Stokes v. United States

• Decision Date: 09 March 1920
• Docket Number: 5255.
• Citation: 264 F. 18
• Parties: STOKES v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

264 F. 18

STOKES v. UNITED STATES.

No. 5255.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 9, 1920

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Seymour Stedman, of Chicago, Ill. (Harry Sullivan and Isaac Edward Ferguson, of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Francis M. Wilson, U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Elmer B. Silvers Asst. U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN, CARLAND, and STONE, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error, Mrs. Stokes, the defendant below and so styled hereafter, was indicted and convicted of three violations of section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15 1917, 40 Stat.c. 30, p. 217, United States Compiled Statutes, Temporary Supplement 1917, Sec. 10212c, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 10 years for causing the publication of this letter in the Kansas City Star, a newspaper of large circulation in Kansas City and the surrounding country:

'To the Star: I see that it is, after all, necessary to send a statement for publication over my own signature, and I trust that you will give it space in your columns.

'A headline in this evening's issue of the Star reads: 'Mrs. Stokes for Government and Against War at the Same Time.' I am not for the government. In the interview that follows I am quoted as having said, 'I believe the Government of the United States should have the unqualified support of every citizen in its war aims.'

'I made no such statement, and I believe no such thing. No government which is for the profiteers can also be for the people, and I am for the people, while the government is for the profiteers.

'I expect my working class point of view to receive no sympathy from your paper, but I do expect that the traditional courtesy of publication by the newspapers of a signed statement of correction, which even our most Bourbon papers grant, will be extended to this statement by yours.

'Yours truly,

Rose Pastor Stokes.'

The three violations, which were charged in three counts in the indictment, were that by causing the publication of this letter on March 20, 1918, while the United States was at war with the Imperial German government, she (1) willfully and knowingly attempted to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States; (2) willfully and knowingly obstructed the enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of that service, and to the injury of the United States; and (3) willfully and knowingly made and conveyed false reports and statements, with the intent to interfere with the operation and success of the military and naval forces of the United States, and with the intent to promote the success of the enemies of the United States.

To each count of this indictment the defendant demurred, her demurrer was overruled, and she assigns this ruling as error. Many objections to the indictment are made, all of which have been considered, but no error has been discovered in the rulings upon them. Those which counsel press with most zeal and confidence are that the indictment failed to state facts sufficient to constitute an offense, and that it contained no averment of any facts tending to inform the defendant in what way, by what means, or by its effect upon what persons, the publication of the letter either caused, or disclosed an attempt to cause, insubordination, etc., or obstructed the enlistment service, or conveyed false reports, with the intention to interfere with the operation of the military or naval forces, of the United States. But the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly held that such averments are not indispensable to the validity or to the sufficiency of such charges in an indictment for statutory offenses of the nature here under consideration, so that this question is no longer debatable. Potter v. United States, 155 U.S. 438, 15 Sup.Ct. 144, 39 L.Ed. 214; Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 39 Sup.Ct. 250, 251, 63 L.Ed. 561; Doe v. United States, 253 F. 903, 904, 166 C.C.A. 3, 4; O'Hare v. United States, 253 F. 538, 539, 165 C.C.A. 208, 209.

And if the text of the letter, when considered in the light of the time and circumstances of its publication, was such that it was reasonably calculated to cause the effects charged, if it was such that intelligent and impartial men, in the exercise of a sound judgment, might reasonably deduce from it the conclusion that the publisher thereby intended to attempt to cause insubordination, etc., in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to obstruct its enlistment service, or to make false statements for the purpose of interfering with the operation or success of its military or naval forces, it was sufficient in its terms to sustain the indictment and to require the court below to send the case to a trial by the jury. If, on the other hand, upon its face, in the light of the time and circumstances of its publication, it was not reasonably susceptible to such an inference and judgment the demurrer should have been sustained. Repeated readings of the letter have led to the conclusion that it is of the former character, and that there was no error in overruling the demurrer.

Complaint is made of the admission in evidence of testimony of certain statements and sayings which witnesses for the government testified the defendant made in certain addresses and interviews which she gave within about 20 days of the publication of the letter regarding the government and the profiteers, statements some of which were similar to that contained in the letter. But where, as in the case at bar, the intent of the defendant is material, her acts and statements similar to and made about the time of the statements or acts charged in the indictment are admissible to illustrate or prove her intent in making or doing the latter, and under this rule there was no error in the admission of such acts and statements for that purpose.

The denial of a motion at the close of the trial to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant is challenged, but the record satisfies that there was substantial evidence at the trial in support of the verdict against the defendant, and that the court below could not lawfully have withdrawn it from the jury.

Reduced to its lowest terms, the statement in the letter upon which the indictment rests, is in substance:

I am not for the government. I made no statement that I believe the government of the United States should have the unqualified support of every citizen in its war aims. No government which is for the profiteers can be for the people, and I am for the people, while the government is for the profiteers.

The word 'government' has two distinct and radically different meanings. It sometimes means the system of polity, or body of principles or rules by which the people subject to it are lawfully guided, as, in the case of the United States, the constitutional government of the United States of 1787. It sometimes means the governing body of persons in a nation, who are actually ruling over, guiding, and governing its people. Counsel for the United States contended throughout the trial that in the letter this word was used by the defendant in, and had, the former meaning, and, to prove that the statement in the letter that the government was for the profiteers was false, they introduced, among other evidence, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Counsel for the defendant insisted that the only meaning that could be lawfully attributed to this word in the letter, in the light of the time and circumstances of its preparation and publication, was the governing body of persons who at that time were actually ruling and guiding the people of the United States and conducting their governmental affairs, and they assign as error that portion of the charge to the jury upon this subject to the effect that the district attorney contended that the word 'government,' as used in the letter, referred to the government of the United States of America as established by our Constitution, as distinguished from the personality of those charged with its administration; that, of course, the Constitution of the United States, in its provisions for equal opportunity and its guaranties that every person should enjoy life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the proceeds of his own industry, was not established for the benefit of war profiteers, nor for any other than the people generally; and that it was for the jury 'to judge whether, if that be the meaning intended by this letter, the statement therein contained is true or false, and, if false, whether it was knowingly and willfully-- that is, intentionally-- made by the defendant, and for the purpose charged in the indictment.'

This letter was written and published in March, 1918, at a time when this nation was, and for nearly a year had been, at war when the people of the nation were straining every nerve to win that war, when the nation was gathering, training, and embarking its troops, when the minds of all its citizens were intent upon the war and its conduct, and not upon theories or forms of government. The imperative demands of the nation for immediate supplies, immediate transportation, immediate equipment and training of soldiers, for immediate action in every direction to throw the whole power of this republic into the war at once, before it should be too late, compelled the payment of high prices for the necessary...