Debs v. United States
| Citation | 63 L.Ed. 566,39 S.Ct. 252,249 U.S. 211 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 714,714 |
| Parties | DEBS v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Seymour Stedman, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John Lord O'Brian, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the United States.
This is an indictment under the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. 30, tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat. 219, as amended by the Act of May 16, 1918, c. 75, § 1, 40 Stat. 553 (Comp. St. 1918, § 10212c). It has been cut down to two counts, originally the third and fourth. The former of these alleges that on or about June 16, 1918, at Canton, Ohio, the defendant caused and incited and attempted to cause and incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States and with intent so to do delivered, to an assembly of people, a public speech, set forth. The fourth count alleges that he obstructed and attempted to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States and to that end and with that intent delivered the same speech, again set forth. There was a demurrer to the indictment on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional as interfering with free speech, contrary to the First Amendment, and to the several counts as insufficiently stating the supposed offence. This was overruled, subject to exception. There were other exceptions to the admission of evidence with which we shall deal. The defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on each of the two counts, the punishment to run concurrently on both.
The main theme of the speech was Socialism, its growth, and a prophecy of its ultimate success. With that we have nothing to do, but if a part or the manifest intent of the more general utterances was to encourage those present to obstruct the recruiting service and if in passages such encouragement was directly given, the immunity of the general theme may not be enough to protect the speech. The speaker began by saying that he had just returned from a visit to the workhouse in the neighborhood where three of their most loyal comrades were paying the penalty for their devotion to the working class—these being Wagenknecht, Baker and Ruthenberg, who had been convicted of aiding and abetting another in failing to register for the draft. Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U. S. 480, 38 Sup. Ct. 168, 62 L. Ed. 414. He said that he had to be prudent and might not be able to say all that he thought, thus intimating to his hearers that they might infer that he meant more, but he did say that those persons were paying the penalty for standing erect and for seeking to pave the way to better conditions for all mankind. Later he added further eulogies and said that he was proud of them. He then expressed opposition to Prussian militarism in a way that naturally might have been thought to be intended to include the mode of proceeding in the United States.
After considerable discourse that it is unnecessary to follow, he took up the case of Kate Richards O'Hare, convicted of obstructing the enlistment service, praised her for her loyalty to Socialism and otherwise, and said that she was convicted on false testimony, under a ruling that would seem incredible to him if he had not had some experience with a Federal Court. We mention this passage simply for its connection with evidence put in at the trial. The defendant spoke of other cases, and then, after dealing with Russia, said that the master class has always declared the war and the subject class has always fought the battles—that the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose, including their lives; that the working class, who furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in declaring war and never yet had a voice in declaring peace. 'You have your lives to lose; you certainly ought to have the right to declare war if you consider a war necessary.' The defendant next mentioned Rose Pastor Stokes, convicted of attempting to cause insubordination and refusal of duty in the military forces of the United States and obstructing the recruiting service. He said that she went out to render her service to the cause in this day of crises, and they sent her to the penitentiary for ten years; that she had said no more than the speaker had said that afternoon; that if she was guilty so was he, and that he would not be cowardly enough to plead his innocence; but that her message that opened the eyes of the people must be suppressed, and so after a mock trial before a packed jury and a corporation tool on the bench, she was sent to the penitentiary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
46 South 52nd St. Corp. v. Manlin
... ... As ... stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hague ... v. C. I. O., 1939, 307 U.S. 496, 515-516, 59 S.Ct. 954, ... 964, 83 L.Ed ... 470; ... Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 39 S.Ct ... 249, 63 L.Ed. 561; Debs v. United States, 249 U.S ... 211, 39 S.Ct. 252, 63 L.Ed. 566; Abrams v. United ... States, ... ...
-
Moore v. State
... ... opinion of Mr. Justice BRADLEY, speaking for the court in ... Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746, 6 ... S.Ct. 524. As was there shown, it took its origin in ... literature act referred to in Debs v. United ... States, 249 U.S. 211, 39 S.Ct. 252, 63 L.Ed. 566; ... Abrams v. United ... ...
-
United States Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub Co v. Burleson
...47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470; Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. Ct. 249, 63 L. Ed. 561; Debs v. United States, 249 U. S. 211, 39 Sup. Ct. 252, 63 L. Ed. 566; Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 619, 40 Sup. Ct. 17, 63 L. Ed. The first comprehensive law providing fo......
-
Pennekamp v. State of Florida
...249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470; Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 39 S.Ct. 249, 63 L.Ed. 561; Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 39 S.Ct. 252, 63 L.Ed. 566. No Justice thought more deeply about the nature of a free society or was more zealous to safeguard its conditions by......
-
FARA , J'Accuse!
...stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."); Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211 (1919) (upholding the application of the Espionage Act against labor leader and perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Deb......
-
Labor and Employment Law Weekly Update (Week of August 22, 2011)
...Act of 1917 when he spoke publicly against the WWI draft. His conviction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919) (http://tinyurl.com/3h8md2s). Debs ran for president five times on the Socialist Party ticket. In the 1920 presidential election, while......
-
"THIS WEARISOME ANALYSIS": THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST FROM SCHENCK TO BRANDENBURG.
...Mass. (3 Pick.) 304, 313 (Mass. 1825)). (65.) Frohwerk, 249 U.S. at 206. (66.) Id. at 208. (67.) Id. at 209. (68.) Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (69.) Debs was actually convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 as amended in 1918, but nothing is made of this difference in the case. Id......
-
Inverting the First Amendment.
...U.S. 616 (1919). He had recently written the majority opinions in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), and Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919), in which the Court sustained convictions for what seems by today's standards to be astonishingly timid political dissent. These opi......
-
The Supreme Court and political speech in the 21st century: the implications of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
...204, 205. 209-10 (1919) (affirming conviction of newspaperman for criticizing U.S. involvement in World War I); Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211,212-13, 216-17 (1919) (affirming conviction of Socialist Party leader for statements opposing the (19) Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673 (1......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...(237.) See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919); Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919); Stilson v. United States, 250 U.S. 583 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466 (1920); P......