State v. Gilbert

• Decision Date: 20 December 1918
• Docket Number: No. 21089.,21089.
• Citation: 141 Minn. 263,169 N.W. 790
• Parties: STATE v. GILBERT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

141 Minn. 263

169 N.W. 790

STATE

v.GILBERT.

No. 21089.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 20, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Goodhue County; Albert Johnson, Judge.

Joseph Gilbert was convicted of having violated a statute by teaching and advocating that men should not enlist in the military and naval forces of the United States, and that citizens of Minnesota should not aid the United States in prosecuting the war against public enemies, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Intent is not an ingredient of the offense created by chapter 463, Laws of 1917 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, §§ 8521–1 to 8521–6).

The statements which the indictment charges defendant with making, if believed, would naturally and reasonably deter enlistment and giving of aid in the war, and constitute a violation of the statute.

The evidence made the question as to whether defendant had committed the offense a question for the jury and is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Remarks made by members of the audience during defendant's speech, to which defendant made reply, were properly admitted in evidence in connection with such replies.

Leading questions, not otherwise admissible, are not made admissible by the claim that the purpose is to impeach an adverse witness to whom the same questions had been propounded, if the answer could have no tendency to prove that the adverse witness ever made any statement inconsistent with his testimony.

That the statute, including section 3, is constitutional, has been established by prior decisions. George E. Nordlin, T. V. Sullivan, F. A. Pike, and Arthur Le Sueur, all of St. Paul, for appellant.

Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., James E. Markham and John E. Palmer, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Thomas A. Mohn, Co. Atty., of Red Wing, for the State.

TAYLOR, C.

A public meeting, called by Louis W. Martin, an organizer for the Nonpartisan League, was held at the village of Kenyon, in the county of Goodhue, on the evening of August 18, 1917. Some 200 people attended. Two officers of the league, N. S. Randall and the defendant were present and made speeches. Defendant was subsequently convicted of having violated chapter 463 of the Laws of 1917 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, §§ 8521–1 to 8521–6), by teaching and advocating, in the speech which he made at this meeting, that men should not enlist in the military or naval forces of the United States, and that citizens of this state should not aid the United States in prosecuting the war against the public enemies. He appealed to this court from the judgment.

The indictment charges that on the 18th day of August, 1917, at the village of Kenyon, in the county of Goodhue, at a public place where more than 5 persons were assembled, defendant did ‘unlawfully and willfully teach and advocate by word of mouth and oral speech that men should not enlist in the military and naval forces of the United States, and that citizens of the state of Minnesota should not assist the United States in prosecuting and carrying on war with the public enemies of the United States,’ by then and there stating to those assembled:

‘We are going over to Europe to make the world safe for democracy, but I tell you we had better make America safe for democracy first. You say, What is the matter with our democracy? I tell you what is the matter with it: Have you had anything to say as to who should be President? Have you had anything to say as to who should be Governor of this state? Have you had anything to say as to whether we should go into this war? You know you have not. If this is such a great democracy, for Heaven's sake why should we not vote on conscription of men. We were stampeded into this war by newspaper rot to pull England's chestnuts out of the fire for her. I tell you, if they conscripted wealth like they have conscripted men, this war would not last over 48 hours.’

[1] 1. Defendant contends that this indictment is defective because it fails to allege that in speaking the words set forth therein he intended to discourage enlistment and the giving of aid.

The statute makes teaching or advocating non-enlistment or non-aid unlawful. It does not make the intent of the teacher or advocate an ingredient of the offense. The statute is a police regulation, and, under it, the doing of the forbidden act is a criminal offense regardless of the intent. State v. Sharp, 121 Minn. 381, 141 N.W. 526;State v. Lundgren, 124 Minn. 162, 144 N. W. 752, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 377;State v. People's Ice Co., 124 Minn. 307, 144 N. W. 962.

[2] 2. Defendant also contends that the statements set forth in the indictment do not constitute a violation of the statute.

The question is whether the natural and reasonable effect of the statements uttered is to deter those to whom they were made from enlisting in the military or naval forces and from aiding the United States in carrying on the war. State v. Holm, 139 Minn. 267, 166 N. W. 181, L. R. A. 1918C, 304; State v. Freerks, 140 Minn. ——, 168 N. W. 23.

The declaration that the world must be made safe for democracy had been acclaimed throughout the entire country as expressive of our purpose in the war. Defendant used a reference to this sentiment as a basis for casting aspersions upon the democracy of our own country. And after declaring in effect that...