State v. Townley
| Decision Date | 02 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 21226.,21226. |
| Citation | 171 N.W. 930,142 Minn. 326 |
| Parties | STATE v. TOWNLEY et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Case Certified from District Court, Jackson County; E. C. Dean, Judge.
A. C. Townley was jointly indicted with another for conspiracy. A general demurrer was overruled, and questions certified to the Supreme Court. Order affirmed, and case remanded.
An indictment which charges defendants with conspiring to teach and advocate that men should not enlist in the military or naval forces of the United States, and that the citizens of this state should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting a war in which it is engaged with a public enemy, does not, by reason of the fact that it contains an averment that one of the defendants consummated the offense which they conspired to commit, charge the offense of so teaching and advocating, but is an indictment for conspiracy.
In an indictment charging a conspiracy to teach and advocate that men should not enlist in the military or naval forces of the United States, and that the citizens of this state should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting a war in which it is engaged with its public enemy, charging as an overt act that one of the conspirators, after the formation of the conspiracy and during its continuance, to effect the object thereof, did so teach and advocate, is an averment to complete the charge of conspiracy, and does not charge the commission of the offense which was the object of the conspiracy. Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., James E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen., and E. H. Nicholas, of Jackson, for the State.
George Nordlin, Frederic A. Pike, and Arthur Le Sueur, all of St. Paul, for respondent.
Defendants were jointly indicted for conspiring to teach and advocate that men should not enlist in the military or naval forces of the United States, and that the citizens of this state should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting or carrying on the war against the kingdom and imperial government of Germany. When called to plead to the charge, they interposed a general demurrer, which was overruled, and upon request of the accused the trial court certified to this court for decision the following questions:
(1) Do the facts stated in the indictment constitute a public offense?
(2) Is more than one offense charged in the indictment?
(3) Is the conspiracy attempted to be alleged in the indictment so merged in the crime of higher degree also charged therein, that the charge of conspiracy cannot be maintained?
(4) Is section 3 of chapter 463 of the Laws of 1917 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, §§ 8521-1 to 8521-6) valid, or is it invalid, as not within the subject expressed in the title of the act?
The statute provides that, whenever two or more persons shall conspire to commit a crime, every such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, but no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall amount to a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof by one or more of the parties to such agreement. Gen. St. 1913, §§ 8595, 8596.
Chapter 463 of the Laws of 1917 provides, in substance, that any person who shall teach or advocate by word of mouth or otherwise, in public places where five or more persons are present, that men should not enlist in the military or naval forces of the United States, or that the citizens of this state should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting or carrying on war against its public enemies, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
A conspiracy to commit a crime is one offense and the commission of that crime is another and different offense. Suppose there had been an intrigue or conspiracy on the part of several to teach disloyalty in violation of the statute in question, and that the parties thereto advertised and arranged for the holding of public meetings in public halls at stated times for the purpose of so teaching, and that when their emissary arrived at the selected place and undertook to deliver his missive he was prohibited from so doing by the pupulace. Under such circumstances it could hardly be said that all the parties to the intrigue might not be prosecuted under the conspiracy statute, though the offense of teaching was not committed. Under that statute the offense of conspiracy may be complete without the commission of the act which was the object of the conspiracy, while under chapter 463 the offense prohibited is complete when the teaching is done, without proof of any conspiracy.
The indictment charges in substance:
That on and prior to the 10th day of October, 1917, the defendants did unlawfully conspire, combine and confederate together, to teach and advocate by word of mouth and by circulating and distributing printed matter in Jackson county, that men should not enlist in the military and naval forces of the United States and the state of Minnesota, and that the citizens of this state should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting and carrying on the war against the kingdom and imperial government of Germany, and to teach and advocate by word of mouth and otherwise, in public places and public meetings in said county at which more than five persons should be in attendance that men should not enlist in the military and naval forces of the United States, and that the citizens of this state should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting and carrying on said war; that thereafter on the said 10th day of October, 1917, in pursuance of such conspiracy, and in order to effect the object thereof, the defendants did unlawfully procure, employ, and cause one Irving Freitag to go into the town of Sioux Valley in said county, and to make public speeches therein, and then and there to teach and advocate by word of mouth and otherwise that men should not enlist in the military and naval forces of the United States, and that the citizens of this state should not aid or assist the United States in carrying on said war, and to teach and advocate that the citizens of this state should not buy Liberty Loan Bonds, that it was not safe for them to invest their money in such bonds, and that the United States would soon be bankrupt and unable to pay its financial obligations if it continued to wage such war; that thereafter on the 11th day of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial