STATEMENT OF MISS ISABELLE KENDIG

Miss KENDIG. They stand for free speech, free press, and free assemblage, and the right of the individual to exercise this freedom. There is no doubt in our minds as to the question that the Constitution guarantees us the right of free speech, free press, and the right of free assemblage, and the right to preach any form of government that we deem desirable.

Mr. VINCENT. And you claim that same right for the alien that you do for the citizen?"

Miss KENDIG. Yes.

Mr. VINCENT. Is that it?

Miss KENDIG. Yes.

Mr. VINCENT. Your answer is yes?

Miss KENDIG. Yes.

Mr. VINCENT. That is what your organization claims?

Miss KENDIG. We stand on the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and assemblage for all.

Mr. VINCENT. What do you define free speech to mean; that a person has a right to say anything that he can think of that he has a mind to say?

Miss KENDIG. Certainly; the essence of free speech is that others shall have the right to say things of which we do not approve. Otherwise it has no meaning.

Mr. VINCENT. No matter how much that might affect that man's government or his neighbor?

Miss KENDIG. That is what the right of free speech means.

Mr. VINCENT. Every court in the country has held that it does not mean that.

Mr. FREE. Have you a copy of your constitution of your organization?

Miss KENDIG. No; but we stand on this broad ground, and nothing else. We have taken no stand as an organization on the right of any individual or group of individuals to carry their theories, whatever they may hold, into action. We do stand on the right that we believe is given to us by the Constitution of discussing and advocating, according to our belief, any type of government and any type of religion.

Mr. FREE. Will you furnish us with a copy of your constitution and by-laws?

Miss KENDIG. I will be very glad to.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe in direct action as a political means?

Miss KENDIG. We have taken no action on that, and so far as I understand it, to-day we stand only on those principals I have mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any views of your own on that subject? Miss KENDIG. None that I care to give at this time.

Mr. VINCENT. Are you opposed to all laws with respect to libel and slander, then?

Miss KENDIG. I do not think I can go into the legal technicalities of libel, but I believe in the principle of free discussion. I am not prepared to give an answer on the legal technicalities.

91781-26- -6

Mr. VINCENT. I am not talking about any legal technicalities at all. According to your statements just made, you would consider that I have a right to say anything about these other gentlemen here that might come into my mind, and that I wanted to say, no matter whether it was slander, or what it was. Is that your position?

Miss KENDIG. I should be glad to have Mr. Olmsted answer that. Mr. VINCENT. Can you not answer it?

Miss KENDIG. He is a lawyer, and I am not.

Mr. VINCENT. You do not know whether you would believe in that or not?

Mr. OLMSTED. I would like to say, speaking of free speech, that just such statements as you are speaking of have gone into the Congressional Record as to the members of the Civil Liberties Union. Mr. VINCENT. That does not answer the question.

Mr. OLMSTED. You wait until I get through. Personally I think the law of libel should be maintained, and in some ways it is regrettable in this case regrettable that the man who put them in has immunity; although in general I stand by it, even when it is my ox that is gored. I think the statements in the Congressional Record ought to be privileged, even though they would be libelous if printed outside.

Mr. VINCENT. Then you believe in a law of libel and slander?
Mr. OLMSTED. Civil libel.

Mr. VINCENT. Civil libel?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

Mr. VINCENT. You would not punish a person

Mr. OLMSTED. Criminally?

Mr. VINCENT. Yes.

Mr. OLMSTED. I have not, even right at the bottom of my heart-
Mr. FREE. What is your full name?

Mr. OLMSTED. Allen S. Olmsted.
Mr. FREE. Are you an attorney?
Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

Mr. FREE. What is your address?

Mr. OLMSTED. Packard Building, Philadelphia.

Mr. FREE. Are you allied with any communistic organizations? Mr. OLMSTED. No, sir; my political views are very much opposed to communism. My own personal feeling is that a law like this registration law which we are not discussing to-day, smacks to me of communism. That is a sort of thing that I do not like, because it means the Government is reaching in and telling the citizen, "You must do this because it is for the welfare of the State." I am an old-fashioned Jeffersonian Democrat. I am afraid that I am behind the times in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask the young lady down there, do you represent the Communist Party?

