Abrams v. United States, No. 316

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCLARKE
Citation40 S.Ct. 17,250 U.S. 616,63 L.Ed. 1173
PartiesABRAMS et al. v. UNITED STATES
Docket NumberNo. 316
Decision Date10 November 1919

250 U.S. 616
40 S.Ct. 17
63 L.Ed. 1173
ABRAMS et al.

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 316.
Argued Oct. 21 and 22, 1919.
Decided Nov. 10, 1919.

Mr. Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert P. Stewart, for the United States.

Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

On a single indictment, containing four counts, the five plaintiffs in error, hereinafter designated the defendants, were convicted of conspiring to violate provisions of the

Page 617

Espionage Act of Congress (section 3, title I, of Act June 15, 1917, c. 30, 40 Stat. 219, as amended by Act May 16, 1918, c. 75, 40 Stat. 553 [Comp. St. 1918, § 10212c]).

Each of the first three counts charged the defendants with conspiring, when the United States was at war with the Imperial Government of Germany, to unlawfully utter, print, write and publish: In the first count, 'disloyal, scurrilous and abusive language about the form of government of the United States;' in the second count, language 'intended to bring the form of government of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, and disrepute;' and in the third count, language 'intended to incite, provoke and encourage resistance to the United States in said war.' The charge in the fourth count was that the defendants conspired 'when the United States was at war with the Imperial German Government, * * * unlawfully and willfully, by utterance, writing, printing and publication to urge, incite and advocate curtailment of production of things and products, to wit, ordnance and ammunition, necessary and essential to the prosecution of the war.' The offenses were charged in the language of the act of Congress.

It was charged in each count of the indictment that it was a part of the conspiracy that the defendants would attempt to accomplish their unlawful purpose by printing, writing and distributing in the city of New York many copies of a leaflet or circular, printed in the English language, and of another printed in the Yiddish language, copies of which, properly identified, were attached to the indictment.

All of the five defendants were born in Russia. They were intelligent, had considerable schooling, and at the time they were arrested they had lived in the United States terms varying from five to ten years, but none of them had applied for naturalization. Four of them testified as witnesses in their own behalf, and of these three frankly avowed that they were 'rebels,' 'revolutionists,'

Page 618

'anarchists,' that they did not believe in government in any form, and they declared that they had no interest whatever in the government of the United States. The fourth defendant testified that he was a 'Socialist' and believed in ' a proper kind of government, not capitalistic,' but in his classification the government of the United States was 'capitalistic.'

It was admitted on the trial that the defendants had united to print and distribute the described circulars and that 5,000 of them had been printed and distributed about the 22d day of August, 1918. The group had a meeting place in New York City, in rooms rented by defendant Abrams, under an assumed name, and there the subject of printing the circulars was discussed about two weeks before the defendants were arrested. The defendant Abrams, although not a printer, on July 27, 1918, purchased the printing outfit with which the circulars were printed, and installed it in a basement room where the work was done at night. The circulars were distributed, some by throwing them from a window of a building where one of the defendants was employed and others secretly, in New York City.

The defendants pleaded 'not guilty,' and the case of the government consisted in showing the facts we have stated, and in introducing in evidence copies of the two printed circulars attached to the indictment, a sheet entitled 'Revolutionists Unite for Action,' written by the defendant Lipman, and found on him when he was arrested, and another paper, found at the headquarters of the group, and for which Abrams assumed responsibility.

Thus the conspiracy and the doing of the overt acts charged were largely admitted and were fully established.

On the record thus described it is argued, somewhat faintly, that the acts charged against the defendants were not unlawful because within the protection of that freedom

Page 619

of speech and of the press which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the entire Espionage Act is unconstitutional because in conflict with that amendment.

This contention is sufficiently discussed and is definitely negatived in Schenck v. United States and Baer v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470, and in Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. Ct. 249, 63 L. Ed. 561.

The claim chiefly elaborated upon by the defendants in the oral argument and in their brief is that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the judgment upon the verdict of guilty and that the motion of the defendants for an instructed verdict in their favor was erroneously denied. A question of law is thus presented, which calls for an examination of the record, not for the purpose of weighing conflicting testimony, but only to determine whether there was some evidence, competent and substantial, before the jury, fairly tending to sustain the verdict. Troxell, Administrator, v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 227 U. S. 434, 442, 33 Sup. Ct. 274, 57 L. Ed. 586; Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U. S. 222, 225, 6 Sup. Ct. 33, 29 L. Ed. 373; Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Ohle, 117 U. S. 123, 129, 6 Sup. Ct. 632, 29 L. Ed. 837. We shall not need to consider the sufficiency, under the rule just stated, of the evidence introduced as to all of the counts of the indictment, for, since the sentence imposed did not exceed that which might lawfully have been imposed under any single count, the judgment upon the verdict of the jury must be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient to sustain any one of the counts. Evans v. United States, 153 U. S. 608, 14 Sup. Ct. 939, 38 L. Ed. 839; Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 12 Sup. Ct. 169, 35 L. Ed. 966; Debs v. United States, 249 U. S. 211, 216, 39 Sup. Ct. 252, 63 L. Ed. 566.

The first of the two articles attached to the indictment is conspicuously headed, 'The Hypocrisy of the United States and her Allies.' After denouncing President Wilson as a hypocrite and a coward because troops were sent into Russia, it proceeds to assail our government in general, saying:-

Page 620

'His [the President's] shameful, cowardly silence about the intervention in Russia reveals the hypocrisy of the plutocratic gang in Washington and vicinity.'

