Milton R. Konvitz

Fundamental liberties of a free people : religion, speech, press, assembly

This is critical rather than technical examination of the freedoms which are analogous with America: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and others. Konvitz covers such topics as obscene literature, labor dispute picketing, previous restraint, police power, freedom not to speak, etc.

The Nature of Bronson Alcott

Bronson Alcott went forth from the city to converse in the West. His wife distrusted the venture: In 1852, for sixteen such conversations, he received the gross sum of

CLYDE E. JACOBS. Justice Frankfurter and Civil Liberties. (University of California Publications in Political Science, Vol. XII.) Pp. viii, 265. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961.

164; she saw not whence would come the bread for herself and the children. Neither did he, with the eyes of sense, but he knew that a purpose like his must yield bread for the hungry and clothes for the naked, and he would not wait for the arithmetic of this matter.

5.00

debacle in the Spanish civil war. The book, especially its earlier sections, gave me nostalgic memories of a simplicity of faith that so many of us felt before World War I in progressive reforms, in democratic socialism, or in anarchism easy for men to apply to a troubled world. Its gods, then, as too largely now, were absolute nationalism, profit, and power, and their strength still is great. NORMAN THOMAS

Legislation Guaranteeing Equality of Access to Places of Public Accommodation

CONGRESS in 1875 enacted a Civil Rights Act the purpose of which was to declare that in the enjoyment of the services and privileges of inns, public conveyances, theaters, and other places of public accommodation or amusement no distinction should be made between citizens differing in race or color. It was directed against action by private individuals. Eight years later, in the Civil Rights Cases; the United States Supreme Court held this statute unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Bradley, in his opinion for the Court, said that the statute could not be justified under the Fourteenth Amendment, for that amendment is directed only against action by states and not against action by private individuals; nor, he said, could the act be justified under the Thirteenth Amendment, for the denial of equality of access to places of public accommodation is not subjection of a person to slavery or involuntary servitude.