◆ SpookStack

572 UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN CALIFORNIA 4. Sabetage. Sabotage statutes generally contemplate wilful | destruction, injury or diminution of value of physical property belonging to another. The crime of sabotage has been incorporated in thd California statute relating to criminal syndicalism (cited above) and] is therein defined as meaning ‘‘wilful and malicious physica] damage o injury to physical property.’’ (For text, see Appendix.) The Subrame Court upheld the validity of the sabotage| provisions of the California statute in Burns v. United States (1927), 274 U.S. 328, affirming the conviction of the defendant for organizing, dssisting in organizing, and becoming a member of an organization (the] Industrial Workers of the World) which was found to have been onganized to advocate and teach acts of industrial sabotage. 5. Masks and Disguises. Many states have enacted laws pontrolling the wearing of masks and disguises to conceal identity. A|Californis statute prohibits the wearing of masks (Ch. 153, Calif. Qtats. 1923, Deering General Laws, Act 4707). (For text, see Appendit.) We are unaware of any reported decision involving that statute. 6. Criminal Conspiracy and Unlawful Assembly. Most. states, ineluding California, have statutes prohibiting conspiracy t commit a crime (California Penal Code, Section 182. For text, see Appendix.) and unlawful assembly. (California Penal Code, Sections 40, 408, and 416. For text, see Appendix.) However, these statutes are lof general application and do not relate particularly to criminal subverpive activi: { ties. , 7. Public Employment. (a) Federal Employment. The President by his executiWe order of March 21, 1947 (Exec, Order No. 9835, 12 Fed. Reg. 1935), hfs directed that inquiry be made into the loyalty of ail persons in federal service, and established procedures for the discharge of employees gs to whom reasonable grounds exist for belief that they are disloyal to fhe govern- ment. We are not aware of any judicial decision in which the constitu- tionality of this order has been considered. It is noteworthy that in Friedman vy. Schwellenbach (1946), 159 Fed. 2d 22, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, upheld a war service regulation permitting the removal from federal service of a person concerning whose-_loyalty to the government the Civil Service Commission entertained a reasonable doubt. The defendant in that case had been conditionally transfprred from a government position not under the Classified Civil Service| to a place in the Division of Central Administrative Services, Office for Emerge? Management, a position requiring civil service status. The transfer ¥™ made expressly ‘‘subject to character investigation.’’ The court held that the United States has the right to ehploy sued persons as it deems necessary to aid in carrying on the public busine and to prescribe qualifications and to attach conditions to thdir employ: ment, ruling that it was beyond the province of the court to jrevie¥ the finding of the Civil Service Commission as to the existence of alreasonable doubt of Friedman’s loyalty. The Supreme Court denied a wait of cert orari in the matter (330 D. 8. 838). UN-AMERICAN ACTIVI The Friedman case involved a wa vt be considered as determinative : ions and procedure for the deter) ervants. With respect to peacetime re mployees, the Supreme Court in l 19475, 330 U.S. 75, upheld the pro: Act (18 U.S.C, Supp. V, See. 61h) ‘he government from undertaking “*‘. uent or in political campaigns.”’ The court, in affirming the lov rought by certain members of the ivernment and a union of such er tha Civil Gapyiaa Cammiccionn fram or QUEL WOE Vi LA LELEbda oii 2 ain Gn 1 question and for a declaratory j ‘utional, stated: “We have said that Congress may re -nployees ‘within reasonable limits,’ even stent upen unfettered political action (p. 1 nthe judgment of Congress menace the in -tislation to forestall such dunger and adeq p. 103.) The court, in the Mitchell cas otivate, on public affairs, personali ‘ol an objective of party action, ar “ng as the government employee d “arty success. Another Supreme Court decisio: * Lovett (1946), 328 U. 8. 303, whic ‘ional appropriation measure that ‘hree named employees, who were f “ommittee to be unfit for governm ‘ubversive activities. The court held that the provisio |, Seetion 3, Clause 9 of the Feder no bill of attainder or ex post facto tad the effect of accomplishing the fF *ithout a judicial trial. (b) State Employment. The ¢ ‘tate employees to take an oath to su States and the Constitution of Cal for text, see Appendix), and prohi tho advocates, teaches, justifies, ai oree and violence, sedition or trea: State of California, and requires in ‘ommitting such an act during his ¢ aap pels, | The California Government Co ¥ oath to support, maintain or furt {r policies of any foreign governmer ‘ation thereof or to obey the orders ent or official thereof is ineligible 1