Ruthenberg v. United States

Decision Date14 January 1918
Docket NumberNo. 656,656
Citation62 L.Ed. 414,245 U.S. 480,38 S.Ct. 168
PartiesRUTHENBERG et al. v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Joseph W. Sharts, of Dayton, Ohio, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Schue was indicted for having failed to register as required by the Act of Congress of May 18, 1917 (Public Act No. 12, 65th Congress, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76), known as the Selective Draft Law, and in the same indictment it was charged that Ruthenberg, Wagenknecht and Baker, the plaintiffs in error 'did aid, abet, counsel, command and induce' Schue in failing to register 'and procure him to commit the offense involved in his so doing.' Schue pleaded guilty and the other three defendants were tried, found guilty and sentenced. Because of objections raised to the constitutionality of the act this direct writ of error was prosecuted.

As every contention made in this case concerning the unconstitutionality of the Selective Draft Law was urged in Arver v. United States, 245 U. S. 366, 38 Sup. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. ——, and held to be without merit, that subject may be put out of view. The remaining assignments of error are to say the least highly technical and require only the briefest notice.

The want of merit in the proposition that constitutional or statutory rights were denied the plaintiffs in error, who were Socialists, because the grand and trial juries were composed exclusively of members of other political parties and of property owners, is demonstrated by previous adverse rulings upon similar contentions urged by negro defendants indicted and tried by juries composed of white men. Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316, 320, 321, 26 Sup. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497; Thomas v. Texas, 212 U. S. 278, 282, 29 Sup. Ct. 393, 53 L. Ed. 512.

A further objection that plaintiffs in error were prejudiced by the refusal of the court below to permit them in examining the jurors to inquire whether they distinguished between socialists and anarchists is likewise disposed of by previous decisions. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 22, 31 L. Ed. 80; Thiede v. Utah Territory, 159 U. S. 510, 16 Sup. Ct. 62, 40 L. Ed. 237; Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 248, 31 Sup. Ct. 2, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 20 Ann. Cas. 1138.

It is contended that plaintiffs in error were not tried by a jury of the state and district in which the crime was committed, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, because the jurors were drawn not from the entire district but only from one division thereof. The proposition disregards the plain text of the Sixth Amendment, the contemporary construction placed upon it by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73, 88, c. 20, § 29) expressly authorizing the drawing of a jury from a part of the district, and the continuous legislative and judicial practice from the beginning. Section 802, Revised Statutes; section 277, Judicial Code (Comp. St. 1916, § 1254); Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 43, 17 Sup. Ct. 235, 41 L. Ed. 624; United States v. Wan Lee (D. C.) 44 Fed. 707; United States v. Ayres (D. C.) 46 Fed. 651; United States v. Peuschel (D. C.) 116 Fed. 642, 646; Clement v. United States, 149 Fed. 305, 79 C. C. A. 243; Spencer v. United States, 169 Fed. 562, 565, 566, 95 C. C. A. 60; United States v. Merchants', etc., Co. (C. C.) 187 Fed. 355, 359, 362.

It is argued that the court below erred in refusing to quash the indictment on the ground that it had been found 'without a sworn charge previously made.' It is settled ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • O'Hare v. Superior Court (People)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 25 Marzo 1986
    ...districts into divisions and to draw jurors solely from the division in which the court sits. (E.g., Ruthenberg v. United States (1918) 245 U.S. 480, 482, 38 S.Ct. 168, 169, 62 L.Ed. 414; United States v. Gottfried, supra, 165 F.2d at p. 364; Zicarelli v. Dietz, supra, 633 F.2d at pp. 317-3......
  • Kelly v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 7 Enero 1919
    ......1152 (Comp. St. Sec. 10506). . . . See. Wood v. United States, 204 F. 55, 58, 122 C.C.A. 369. (C.C.A. 4); Dean v. United States, 246 F. 568, 574,. 158 C.C.A. 538 (C.C.A. 5); Rooney v. United States, . 203 F. 928, 931, 932, 122 C.C.A. 230 (C.C.A. 9); and see. Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480, 483, 38. Sup.Ct. 168, 62 L.Ed. 414. . . And. where the statute, as here, has abrogated the distinction. prevailing at the common law between principals and. accessories in the commission of felonies, a charge against. one formerly known as an ......
  • Davis v. Warden, Joliet Correctional Inst. at Stateville, 88-1590
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 9 Mayo 1989
    ...the jury may be drawn from a division of the district rather than the entire district. Compare Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480, 482, 38 S.Ct. 168, 169, 62 L.Ed. 414 (1918) and Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 232, 235, 44 S.Ct. 519, 522, 523, 68 L.Ed. 989 (1924) with Barrett v. U......
  • United States v. Caplan, 13609.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 13 Agosto 1954
    ...be misdemeanors or felonies. Rooney v. United States, 9 Cir., 1913, 203 F. 928, at page 932; Ruthenberg v. United States, 1918, 245 U.S. 480, at page 483, 38 S.Ct. 168, 62 L.Ed. 414; Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 1920, 254 U.S. 189, at page 192, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214; United States v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • "THIS WEARISOME ANALYSIS": THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST FROM SCHENCK TO BRANDENBURG.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 66 No. 3, March 2021
    • 22 Marzo 2021
    ..."I'm here in the f***ing cold getting free chicken sandwiches!"). (78.) Debs,249 U.S. at 213. (79.) Id.; see Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918) (rejecting the various procedural objections of the four defendants that Debs praised in his speech). (80.) Debs, 249 U.S. at 214. (8......

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