Exposes -19-Year-Old Ordeal l The Age-old Problem of Freedom of Thought in the 19-Year-old Persecution ' of Marcus Graham Fundamentally and beneath the surface ‘this case involved the age-old problem of free speech and freedom of the press. It is allied to the recent Sallitto case, for the appellant herein, vMarcus Graham, was the publish- er of a periodical entitled “Man”, and was the very party who rented space in the restaurant in Oakland for editorial rooms of said publication. It was‘ for the crime of renting these quarters to this said publication that Sallitto was persecuted and finally ordered depor- ted (p. 18 of the Record). It was only after a great wave of public sentiment by the liberaland intellectual people of the country who expressed themselves, that the powers that be in Washington set ' aside the order of deportation. Subsequent to the Oakland incident, the appellant removed his publication to Los Angeles. However, the Immigration Service at San Francisco had not for- gotten him and requested and‘ secured authority for “Reopening” his case. If appellant had ceased his pub- lication at this time we are morally certain the case would never have been reopened. As appears in Exhibit “M”~ (p. 72 of this Bill of Exceptions) immediately after appcllant’s arrest in October, 1937, Inspector Henderson stated to the appellant, “On March 18, 1936, the Department entered an order directing that a hearing in your case be reopened for the purpose of getting in- formation from you regarding your citizenship and that is the purpose of this hearing—”. As is evident from the other portions of the Billof Exceptions, and would be incontravertibly evident to anyone who would take the time to read the entire proceedings before the Im- migrant Inspectors, which have been sent up in the ori- ginal as Exhibit “M” of this record on appeal; the entire proceeding before said inspectors were based upon the original order of deportation of 1.919. The sole pur-' pose of the reopened~hearing was to obtain information required by the Canadian or any other Government of the nativity of the appellant, prove it to their satisfac— tion, and for the sole purpose of making the 1919 order of deportation effective by the deportation of said ap- pellant. And such was the. understanding of appellant and his counsel up to the date of the hearing before the District Court. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ARRAIGNED - Lawless Acts. of Immigration Officials Condoned ‘ ' by Iudqe Leon R. Yankwich The District Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the appellant ’s plea in baron the ground that in a contempt hearing under 8 USCA Sec. 152 the Court may not review the fairness or lack of due, process in deportation (expulsion) proceedings before the Immié gra'tion Service, and thus depriving defendant of the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the ' “unfairness” of the deportation (expulsion) proceed- ings could only be inquired into-by the Courts after a final order of deportation. ' - - a It is believed that the appellant has already suffi- ciently indicated the complete lack of any evidence to - substantiate the determination of the jurisdictional fact by the District Court that “The old warrant has become ,functus officio.—. Hence the present inquiry is a new 1nqu1ry or investigatoin leading to the determination of the right of the alien to remain in the United States.” (p. 55 Record). - - . It is difficult for the appellant -to grasp the.logic of this syllogism. It appears to be the Court ’s conten- tion that if the Immigration Service erroneously thought that the old warrant was‘ still valid and relied upon it as their authority, the Court could inform them of their error-and ratify all their acts by telling them that al-. though they did not know it they had been administer- ing an entirely new proceeding. While such ex post facto absolution doubtless pleases the Labor Department, it certainly fails to safeguard the rights of the appel~ . ~lant alien. It does not absolve him of the days spent in jail without a warrant of arrest; nor of the expense of" securing bail, legal defense; it does not absolve the De- Ypartmcnt of Labor of breaching Rule 19 of its own rcgu- “ lations, as well as the 5th Amendment. Furthermore it must not be forgotten that the Plea- in Bar (pp. 12-47 Record) alleged that the entire pro- ceedings were based upon the old 1919 warrant (see line 13 p. 19; and Exhibits F and G pp.38-40 Record). ' For