The un-American Activities Committee is on the run. In Chicago it packed, up and scuttled back to Washington after three and one-half days of hearings, when it had announced a two-week affair.
In Los Angeles the un-Amencans met the same kind of defiance.
Trade unionists, housewives and professional people are taking the offensive to rout and finish the committee. This is the growing challenge during the high tide of reaction. The ebb follows.
More and more people are getting tired of being hounded and heaped with indignities.
Some take courage in the growing resistance of people who refuse not only to crawl before the committee, but who fight back.
They are fed up with the low congressional practice of making heroes out of stool pigeons.
They have faith in the Constitution and invoke its guarantees to prevent the witch-hunters from stepping into their province of legal rights.
We remember the headlines of about three years ago when 10 Hollywood screen writers and directors refused to answer the un-American committee.
They invoked the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech in declaring their right to remain silent.
They were convicted.
Today, people speak of the "Hollywood Nine" because one lost courage and self-respect and went crawling respect and went crawling to the committee, because he wanted to be "respectable" and feel the jingle of Hollywood dollars in his pocket.
The Fight for Bill of Rights Is Old
Exercise of intelligent courage made the Hollywood Nine stick to their guns. And while they served their time, they made their contribution in the struggle to outlaw the un-Americans.
Close at home, here in Hawaii, the "Defiant 39" invoked the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees one the right not to answer incriminating questions.
Thirty-nine individuals were cited for contempt of Congress by the un-American committee. And the 39 were upheld by the court on their legal stand in refusing to tuna stool pigeons.
But here too, the Hawaii 39 is now 38, for one has gone crawling. Jack Kawano has become the stool pigeon, turning against his former union in joining the big bosses in attacking it.
Today in places like Chicago and Los Angeles housewives, professionals and workers find protection under the Fifth Amendment as they fight back against the un-Americans.
They take courage from the fight of others who made their fight earlier.
They undoubtedly appreciate the integrity and understanding of the Hollywood 9, Hawaii 38 and others like them, and that of the early fighters for democratic processes who insisted that the Bill of Rights be spelled out long, long ago.
Men of property and special privilege in the founding days of our country tried to assure the people that the right of free speech, press and religion were implied in the Constitution. But the common people refused to accept this assurance as a guarantee, and refused to ratify a constitution that did not put down these inalienable rights in black and white.
Thus, the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law" abridging these rights. The struggle to win these provisions — the Bill of Rights — was a major event.
The Climate In Which Un-Americans Thrive
But the Bill of Rights is not safe. For example, it is not safe as long as 16 million Negroes do not enjoy their full guarantees. They actually have not been fully established because racists and vested interest elements with power, in and out of government, have found it profitable to keep them from general enjoyment.
In the South, particularly, it has been unsafe for Negroes to speak their minds and to assert their minimum rights.
In Hawaii, as a national Negro magazine said in a recent issue, numerous Negroes here try to pass as Hawaiians. Why? Because of discrimination.
When 16 million Negroes are subjected to frame-ups, persecution, lynching, discrimination in housing, education and on jobs, indignities and what have you, the climate in the country is suitable for the un-Americans.
Smith Act To Get Around First Amendment
The strategists of the un-American committees have generally been congressmen from the South. In their states they do not need the un-American committees to harass and persecute the Negroes. And they carry their prejudices to the far corners of the country.
Ever since I was indicted under the Smith Act, along with six others, on Aug. 28, 1951, I have frequently thought that the persecution of people by the use of the Smith and McCarran Acts and the harassments by the un-American committee, bad as they are, are comparatively mild when we consider what the Negroes go through in our country year in and year out. Their growing struggle for freedom and equality is a common struggle of all democratic-minded people.
Rep. Howard Smith of Virginia, who authored the Smith Act, admitted that his law was aimed to "get around the limitations imposed by the First Amendment" (Congressional Record, May 19, 1940). He is a southerner who does not believe in the Bill of Rights.
There is growing opposition to the Smith Act, just as there is mounting opposition to the un-American committee.
Jefferson Would Be Unsafe Under Smith Act
The Smith Act attempts to put ideas behind bars. This is impossible, for ideas grow out of actual conditions.
Thus, people fight for peace when they see the horrors, devastation and waste in wars. They realize the desirability of organization, like in trade unions, when they become aware that dog-eat-dog competition is against their interests. When they experience poverty amidst plenty, chaos in the economic setup, and depressions, they begin to think of social planning.
The Smith Act is actually a plot to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. Rep. Smith admits that.
Thomas Jefferson would not be safe today. When he led the fight for the Bill of Rights, he said:
"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this Union or to change its Republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." People cannot say the same today. The spirit of the times has changed. But this is not a permanent situation.
While Under Attack Defense Brings Improvement
In about three weeks the Smith Act trial here will get underway. More than a year has passed since our indictment. And as I look back I see that the Smith Act case has brought a favorable change to Hawaii.
The jury which indicted us and the jury list from which it was chosen were predominantly haole and people classed as and tied up with the big employers.
The non-haoles, particularly the people of Japanese ancestry, were under-represented, and so were the workers in the major industries.
The government prosecutors who are pushing the Smith Act case fought for the un-representative jury list, and Federal Judge J. Frank McLaughlin stood four-square behind that jury list.
Who's fighting for democratic processes and constitutional rights?
Today even the Big Five lawyers claim the former grand jury was not valid, that it did not represent a cross-section of the community. They put forth this argument in a current tax suit.
The old jury list is gone and the present one is more representative. Here, the Smith Act defense has brought a constructive improvement in the Federal court system. Decent and fair-minded haoles prefer this change. The advocates of the Smith Act want a haole-boss jury system. Thus, the people fight for decency, equality and self-respect.
I Have Learned From Struggle of Others
As I look back to Kona to the waterfront of my longshore days, to Georgia where I saw Tobacco Road conditions, to Manzanar where we of Japanese ancestry were held behind barbed wire and to my experiences overseas as a GI, I see that there have always been people who struggled for improvement. I have learned from them. The conditions I've experienced have shaped my thoughts, raising in my mind protests to bad conditions and advocacy of improvement.