Miss SPRUANCE. Certainly not. I am an independent in politics, and I voted last time for Davis and for the Republican Representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. I am asking the other young lady.

Miss KENDIG. My name is Kendig.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you represent the Communist Party?
Miss KENDIG. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mind telling us what organizations you do represent?

Miss KENDIG. Yes; I decline to discuss that, because I think it would not be without prejudice in a meeting of this sort.

The CHAIRMAN. You are the representative here in Washington of various organizations?

Miss KENDIG. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Socialists and communists?
Miss KENDIG. No; I do not happen to

those groups.

represent either of

The CHAIRMAN. Are you paid by the Civil Liberties Union?
Miss KENDIG. I am paid for what work I do for them.

Mr. FREE. Where is your home, if I may ask?

Miss KENDIG. In Washington.

Mr. FREE. Have you lived here long?

Miss KENDIG. About six years.

Mr. FREE. From what part of the country did you come when you came here?

Miss KENDIG. I came from Chicago. Would you like me to go back any further?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you represent the I. W. W.?

Miss KENDIG. No: Mr. Chairman.

Miss SPRUANCE. Mr. Chairman, this lady is descended from Benjamin Franklin, so that I would not worry about any such thing as that.

Mr. HOLADAY. May I ask what line of work you were engaged in in Chicago?

Miss KENDIG. I did editorial work in Chicago.

Mr. HOLADAY. What is that?

Miss KENDIG. I did editorial work in Chicago, on a trade paper. Mr. HOLADAY. What paper?

Miss KENDIG. The American Contractor. I was librarian, and did some of the editorial work. I should be very glad to give you my background, if my Americanism is questioned, as it was at a similar meeting where the chairman was present, in which I did not feel that there was opportunity, as I was a guest, to give my background. I am a direct descendant of Benjamin Franklin. I think my most recent immigrant ancestor came over here in 1710; his name was Kendig; and all of my other lines run back to the sixteen hundreds. Mr. FREE. I understand that you are married, so that that is your husband's name?

Miss KENDIG. That is my name.

Mr. FREE. You are not married?
Miss KENDIG. I am married.

Mr. FREE. Are you taking his name or yours?

Miss KENDIG. I am giving you my own name.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the new order of things, is it?
Miss KENDIG. That is the new order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLMSTED. May I, in closing the hearing, enter formally a protest against the introduction of the outside matters that have been gone into, such as Miss Kendig's personal connection, and other questions?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; you do not need to make a protest. You can. if you want to, but she represents some organizations and does

not tell us the rest of them she represents, and she stands here now and says her patriotism was questioned at a meeting at which I was present. I did not say anything of the kind. I do not care anything about her patriotism, but if she comes here and sets herself up as representing organizations, she is entitled to tell this committee whom she represents.

Mr. OLMSTED. She is representing in this case one person, and her other clients have no more to do with the case than my other clients, and I protest against these questions going into the Civil Liberties Union, or the personal matters

Mr. FREE. I thought you stood for free speech.

Mr. OLMSTED (continuing). And interests of the people appearing here.

We come here, sir, as fellow citizens of yours, interested in the future policy of the United States. We have tried to give you views which may or may not be of value to you; but we do not feel that these other matters have any practical connection with the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; so far so good, and what you have said has been welcomed by the committee; but you have also made it appear that a great battery of organizations of people were here, through these representatives joining in your protest, which they are not. They are not only not here, but they are not protesting. Miss Kendig admits she is paid for work for the Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. VINCENT. I think this is the first witness who has ever appeared before this committee, since I have been a member of it, who has not freely and fully disclosed all of the different organizations, when asked and they are frequently asked-that they are acting for.

Mr. OLMSTED. I take exception to that. We have disclosedMr. VINCENT. That is the truth, no matter whether you take exception to it or not.

Mr. OLMSTED. Just let me finish. We have disclosed every person we are speaking for here.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, he appears for one organization and does not appear for others.