the purposes of the demurrer the prosecuting at- torney in Open Court expressly admitted the truth of said allegations in the Plea in Bar. Therefore in consi- dering the ruling upon the demurrer we must realize that it was expressly admitted that there were no new proceedings, but merely a re-opening and re-hashing 1919 proceedings, solely based upon the 1919 warrant. Now inasmuch as the District Court has already in- dicated that the old warrant is “functus officio”, since it was not executed within a reasonable time and no ex- ‘_,10 _\ ATTORNEYS‘ BRIEF EXPOSES 19-YEAR-OLD . ORDEAL cuse for the delay appearing; it must necessarily follow that the entire proceedings were ultra vires, “unfair” and contrary to “due process”, and hence the appellant was not under the necessity of answering and should be discharged. ‘ . ' Immigration Rules Violated. as Graham's “Arrest of 1937 Not-Under New Proceedings. but under Old 1919 Deportation Warrant Rule 19 Subdivision A of the Immigration Rules and Regulations provides that the officers shall make thor- ough investigation of all cases where‘ they are credibly informed or have reason to believe that a specified alien in the United States is subject to arrest and deporta- tion ‘on warrant. From the foregoing it is conclusively evident that in the instant case there has been a complete failure to comply with Rule 19_as far as a new proceeding is concerned, since no new warrant of arrest was ever re- quested or issued; nor has appellant or his attorneys ever been informed'of the nature of the charges against the alien, other than the reading of the old. 1919 warrant, ‘and the receipt of copies of said warrant and the pro- ceedings of 1919. These were evidently furnished ‘ ~ _'in compliance with Rule 19 and show conclusively what the Department considered to be the basis of its author- ity. (See pp. 28-37 of Record). For not even by the wildest stretch of the imagina- tion could we say that the order to “re-open” the case ‘ (see Exhibit G, pp. 40, 68) satisfied the statutory re- quirement that such an alien “shall upon the warrant of the Secretary of Labor, be taken into custody—.” ' '(s USOA Sec. 155). . And recently the Supreme Court has strictly limited administrative procedure byv stating that “the right ' to a hearing embraces not only the right to present evi- dence but also a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them. This right to submit argument implies that opportunity; otherwise the right may be a barren one. Those who are brought into contest with‘ the Government in a quasi-judicial proceeding aimed at the control of their activities are entitled to be fairly advised of what the government proposes and to be heard upon its pro- posals before it issues its final command.” No such reasonable opportunity was accorded, ap- pellant‘. The administrative proceeding was initiated by an order to “re-open” the case and by the arrest of appellant. No specific complaint was formulated— ' no warrant of arrest ever issued—thus, in the absence of any defmite complaint, andin a sweeping investiga- _I_11_ FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ARRAIGNED' tion, hundreds of pages of testimony were taken by the various inspectors conducting the hearing and nu- merous complicated exhibits were introduced and ques- tions asked of appellant bearing upon all phases of the past life of himself, his . parents, his publication’ “Man”, and his activities since birth (see Exhibit M Record of Proceedings before Immigration Inspectors). From all the foregoing it is apparent that the so- ' called new re-opened hearing is .fatally defective, ultra vires, invalid, violative of the Rules of the Department and of the Immigration Act itself, and constitutes a deprivation of the due process of law guaranteed to everyone within the United States, even to alien anar- chists, by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal consti— tution. ~ ' Iudge Yankwich Rules Materiality of Questions in Order to Enforce 1919 Deportation Warrant , that he Declared as Invalid The District Court erred in ruling that each and allv of the questions set forth in the information (pp. 78-83 Record) were material and authorized under. 