It continues:

'He [the President] is too much of a coward to come out openly and say: 'We capitalistic nations cannot afford to have a proletarian republic in Russia."

Among the capitalistic nations Abrams testified the United States was included.

Growing more inflammatory as it proceeds, the circular culminates in:

'The Russian Revolution cries: Workers of the World! Awake! Rise! Put down your enemy and mine!'

'Yes friends, there is only one enemy of the workers of the world and that is CAPITALISM.'

This is clearly an appeal to the 'workers' of this country to arise and put down by force the government of the United States which they characterize as their 'hypocritical,' 'cowardly' and 'capitalistic' enemy.

It concludes:

'Awake! Awake, you Workers of the World!

REVOLUTIONISTS.'

The second of the articles was printed in the Yiddish language and in the translation is headed, 'Workers—Wake Up.' After referring to 'his Majesty, Mr. Wilson, and the rest of the gang, dogs of all colors!' it continues:

'Workers, Russian emigrants, you who had the least belief in the honesty of our government,'

—which defendants admitted referred to the United States government——

'must now throw away all confidence, must spit in the face the false, hypocritic, military propaganda which has fooled you so relentlessly, calling forth your sympathy, your help, to the prosecution of the war.'

The purpose of this obviously was to persuade the persons to whom it was addressed to turn a deaf ear to patriotic

Page 621

appeals in behalf of the government of the United States, and to cease to render it assistance in the prosecution of the war.

It goes on:

'With the money which you have loaned, or are going to loan them, they will make bullets not only for the Germans, but also for the Workers Soviets of Russia. Workers in the ammunition factories, you are producing bullets, bayonets, cannon, to murder not only the Germans, but also your dearest, best, who are in Russia and are fighting for freedom.'

It will not do to say, as is now argued, that the only intent of these defendants was to prevent injury to the Russian cause. Men must be held to have intended, and to be accountable for, the effects which their acts were likely to produce. Even if their primary purpose and intent was to aid the cause of the Russian Revolution, the plan of action which they adopted necessarily involved, before it could be realized, defeat of the war program of the United States, for the obvious effect of this appeal, if it should become effective, as they hoped it might, would be to persuade persons of character such as those whom they regarded themselves as addressing, not to aid government loans and not to work in ammunition factories, where their work would produce 'bullets, bayonets, cannon' and other munitions of war, the use of which would cause the 'murder' of Germans and Russians.

Again, the spirit becomes more bitter as it proceeds to declare that——

'America and her Allies have betrayed [the Workers]. Their robberish aims are clear to all men. The destruction of the Russian Revolution, that is the politics of the march to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
468 practice notes
  • Frissell v. Rizzo, No. 78-1863
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 20, 1979
    ...Brief at 7; See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 357, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). But it does not follow that because the First Amendment protects widespread pu......
  • Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, No. 4:03CV3155.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • May 12, 2005
    ...or discomforting." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 357, 123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 535 (2003) (quoting Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). An individual's interest in self-expression is a concern of the First Amendm......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...Expression 31 (1970). 5 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). 6 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 22, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., 7 See cases cited note 3 supra. See also Robison, Protection of Associations from ......
  • Burns v. Town of Palm Beach, No. 18-14515
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 8, 2021
    ...inevitable about this bargain. But this bargain "at any rate is the theory of our Constitution." Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).It is no rejoinder, then, for the Town to argue that its interest in aesthetic un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
444 cases
  • Frissell v. Rizzo, No. 78-1863
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 20, 1979
    ...Brief at 7; See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 357, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). But it does not follow that because the First Amendment protects widespread pu......
  • Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, No. 4:03CV3155.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • May 12, 2005
    ...or discomforting." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 357, 123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 535 (2003) (quoting Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). An individual's interest in self-expression is a concern of the First Amendment s......
  • Buckley v. Valeo, No. 75-1061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 29, 1975
    ...Expression 31 (1970). 5 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). 6 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 22, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., 7 See cases cited note 3 supra. See also Robison, Protection of Associations from ......
  • Burns v. Town of Palm Beach, No. 18-14515
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 8, 2021
    ...there is nothing inevitable about this bargain. But this bargain "at any rate is the theory of our Constitution." Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).It is no rejoinder, then, for the Town to argue that its interest in aesth......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 books & journal articles
  • CONTENT UNDER PRESSURE.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 100 Nbr. 1, September 2022
    • September 1, 2022
    ...logic of the majority opinion). (22.) See. e.g., Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC. 512 U.S. 622, 662 (1994). (23.) Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., (24.) See id. ("[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe ... th......
  • The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Freedom of Expression
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 275-1, May 1951
    • May 1, 1951
    ...U. S. 47(1919) ; Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S.204 (1919) ; Debs v. United States, 249 U. S.211 (1919).8 Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616(1919) ; Schaefer v. United States, 251 U. S.466 (1920) ; Pierce v. United States, 252 U. S.239 (1920).9 Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652 (19......
  • CUSTOMIZED SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 35 Nbr. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 537 (1945)). (55.) See discussion infra notes 72-84 and accompanying text. (56.) Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., (57.) See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969) (explaining that the First Amendment protects speech "which......
  • The Fiction of the First Freedom
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 6-2, June 1953
    • June 1, 1953
    ...U.S. 211 (1919); Gilbert v. United States, 254 U.S. 325 (1920). 24 Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). 25 Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). 26 Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT