152 OHIO
HISTORY
27. Bettman to Bailey, January 16, 1930;
Bailey to Bettman, January 28, 1930. ACLU
Archives.
28. Bettman to Bailey, December 24,
1929, ACLU Microfilms; Bettman to Bailey,
January 16, 1930, ACLU Archives.
29. Motion for a New Trial, Johnson
et al. v. State of Ohio, November 21, 1929,
ACLU Microfilms.
30. Bettman to Bailey, January 16, 1930,
ACLU Archives.
31. Gitlow v. New York, 268
U. S. 652 (1925).
32. Ibid., 666.
33. Ibid., 668.
34. Whitney v. California, 274 U.
S. 357 (1927); Murray, Red Scare, 235.
35. 274 U. S. 357, p. 371.
36. Chaffee, Free Speech in the
United States, 319, 344.
37. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S.
380 (1927).
38. Ibid., 382-383.
39. Ibid., 386.
40. Bettman to Bailey, December 18,
1929, ACLU Microfilms.
41. Bettman to Bailey, December 24,
1929, ACLU Microfilms.
42. Bettman to Bailey, May 22, 1930,
ACLU Archives.
43. Johnson et al. v. State of Ohio (unreported),
Seventh District Court of Appeals
for Belmont County, St. Clairsville,
Ohio, ACLU Archives.
44. Johnson et al. v. State of Ohio (unreported), Seventh District Court of Appeals
for Belmont County, ACLU Archives. After
Johnson was remanded, the Belmont County
Prosecutor announced that his staff
would retry the case. "They are hard losers," Mrs.
Land explained to the ILD, "and are
willing to go to bat once more with this case,
knowing full well that the Court of
Appeals will reverse them once again." Yetta Land
to Samuel A. Darcy, November 11, 1930,
ACLU Archives. The International Labor De-
fense, confronted with the possibility
of a new trial, tried to condition Bettman's con-
tinued participation on a procedure not
"restricted to legal technicalities," but explanded
to include "the political phase of
the issue." Bettman refused in strong language. "If I
participate," he told Mrs. Land,
"I can only try the case in my own way. If we could
get the case dismissed on the
prosecutor's showing, I would do so. If I would deem it
advisable to go to the jury on the
prosecutor's case, I would do so. If it became, in my
opinion, advisable, to put the defense
on the stand, I would restrict the questions to
what I deemed necessary to counteract
the testimony of the plaintiff. I would seek to
keep out issues not relevant or
necessary, for meeting the prosecutor's case." The ILD
labelled the reply of the ACLU attorney
as "vague and general"; Mrs. Land, on the con-
trary, thought that Bettman's answer was
a "very clear statement that he will proceed
with the case, as he, according to a
trial lawyer, sees fit." "If you desire," she informed
the ILD, "to . . . deviate from the
strictly legal and technical procedure, and thereby
admit certain evidence into the trial,
which is not absolutely relevant and yet which
from the standpoint of the ILD [is
necessary], it will be necessary to proceed without
Mr. Bettman." Yetta Land to
Bettman, November 21, 1930; Bettman to Yetta Land,
November 22, 1930; Darcy to Yetta Land,
December 2, [?] 1930; Yetta Land to Darcy,
December 4, 1930. The foregoing
correspondence are copies contained in a covering
letter from Bettman to Bailey, December
15, 1930, ACLU Archives. The revived contro-
versy over trial strategy and ACLU-ILD
relations concluded anticlimatically in May 1931
when the Johnson case was dropped
by a new prosecuting attorney. See Bettman to
Bailey, May 18, 1931, ACLU Archives.
SOCIALIST PARTY OF
OHIO--WAR AND FREE SPEECH
1. William English Walling, ed., The
Socialists and the War (New York, 1915), as
cited by David A. Shannon, The
Socialist Party of America: A History (New York, 1955),
82.
2 George R. Kirkpatrick, War! What
For? (West Lafayette, Ohio, 1910).
3. All background information on the
activities of the Socialist Party of America and
its efforts to bring about international
Socialist unity for peace is taken from Shannon,
Socialist Party of America, 81-90.