8 USCA Sec. 152 and the Immigration Act. - > For if theproceedings were de novo, no warrant . of 'arrest had been issued, neither the defendant nor the District Court were appraised of the nature of the charges, if any, f0; which the alien was being held in ‘custody and subjected to inquisition. Hence in'the ab-' senee of a new warrant of arrest issued by the Secre- tary of Labor as required by law (8 USCA Sec.'155) and by the Rules of the Immigration Service (Rule 19) no charges existed. The question then arises, to what issues were the questions material? In the absence of i any new charges it was impossible for the District .Oourt to determine that the questions put to the alien ‘ e were material, unless they were material to issues made by the 1.919 warrant. On the other hand, if the proceedings were based upon the authority of the old 1919 warrant, inasmuch as the District Court has declared it to be “functus officio’_’ the inquisition would be equally unauthorized and illegal. For likewise there would be an absence of charges and issues to which the questions might be held material. The District Court erred in ruling that in deporta- tion (expulsion) proceedings an alien may be compelled to answer questions which would tend to incriminate him under Federal and State criminal statutes, and thus - depriving appellant of the right against self-in- crimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. _12____ ATTORNEYS’ BRIEF EXPOSES 19-YEAR-QLD ORDERI- It is admitted that said questions asked appellant would tend to incriminate him. Such were the allega-‘ tions in appellant ’s Plea in Bar (p. 23 Record) and were expressly admitted to be true‘for the purposes of the demurrer (line‘ 22 p. 67 Record). I The legality or illegality of the appellant ’s entry into the United States is no longer'and can no longer be in issue. For an alien- who entered illegally before June 30th, 1924 and has never left the United States -is no longer subject to deportation for illegal entry. Congress having passed a statute of limitations or par- don, appellant is now lawfully within the United States, 76 F (2d) 204. . ' Iudge Yankwich Attempts to Rewrite Laws~ of Con- gress in Order to Aid in the Persecution of Graham _ The District Court erred in ruling that the con— tempt provisions of 8 USCA sec. 152 are applicable to cases involving deportation (expulsion) proceedings for acts done after entry into the United States. ‘ The District Court devoted‘ the major portion of its opinion to what is often termed “judicial legislation”, i.e. arguments why a statute should be applied to a con- dition never contemplated by Congress. . ' For Section 16 (8USCA'sec. 152) provides for cxam- ' ination by immigration inspectors of aliens and others for the purposes of “determining whether they belong to any of the excluded classes” enumerated in section 3 thereof; and section 3 ‘(8 USCA sec. 136) in'turn deals with aliens that may be excluded, not with aliens that may be deported (expelled) and the grounds upon which aliens may be so deported. ' . As a matter of fact, a reading of the Immigration Act (39 Stat. 874) discloses that the Act does not begin to deal with deportation (expulsion) of aliens until Section 18; that no section and no provision prior to Section 18, including Section 16 (8 USCA sec. 152), concerns itself with the deportation (expulsion) of aliens. I ' Our position in this connection is that it is not for the courts to re-write the Immigration Act, that this is the task of Congress. It ‘was not the intent of Congress that Section 16 should apply to cases where deporta- tion (expulsion) is sought because of misconduct after entry into the United States. For there is a great dis- tinction ‘between “exclusion” and “deportation” or “expulsion” proceedings and the rights of the aliens thereunder. (Ng Fung Ho v White 259 U. S. 276). It is true that there is language in the case of Lou- fakis v U. S., 81 F (2d) 966, to the effect that Section —-—13——-—-v FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ARRAIGNED 16'applies to deportation (expulsion), as well as to ex- clusion cases. Moreover it is upon this decision that the Department relied in re-opening the case. (Ex G p. 40 - Record). However, in the Loufakis case the issue was the legality of the alien’s entry; whereas there can be no question of Graham ’s entry as he has now lived here for 19 years, and the charge against him, if any, would be for acts done after entry. Hence the Loufakis case is not controlling. Sole Purpose in Re-opening of Case: To Enforce the 19-Year-old Deportation Warrant The District Court erred in applying 8 'USCA sec. .152 to proceedings against an alien against whom a final deportation order was already issued when the sole purpose of the