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes; and I do not want it understood that some other organization which I represent shares these views, which they do not. The atmosphere has been cleared.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, if there is no objection, thẹ chairman will offer, to be printed in the record, the brief prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union relating to the deportation laws, which was presented at the beginning of this meeting.

Mr. FREE. I would like to offer at this place the constitution and by-laws of the American Civil Liberties Union which the young lady is going to provide. (See Appendix A.)

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none.

If there is nothing else, the further hearings will be adjourned until 10.30 o'clock to-morrow morning, when we will meet in the Immigration Committee room and will hear Dr. George M. Kline, who is commissioner of mental diseases for Massachusetts, Doctor Montavon, and one or two other witnesses.

(At 4.30 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, March 26, 1926, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

APPENDIX A

[CLERK'S NOTE. The witness, Miss Isabelle Kendig, submitted information concerning the American Civil Liberties Union, stating that that organization has no constitution, but has issued a statement of policy and adopted a set of by-laws, which are published in full, as follows:]

CIVIL LIBERTY-STATEMENT DEFINING THE POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ON THE ISSUES IN THE UNITED STATES TO-DAY (1926)

We stand on the general principle that all thought on matters of public concern should be freely expressed without interference. Orderly social progress is promoted by unrestricted freedom of opinion. The punishment of mere opinion, without overt acts, is never in the interest of orderly progress. Suppression of opinion makes for violence and bloodshed.

The principle of freedom of speech, press and assemblage, embodied in our constitutional law, must be reasserted in its application to American conditions to-day. That application must deal with various methods now used to repress new ideas and democratic movements. The following paragraphs cover the most significant of the tactics of repression in the United States to-day.

1. Free speech.-There should be no control whatever in advance over what any person may say. The right to meet and to speak freely without permit should be unquestioned.

There should be no prosecutions for the mere expression of opinion on matters of public concern, however radical, however violent. The expression of all opinions, however radical, should be tolerated. The fullest freedom of speech should be encouraged by setting aside special places in streets or parks and in the use of public buildings, free of charge, for public meetings of any sort.

2. Free press.-There should be no censorship over the mails by the post office or any other agency at any time or in any way. Privacy of communication should be inviolate. Printed matter should never be subject to a political censorship. The granting or revoking of second-class mailing privileges should have nothing whatever to do with a paper's opinions and policies.

If libelous, fraudulent, or other illegal matter is being circulated, it should seized by proper warrant through the prosecuting authorities, not by the Post Office Department. The business of the Post Office Department is to carry the mails, not to investigate crime or to act as censors.

There should be no control over the distribution of literature at meetings or hand to hand in public or in private places. No system of licenses for distribution should be tolerated.

3. Freedom of assemblage.-Meetings in public places, parades and processions should be freely permitted, the only reasonable regulation being the advance notification to the police of time and place. No discretion should be given the police to prohibit parades or processions, but merely to alter routes in accordance with the imperative demands of traffic in crowded cities. There should be no laws or regulations prohibiting the display of red flags or other political emblems. The right of assemblage is involved in the right to picket in time of strike. Peaceful picketing, therefore, should not be prohibited, regulated by injuction, by order of court or by police edict. It is the business of the police in places where picketing is conducted merely to keep traffic free and to handle specific violations of law against persons upon complaint.

4. The right to strike. The right of workers to organize in organizations of their own choosing, and to strike, should never be infringed by law.

Compulsory arbitration is to be condemned not only because it destroys the workers' right to strike, but because it lays emphasis on one set of obligations alone, those of workers to society.

5. Law enforcement. The policing of strikes is a public function. When the policing authorities, whether deputy sheriffs, constabulary, troops, or city police, deny civil rights to any portion of the community, they become a menace to political and individual liberty. Such conduct calls for immediate change in the policing force and proceedings against the officials responsible.

and

Martial law, which often accompanies State troops, is usually unnecessary, frequently results in the complete denial of civil rights to the workers, thus putting: the State on the side of the employers.

6. Search and seizure.—It is the custom of certain Federal, State, and city officials, particularly in cases involving civil liberty, to make arrests without war