◆ SpookStack

246 UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN CALIFORNIA necessarily advocate the overthrow of the government by force ay: lence, but that he was in reality cooperating with the Communi i : only in wholly legitimate measures and, therefore, was not sy at = therewith, in the sense intended by the statute, as to warrant his des ' tion; and (2) that evidence of affiliation employed to find that ts was a member of the Communist Party was improperly adn Nowhere did the court suggest that the Communist Party did nat cate the overthrow of the government by force and violence, since question was not in issue. FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS i’ yy _ Opposed to this refusal on the part of the Supreme Court ¢! United States to make a judicial determination as to mhether the munist Party advocates the overthrow of the government by fore violence we have the decision of many lower federal courts tha party ¢ does so advocate. : _senmotsu v. Nagle (44 F, 24 953, 954-955 (©. C. A. 9) ); cen denied (283 U.S. 832) ; Saksagansky v. Weedin (53 F. 2d rey (ie? 9) ); Wolek v. Weedin (58 F. 2d 928, 999 (C. C. A. 95): Sormuan Nagle (59 F. 2d 398, 399 (0. ©. A.9) ); Branch v. Cahill (88 Fo 546 (C.C. A. 9) ); Berkman v. Tillinghast (58 F. 2d 621; 622-623 +? A.1));Inre Saderquist (11 F, Supp. 525, 526-527 (D. Me.) ): af: sub nom., Sorguist v. Ward (83 FP, 2d 890 (C.C.A.1) ); United Stata _Curran (11 F. 2d 683, 685 (C. C. A. 2)); certiorari denied sub Vojnovic v. Curran (271 U.S. 683) ; United States v. Smith (2F2 91 (W.D.N.Y.) ); Re Worozcyt ef al. (58 Can. Cr. Cas, 161 (80; Nova Seotia, 1932) ). Of the three cases mentioned in the opiui™ Schneiderman v. United States (320 U.S. 118, at 148, fn. 30) as bei to the contrary, one—Colyer v, Skeffington (265, Ped. 17 (D. Mass was, as there noted, reversed on appeal (sub nom. Skefington v. Kt 277 Fed. 129 (C. C. A. 1) ); and one—Strecker v. Kessler (95 F.%2! (C. 0, A. 5) )—-was affirmed by this court, with modification, on‘ grounds, and without consideration of this point (307 0. §. 22). third, Ex parte Fierstein (41 ¥. 2a 53 (C. C. A. 9) ), the only evid adduced in support of the finding was the bare statement of the ar detective that the party did so advocate. These courts have uniformly sustained, when based on com! records, administrative findings to the effect that the Communist Pet from its inception in 1919 has believed in, advised, advocated, and 3 the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the U™ States. Other courts have gone to the extent of holding that the Cw munist Party, as a matter of law, will be presumed to advocate foret violence even in the absence of specific evidence. Murdock v. Clark (53 F. 2d 155, 157 (C. 0. A. 1) ); United ex, rel. Yokinen v. Commissioner (57 F. 24 707 (C. C, A. 2) ); certo denied (287 U.S. 607) ; United States ex.rel, Fernandas v. Commie? of Immigration (65 F. 2d 593 (C. C. A. 2) ); United States v. Pm yan “a vod (U. &. A. 2) 35 United States v. Reimer (79 F.2d dle” ic. C. A. 2) ); United States ex. Fortmueller v. Commissioner of 19™ gration (14 F. Supp. 484, 487 (S. D.N. Y.) ); Ungar v. Seaman GFs | oon aad | its © ag UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITI el CA. 8) ); Ex parte Jurgarg (1. apres! 25 F.2035 (C.C.A.8)) Tbe following are excerpts from opit qurta on the advocacy by the Communist P. gremoent by force and violence: _ ee datulish v. Paul et ab. (280 FL goe apr it) When, therefore, purposes and methods ‘aa ewes of society und government as now ofganiz: Q@meas'e] in language such as “by direct action,” by @ee eeven,” suggesting “the army of the proletarh: @e ‘red guard,” the use of all means of “battle,” d @eteaers in open combat, and the like, the query at ¢ @ &r+ susceptible of a meaning which necessaril gereecte means and necessarily suggests repugnal @ meriaien any idea except a chaage so peaceable, yet fee ke old te the new era will come shout with a @ ete willingly receding before the new. It suffice: fw manee] upon argument, thet it is hardly fair te a Moe eteeedingly mild. In other words, the conceasi @ weet to be used, if success is to be achieved, i wheerer other means prove unavailing. Sk fington v. Katzeff (277 F. 129, at pp. We bave carefully examined these exhibits fc @ebr they contain statements which, giving to 1 @m-t warrint any seasonable mind in reaching the Pee) teaches or advocates the overthrow by force a @ eee constituted. Following are some of the declarations of purpo feet in the manifesto of the Communist Internation @teron of the Communist Party of América, are bindin t .: the application for membership the applicant - Werpien and tacties of the party and the Communist | ‘Communism does not propose to ‘capture’ the i Mat conquer and destroy it. As long as the bourgeo: @m ean bufle the will of the proletariat, " * * ‘The stute is an organ of coercion, * * * “Therefore it is necessary that the proletariat ., a suppression of the bourgecisie. Proletariar hat fact; it is equally a recoguition of the fact that ‘4 mwiely the proletariat alone counts ag a class. * The proletarian class struggle is essentially a pol il (nthe sense that its objective is political—overt owe Ute which capitalist exploitation depends, and th ™'s ewer, The object is the conquest by the pro “The organized power of the bourgeoisie is in the c” uader contro! of bourgcoise-junker officers, its poli ma. Ma Driests, government officials, ete. Conquest wer a change in the personnel of ministries, bu Fatus of government ; disarmament of the bourgeois: Pothin vf the white guard; arming of the proletariat, "ard of workingmen. * * * Mette he revolutionary era compels the proletariat to . which will concentrate its entire energies; namely, ‘aut, direct conflict with the governmental machine “*, such ag revolutiquary use of bourgevise parli “ery dignificance. * * * rey ‘il war ig forced upon the laboring classes by | he Must answer blow for blow if it will not renoun Which ig at the asme time the future of all huma Ente e Communist Parties, far from conjuring up © sborten ita duration as much as possible—in