Page images
[blocks in formation]

convict. In impassioned language it intimated that conscription was despotism in its worst form and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street's chosen few. It said "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form at least confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed "Assert Your Rights." It stated reasons for alleging that any one violated the Constitution when he refused to recognize "your right to assert your opposition to the draft," and went on "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." It described the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy. It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves, &c., &c., winding up "You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country." Of course the document would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out. The defendants do not deny that the jury might find against them on this point.

But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to be quoted respectively from well-known public men. It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the

[blocks in formation]

main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 462. We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917 in § 4 punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. If the act, (speaking, or circulating a paper,) its tendency and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474, 477. Indeed that case might be said to dispose of the present contention if the precedent covers all media concludendi. But as the right to free speech was not referred to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words.

It was not argued that a conspiracy to obstruct the draft was not within the words of the Act of 1917. The


Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

[ocr errors]

words are "obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service, and it might be suggested that they refer only to making it hard to get volunteers. Recruiting heretofore usually having been accomplished by getting volunteers the word is apt to call up that method only in our minds. But recruiting is gaining fresh supplies for the forces, as well by draft as otherwise. It is put as an alternative to enlistment or voluntary enrollment in this act. The fact that the Act of 1917 was enlarged by the amending Act of May 16, 1918, c. 75, 40 Stat. 553, of course, does not affect the present indictment and would not, even if the former act had been repealed. Rev. Stats., § 13.

Judgments affirmed.




Nos. 117, 118. Argued December 19, 20, 1918.-Decided March 3, 1919.

The provisions of the Judicial Code governing the review of cases coming from Alaska are to be construed in the light of their legislative history and of the Judiciary Act of 1891, as construed by this court.

P. 58.

Under §§ 134, 247, and 241, of the Judicial Code, when a case involving constitutional as well as other issues is taken from the District Court for Alaska to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the judgment of the latter court is not reviewable in this court by writ of error but only by certiorari. P. 61.

Writs of error to review 236 Fed. Rep. 52, 70, dismissed.

The cases are stated in the opinion.

Mr. J. A. Hellenthal, with whom Mr. Harvey M. Friend was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error:

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

249 U. S.

Since this case involves the construction and application of the Constitution, by § 247, Jud. Code, a writ of error may be taken from the District Court for Alaska direct to the Supreme Court of the United States. If it had involved constitutional questions only, this court would have had exclusive jurisdiction to review the judgment of the District Court, and the Circuit Court of Appeals would have had none. But as the case involved a number of other questions along with the constitutional ones, under the authority of Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397, it was reviewable alternatively by this court or the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under § 134, Jud. Code, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final in all cases other than those in which a writ of error or appeal will lie direct to the Supreme Court, as provided in § 247. But since this is a case in which a writ of error would lie to the Supreme Court under the provisions of § 247, it is expressly excepted by the terms of the act from those cases in which the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is made final. The language of the act is not that the judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shall be final in "all cases" but in "such cases." The use of the word "such" limits the class of cases in which the judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals are made final to the cases previously in the same sentence dealt with; and since the cases of the character dealt with in § 247, to which the case at bar belongs, are expressly excepted from those in which the decision is made final, the decision in the case at bar is not final.

Owing to the peculiar fitness of this court to pass upon all matters relating to the construction and application of the Constitution, it has been the settled policy of Congress to leave such matters in all cases to the final judgment of this court. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not made final, and, the requisite amount

[blocks in formation]

being involved, it may be reviewed by this court under the provisions of § 241, Jud. Code. American Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277; Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397; Christianson v. King County, 239 U. S. 356; Ohio R. R. Commission v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, 104, 105.

The provisions of §§ 247 and 134, Jud. Code, governing appeals and writs of error from the District Court for Alaska, differ widely from the sections of the Judicial Code involved in Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, and the McClain Case, supra, in that the finality of judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not made to depend upon the sources of jurisdiction, but upon the character of the case. The District Court for Alaska is a court of general law and equity jurisdiction and its judgments are reviewable without regard to the question of how the case arose. In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472. But in those other cases, arising in the District Courts of the United States, the judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals were made final by the express provision of § 128, because of the sources of the initial jurisdiction, peculiar to District Courts of the United States, and without regard to the constitutional questions that became involved.

Mr. George B. Grigsby, Attorney General of the Territory of Alaska, for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases were argued and submitted together, and may be disposed of in a single opinion.

In case No. 117 the action was brought in the District Court for Alaska to recover monies alleged to be due under a statute imposing a tax upon prosecuting the business of fishing by means of fish traps in the waters of Alaska. The defendant, the Alaska Pacific Fisheries, filed an

« PreviousContinue »