proceedings is to secure information required by a foreign country before it will issue a pass- port to. effectuate the deportation of said alien. . If the proceeding is viewed as based on the 1919 warrant. then the right of the alien to “enter, re-enter, reside inor pass through the United States” is not at issue. For this issue has already been determined ad- versely to the alien by the warrant of deportation. More- over, as is indisputably evidenced by Exhibit-s F, G and H (pp. 38-41 Record), the purpose of the Department of Labor in re-opening the case, as disclosed by its of- ficial records, was, not to determine the alien’s right to “enter, re-enter, reside in or pass through the United States”, but merely for the purpose of compelling Gra- ham “to give information concerning himself which may ‘ be of assistance in bringing about his deportation” (line 24 p. 38 Record); “information which may be of as- sistance in proving his nationality” and “it has not as yet been possible to obtain the consent of the Canadian authorities for his return” (lines'6 and 9 p. 40 Record). The foregoing conclusively shows that the sole purpose‘ of the entire proceeding was to secure the information required by the Canadian authorities before they would issue a passport for Graham, and thus to secure the exe- cution and effectuation of the old 1919 warrant of de- . portation. Conclusion The conviction of appellant based upon these deporta- tion proceedings constitute a denial of that due process of law which the Constitution guarantees to all aliens as to citizens, and presents an example of lawless enforce- ment of the law, which should be rectified by this Court. . Respectfully submitted. June 5, 1.938. . a , LEE BAYLOR STANTON, A. L. WIRIN Attorneys for Appellant @14— _Graham's Talk in Court Before Being Sentenced (When Sentenced to Six Months Imprisonment on Ianuary 14. 1938, by Iudge Leon R. Yankwich.) The court has declared from the bench that it will not lend its support to the execution of a warrant of deportation dated November, 18, 1919, but at the same time declared me in criminal contempt of court for re- fusing to answer questions at hearings re-ope-ned by the Labor Department and based solely on a warrant of ar- restin 1919. .. Now, if the warrant of Deportation dated Nov. 18, 1919, is void, one must conclude beyond any shadow of a doubt that the warrant of arrest dated April, 1919, is void as well. ‘ I was arrested and lodged in jail on October 6, 1937, in this very city. I was held in jail for eight days and am now out on a thousand dollar bond. , An examination of the transcripts of every hearing held by the immigration inspectors will reveal that there was no new warrant of arrest issued, that the only exist- ing warrant of arrest in my case is the one dated April, 1919! x > I will read as proof Page 1, transcript of the hearing dated October 11, 1937. The very opening statement of Inspector Henderson to me states: . “I refer to a. hearing granted you by this Department at Ellis Island, New York, April 25, 1919, in which you were given an opportunity to show cause why you should not be deported under charges read to you. At that time you stated you were born in Montreal, Canada; subse- quently on November 18, 1919, Departmental Warrant 54616/ 163 directing your deportation to Canada was issued and -is still in effect.” , , - Then one must conclude that every hearing held by the local immigration department since my arrest of. October 6th must and can only be considered illegal and that, therefore, their coming into this court to obtain its order to force me to be a participant in hearings re- sulting from an illegal arrest is a thing which this court, in all fairness 'to its own name, should not permit. The court should reconsider its own decision of yesterday in declaring me in contempt of court. ' Furthermore, an examination of the dismissal of the Labor Department’s order of deportation to ‘Mexico against me dated November 15, 1930, gives its main reason—that I was still subject to the deportation war; rant of 1919—eleven years after its issuance! The reopening of the case in 1936, as well as the, transcript of every hearing held here since my arrest of __- ‘15 .— FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ARRAIGNED October, 1937, will show the court that the Labor De~ partment still considers the warrant of deportation dated Nov. 18, 1919, valid. The district attorney’sreadiness to admit itsbeing invalid comes only after this court in- timated that it_considered said order-invalid, By letting its order of yesterday stand and sentence ing me today, this court substantiates as correct the posi- tion of the anarchists toward the _- government as an administrative ‘organ not serving the interests of, but against the people, not of truth, not of justice but of rank injustice. ' g _ ' ,_ ' ' Q ' . _ As an Anarchist I do not believe humanity has any needlfor any form of government ‘or laws in order to maintain its well-being, peace ond‘happiness. The fact is that the very. existence of government, itscourts, its jails, its army, and the multitude’s poverty and depriva- tion bespeaks its uselessness and harmfulness and further- more condemns its moral right to exist. at all. Naturally, then, as an Anarchist, I am no partner to the making of the laws of any country and therefore can at'no time be flouting laws or be asked to obey them—unless 'by'force. And by force,.jnot ‘by reason, governments ‘enforce all ‘their laws. ' . The District attorney also had- thetemerity to‘inti- mate that I wasaccorded fair treatment at all times. 5 .' 7Let me place on record the facts that will prove this assertion to be a lie. _ . - - . . - .. ' My first arrest occurred in April, '1919,~in Paterson, N. J. I was thrown in jail-for two weeks,‘ denied any. non-meat. food, since and because I am an Anarchist I do not believe even in the killing of animals. ' ‘ '-_ Subsequently, I was incarcerated'for two weeks at Ellis Island and was again denied non-meat foods. On February 21, 1921, I was arrested in‘ the'main public library of New York City 'and‘taken'to' the “Bomb Squad.” For refusing to give my address I was 'given a third degree. for- twenty-four hours—a third degree that ‘shbcked evenlthe doctors at Ellis Island when viewing-my body."JP - e ' -. .. ' ' I Suppose this, tool, the district attorney would term .“fair treatm'ent.’.;’,.u'.. .~ '4 l. .- ., . ' 1“-F_or months- I was detained at' Ellis ‘Island, subsequent to this arrest. Commissioner H owe. of'Ell-is Island granted my request for non-meat food. . ' _ *Sinee my incarcenation. for ‘'‘criminal contempt of. court," V I learned that .the present'PoliceOommis-sioner of ‘New York City,- Mr. Valentine, is none other than the same Mr. Valen-~ tine who participated as a ‘member'of ‘the infamous “bomb squad” in myarrest as'well' as-_in the beastly third degree I had undergone. This revelation can cause no surprise to the anarchist; Aclose scrutiny. of most police heads of .the land would result; in the same revelation—M‘. G. ' - - ‘ ' GRAHAM‘S' TALK‘ IN COURT BEFORE BEING SENTENCED ‘ In July, 1930, a zealous'immigration inspector at Yuma, Arizona, arrested me for having in my possession two copies of “An Anthology of Revolutionary Poetry" -—-a.volume representing 400 renowned poets of twenty countries and obtainable in the leading libraries of‘this country. For two weeks I was incarcerated inthe‘ jail-s of' Yuma,-Arizona, El Centro, San Pedro and Los Ange- les, California and was denied non~meat food in all four - jails. In October of '1937 I was thrown into the county jail, forced to sleep on a bare‘ floor for eight days (again denied non-meat food) although the immigration law prescribes an alien should be detained at the nearest Island. '~ ‘ > I ' ' ' ' ' . My homewas broken into on October 6, 1937, a; mittedly by Mr. Henderson, an immigration inspector sitting here, without a-search warrant, and property belonging to me and to the monthly magazine of which I am editor—MANl—was seized; " - ' ‘ " - .When two of the-four arresting inspectors broke into my house, I demanded a search warrant.‘ Then, in hand‘- cuffs, I was paraded through the streets. ' ‘ '- ' ‘All these mistreatments—not to speah- ofthe scores of forcible fingerprint-taking and photographing—all thisa representative of the government—the supposed servant of the people—considers no doubt fair ‘treatment and. “due process of law” as accorded by the Oonstitu- ' ‘tit-7711'. \ ' ' . . > ._ It is because the'Anarchist knows that the adminis- trators of government never do act as-servants of the people thatlhe challenges that claim.‘The-inineteemyear- old' mistreatment accorded to- me by the United States Government vindicates the truthfulness of-the Anarchist ‘contention; ' ‘ ' ’ '- . ' ‘ ‘ ~ , a - #-- a s- ~ - I :Why I do not answer any'questionsfthe‘foremost reason: I have never been a'partner to the-making of any ' ‘ laws of any country and therefore ‘refuse to recognize any. country’s right to ‘question me on Imatters concern- ing-‘Amy own personal life or political'beliefs. ‘ --I have persistently refused to outrage‘ my own self- respect by becoming a witness against myself—and no court in the land, high or low, can‘ or- will ‘force me to dose. . " I - ' If this~ or any‘ other court attempts to .heep'me im- prisoned for refusing- totestify'against ‘myself, I‘ do'not ‘believe the liberty-understanding people of America will _ allow ‘me to rot away in .a‘prison' for ‘my acting as I have doneiand' will continuetto do.‘- . I r _ * G # a In Oanada-dnringiitheii‘last world war butchery, I. spoke against conscription, and I am proud for having FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ABRAIGNED done so. There I have edited publications that upheld Freedom, social, economic and political, as the most con- ducive form of life for mankind. — The volume of “An Anthology of Revolutionary Poetry” I labored over for ten‘years, and I am proud in its materialization. - To the publication MAN 1, which I have edited for the last five years, I devote now all my time. " If it were not for my editing of MAN! I ‘would not be now facing imprisonment. But it is nevertheless a fact that MAN! is published legally. It is‘ accepted as a legal paper by the post office. No collaborator, or my- ‘ self, was at any time indicted upon criminal charges for anything that has appeared in its pages. _ So, all my crimes summed up in one is thecrime of _ independent thinking—the crime of the man who chal- lenges the present form of government as a beneficiary to‘ mankind.‘ ' ' ' ' This is'not the first time, nor the last, as long as ' governments Prevail, that men have gone through what. --children of mankind. I have and what I face. The struggle for the liberation of mankind from all the fetters that still keep him a slave is a long and unceasing one. And not before mankind - achieves its truest and fullest emancipation will that ‘struggle end, nor its proud upholders and defenders cease'their‘efforts. - _. ‘ f , ' And I am proud in having contributed whatever little share I could in that greatest of all struggles for_ happiness, true equality,‘ true freedom—for all the That is the dream ‘of the anarchist society; a :- The district attorney concluded dramatically that my. chief crime is in' being the editor of MAN! that ex- pounds such an anarchist society.‘ With full pride I . _' ‘plead guilty to this'charge. And if the court presided ' ‘over by a reputed liberal‘ judge decides now to flout his _ Town declaration that‘ the warrant of 1919 is void and sends me to jail for refusing to be a- partner in proceed- ings, that brought about my arrest in order to execute the Iyery same order‘ of deportation (since there has been no 'lnew “warrant of arrest), then I standready to 'go to jai -. a , ' - _ . , Myggoing to jail by order of a liberal court will fully substantiate the anarchist contention in toto as to the basis for.,;th_e._-fo_unding, existence and perpetuation of government—'Jth'ei dispensing of injustice. I shall closelwnithi the words of the greatest of all Americans—Henry Dhvid Thoreau—when he said: “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth!” . ._ " ‘ And I add—the word Freedom—the true essence of ‘Anarchy. _'__13__ . .What is Your Reaction To This‘ Abridgernent of‘Free Speech? 9 ' ' You who ‘have read this pamphlet cannot remain ' indifferent'to the persecutions undergone by the idealist Marcus Graham ‘and ‘the journal MAN!. ‘Your silence and ‘indifference will sanction the tyranny of the Gov-v ernment. Today it is Graham; tomorrow, if no "protests are made, it will surely'be someoneelse. This country . was" foundedon the principle of free expression, and only the vigilance of its people can have it remain sol ‘You can show your indignation against this_perse-. I - oution in- many ways. Protests against Graham's invalid order of deportation and a demand that the persecutions against him and MAN I cease should be sent to President Roosevelt and‘ to Frances‘Perkins, Secretary of Labor.‘ . Copies of your protests should be sent to the press and _ to our committee. Circulate this pamphlet widely. It will- be supplied to you, through voluntary contribution plus the cost of mailing. Discuss the case' with your friends and organizations. Aid. us_ in-arranging mass meetings- throughout the country. Help us in our task _through. ' whatever financial contribution which our'work merits; The case, of Marcus Graham should touch the heart of. every liberty-loving individual. The effectiveness of our work will depe sponse. January, .1939 _ 1 nd_ 'upon the‘ strength ‘of your re- ' Marcus Graham‘ Freedom of ' the Press Committee.