Antolish v. Paul

• Decision Date: 18 May 1922
• Docket Number: 3045.
• Citation: 283 F. 957
• Parties: ANTOLISH v. PAUL et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

283 F. 957

ANTOLISH v. PAUL et al.

No. 3045.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 18, 1922

The opinion of the trial court is as follows:

The first question seems not to have been raised, or at least not seriously urged, prior to the presentation and argument in court, and in fact now, in the estimate of counsel for the petitioners does not seem to have an aspect entitling it to serious consideration. It may be assumed that the Executive Department, when acting under laws committing to it subject-matter such as dealing with aliens, must observe prescribed limitations in the manner of proceeding; that taking into custody and holding an alien requires some sort of a warrant for justification; and that, generally, due heed be given to the dictates of common fairness in the enforcement of the law. But whatever criticism may justly be made in other situations respecting custody without warrant seems not to require consideration in the cases before us for it is true, whether we inquire on behalf of each petitioner if a warrant was in possession of the officers at the time of apprehension, the cases are before us upon practically uncontroverted facts which are essential to deal with the fundamental question respecting the status of each of the petitioners as bringing him within, or leaving him without, the law in question. It is true that, when each of the petitioners had his hearing before the executive official, he was accorded the privilege, and in fact had assistance, of counsel. It is true that upon the hearing the fundamental fact of membership of the individual in the alleged inhibited organization was established, in part, at least, by the introduction of a membership card doubtless found in his possession; but it is equally true that upon the executive hearing, as well as in this court (where, at petitioners' request, further evidence was permitted to be introduced to support the claim of unfairness of procedure), each of the petitioners freely and unreservedly admitted the facts respecting membership.

This brings us directly to a consideration of what the record discloses, and the matter may be considered briefly in two aspects: (1) The objective of the organization; and (2) the means for attaining the objective, as disclosed in the announcements emanating from the organization. Obviously there is comprehended in this manner of consideration the possible concession that the objectives, if broadly stated may appear to be innocent; but, secondarily, a contrary color may be given to such objectives by asserted means, for example revolutionary means, which latter may themselves be regarded as a purpose or objective of the organization. Really, when essentials are considered, it then becomes quite immaterial, if we say that laudable objects, broadly speaking, are to be attained by means, belief in, or the teaching or preaching of, or resort to, which is condemned by the statute. So we are brought to a consideration, not as a mere matter of lexicography of words used by the Communist party and its adherents, in their oral and written utterances, but rather of the understanding in the minds of those who receive them. This, obviously, does not require a finding, for example, that the language about to be referred to may have a figurative meaning, and may imply force; because, beyond that, it has a recognized and ordinary nonmetaphorical meaning.

These considerations require that the several writs be discharged and that the petitioners be remanded to custody under the executive warrants.

These several cases are before the court upon writs of habeas corpus, sued out to challenge the efficacy of proceedings taken by the government, through the Secretary of Labor, for the...