-_ . - i t >- NATIONAL. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Sherwood Anderson ' _' Newton Arvin ~ Roger Baldwin ~l=Iarry---Elmer Barnes ' Ernst Sutherland Bates Vicki Baum Konrad Bercovici _ Alice Stone ‘ Blackwell 1 Harry Block ‘Lewis Browne ‘Howard Brubalcer Steven T. Byington -~ ~Witter Bynnen ‘ V. F. Calverton . Iohn Chamberlain George S._ Counts Countee Cullen Iohn ' Dewey- Robert W. :Dunn - Max vEastman? - ~ - Alexis. .C.= Fermi‘ ' Robert Morss ' - Vardis Fisher ' Waldo Prank Tom Gannon _ Kate Crane-Gartz vMichael- Gold George W. Hartmann Hippolyte Havel I‘... Arthur‘ Garfield Hays Ammon Aq Hennacy ' Iohn Haynes Holmes Harry Kelly Freda Kirchwey- Laurence‘ Labadie Lovett George E. MacDonald. , Alexander Meikeliohn A Edna St. Vincent Millay H. A. .Overstreet Walter Pach Kirby Page Alice Park Address all correspondence and funds to the" MARCUS. GRAHAM FREEDOM ‘OF'THE PRESS COMMITTEE . .-"._T...~.~.;~1>.-; 0.1305‘ 911. LosaAnqleles, Calitornia- u. s, A. , V- Dorothy ‘Parker Iohn Dos Passos Samuel Polinow Floz'ari Rockwood . Iames Rorty v Charles Edward Russell ' Iules Scarceriaux ‘Prank Scully e; George Seldes George Soule' I‘: ' Donald Ogden Stewart Beniamin F. 'Stolberg Ruth Suckow _ Norman Thomas . Iim Tully’ ‘ Louis . Unte‘nneyer ‘ Harry I‘. Ward . William Allen Ward‘ George P. West ' _ James ‘Waterman Wise Art .- Young men. .. .__,,/ ;. Books and Pamphlets on Anarchism and Related Subiects ALDRED, GUY A.: Socialism and Parliament .............. .. ._25‘ ' ALLEN, GRANT: The Evolution of the Idea of God .40 BAKUNIN, MICHAELfGod and the State ............. .. .35. BARRET, GEORGEI. The Anarchist Revolution .......... .05 _ ' ” ~ ' ” Objections to Anarchism ' .......... -. .10" BERKMAN. ALEXANDER: Now and After .......... ...... ..$l.UU BORGHI, ARMANDO: Mussolini—Red & Black ...... .. .75 ‘CARPENTER, EDWARD: Love's Coming of Age ..... .. .75 DAVID, HENRY: The‘History of the . ' " ' - 'Haymarket Affair .......... .. ................ ..$1‘.25 DE CLEYRE, VALTAIRINE: Anarchism and _ ' , American Traditions . ' .10 FAURE, SEBASTIEN: Does God Exist? ......................... .. ..10 GODWIN, WILLIAM; Reflections on ‘Political Justice. .10 GRAHAM; MARCU'Sa: An Anthology of Revolutionary I . Poetry - - ‘ ' 1'. $52.00 Deluxe Edition ’ $4.90 HAVEL, HIPPOLYTE: What's Anarchism? .................. .. .10 'KROPUTKIN, PETER: An Appeal to the Young .......... .. .05 - " " .” Anarchist Communism ................ .. .10. ” ” Law and Authority .................. .10 '-_\ ' ” ” Modern Science and Anarchy .... .. .25 ”' " , Revolutionary Government ........ .. .05 ” ” _ Memoirs of a Revolutionist -: ..... ..$1.00 ~ -”' ' ” Ethics $2 00 LABADIELJOE: Anarchism: Genuine and Asinine~ ...... .. .15 MALATE'STA, ENRICO: ‘A Talk Between Two Workers .. .10 NETTLAU, MAXI‘ Enrico Malatesta. _ ' . I (Biography of an Anarchist) .................................. .. .35 OPPENHEIM,- FRANZr The State ......... .. ................. .- ~.75 OWEN. WM. 0.: Anarchism \S. Socialism ........................ .. .lo RAMUS. PIERRE: Wy Does Anarchy Progress ~So Slowly? , _ ' _ .05 READE,» WINWOOD: The‘ Martyrdom of Man .......... .- .60 STIRNER, MAX: The Ego and His Own ............. ..$1._50 SWARTZ, CLARENCE: Mutualism .......................... .- .85 THE STRUGGLE FOR LIBERTY ‘ IN SPAIN7‘('18f40¥1936)- ‘ _ .10 - 'TOLSTQY‘ LEO- er and Peace .............. .._ ...................... .. .75 TUCKEIR,-.- BEN. R.: Individual Liberty ..- ..... . ".7 5 ". ” ” Why I am an, Anarchist .................... .15.; .10 . :1: =2" e Pleaseadd 2' cents postage oneach pamphlet and 5 cents on each‘ book. Order through "-‘MANl”. (See'address .given in'box below.) v ' g _ ' ‘ e I ‘ n a 3 .1 .\ ' ' . .eA' Monthly Journal of ‘the .Anarchist Ideal .- ‘ :7 - and Movement 7 ' . '1 _ MARCUS GRAHAM; Editor -., Subscription Price: $1.00 per year-“Six months Fifty Cents .l, . . " Sample Copies Free Upon Request . YMANl' invites the collaboration of all writers and. ‘ artists- _who are- in sympathy with our ideas to send us essays. poems, and drawings. No payment can be made. .~ ,, Where‘ return of manuscript is desired sufficient-postage should be included. ' '4 . " M i " Administration and Editorial Address: ' MA is! ' . 3;. “iii, {an '1 -“P-I_'_‘o'. B(>x.1 . . Los Angeles, Calif.. U.S.A.