Sugar v. United States
| Citation | 252 F. 79 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3175. |
| Parties | SUGAR v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Seymour Stedman, of Chicago, Ill., and Willis G. Clarke, of Detroit Mich., for plaintiff in error.
John E Kinnane, U.S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., for the United States.
Before WARRINGTON and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges, and WALTER EVANS District Judge.
The indictment charges that on the 26th day of May, 1917, and on divers other days subsequently thereto, up to and including the 31st day of May, 1917, at the city of Detroit, Mich., Nathan L. Welch, Maurice Sugar, Samuel N. Diamond, Ludwig Bolz, Robert Westfall, Daniel L. Powell, Jr., and other persons unknown to the grand jury, did conspire, confederate, and agree together to commit an offense against the United States, and to defraud the United States, in violation of section 37 of the Penal Code (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1096 (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 10201)) of the United States, in this, that they and each of them did then and there unlawfully conspire, confederate, and agree together among themselves, and with other persons unknown, to unlawfully and willfully aid and abet, counsel, induce, and procure, certain male persons, whose names are to the grand jurors unknown, and being male persons between the ages of 21 years and 30 years, both inclusive, who are subject to registration under the terms and provisions of section 5 of an act of Congress approved May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 80, entitled 'An act to authorize the President to increase temporarily the military establishment of the United States,' and in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the President under said act, and at the time and place designated in the proclamation made, issued, and promulgated by the President under said act, to willfully fail and refuse to present themselves for registration at the time and place and in the manner provided in said act and said regulations, proclamation, and public notice, and to unlawfully evade the requirements of said act in not registering at the time and place and in the manner provided by the said act and regulation, proclamation, and public notice. It further charged that in pursuance of said conspiracy, and to effect the object thereof, said Nathan L. Welch, said Maurice Sugar, said Samuel N. Diamond, said Ludwig Bolz, said Robert Westfall, and said Daniel L. Powell, Jr., and each of them, on the 27th day of May, A.D. 1917, at the city of Detroit, Mich., did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly print, publish, issue, and circulate, and cause to be printed, published, issued, and circulated, certain literature in opposition to the operation and enforcement of the aforesaid act of Congress and proclamation and regulation promulgated for the enforcement of said law, said literature consisting of a certain issue of a weekly newspaper printed and circulated in said city of Detroit, and know as the Michigan Socialist, and said issue of said newspaper being the issue dated as follows, to wit, 'Detroit, Mich., Sunday, May 27, 1917,' and being known as the 'Anti-Conscription Edition' thereof, the heading of said issue of said newspaper so printed and published and circulated in said city of Detroit being in the words and figures following, to wit, together with the resolution adopted by the Socialist Party of Detroit, appearing on the first page of said newspaper: ANTI-CONSCRIPTION EDITION
Published by the Socialist Party of Detroit
Detroit Mich., Sunday, May 27, 1917.
WHAT SOCIALISTS WILL DO ON REGISTRATION DAY
Resolution Adopted by the Socialist Party of Detroit
VOL. 1
The government of the United States, in the interest of the capitalist class, has now plunged this country into the mad orgy of death and destruction which is convulsing the nations of the old world, and has forced conscription upon the people of this country.
We, the Socialist party of Detroit, in joint meeting assembled reaffirm our allegiance to the principle of international working class solidarity, reiterate our unalterable opposition to this war, and denounce the law just passed to conscript the workers into military service.
This law forces into 'involuntary servitude' a portion of the population of the country, and we brand it as a violation of the spirit of the thirteenth amendment to the constitution.
In the name of the workers, who will bleed but not benefit, we pledge ourselves to oppose registration for conscription by refusing to enroll upon registration day, and we call upon all workers to refrain from signifying their willingness to kill the workers of any other nation.
Better the freedom of a prison cell than slavery in the interest of commercialism.
And said issue of said newspaper, consisting of four pages of printed matter, then and there containing certain articles, editorials, and illustrations opposing the enforcement of the aforesaid act of Congress providing for the temporary increase of the military establishment of the United States, and known as the Selective Service Act, and inciting those subject to the operation of said act to willfully fail and refuse to present themselves for registration or to submit thereto as provided in said act, and in the regulations and the President's proclamation pertaining thereto, and exhorting said young men subject to said registration and draft to oppose and refuse to register, and particularly inciting and urging all such young men to violate said law and to oppose the enforcement of the same, as shown in the leading article printed and published in the first column of the first page of said issue, said leading article being in the words and figures following, to wit:
'WILL YOU CRINGE LIKE A COWARD OR STAND UP LIKE A MAN?
Will you follow sheeplike the plutocratic interests sponsoring this war to the European slaughter house to be butchered and maimed so that plutocracy may coin profits out of the misery of the war stricken nations?
Have you any backbone at all?
Will you permit military authorities to draft you into involuntary servitude, in contempt of real American tradition?
Will you stand by with your hands folded and permit the assassination of the constitutional rights of American citizens?
The hour is at hand when you must either act like a man or forever relinquish your civil and moral right.
War was declared by the President and Congress in the same arbitrary manner that the Kaiser declared it. You were not consulted about it.
A draft law has been passed over the protests of American workers. Registration is but a few hours ahead.
Will you register your willingness to rot in the trenches to accommodate our American plutocracy?
What will you do?
You must choose and decide quickly.
Thousands of Detroiters have decided to refuse to register and refuse to permit the military authorities to conscript them to fight in a war about which they were not consulted. Will you stand with them and join their ranks? Will you stand up like a man for your rights NOW, or will you cringe like a coward when the supreme test of your manhood arrives?
The question is simple.
Will you go forth and murder your fellowmen, against whom you have no grudge, or will you refuse to participate in the murder party? Are you ready to stand with men who will go down in history as the real men of the day, by fighting to maintain such democratic rights and privileges as have been gained through years of sacrifice, or will you sheepishly follow the American murder machine?
Better a prison cell than the blood of innocent workers on your hands.
BE A Man.'
The plaintiff in error moved to quash the indictment, and when that motion was denied filed a demurrer, which was overruled. He at first entered a plea of not guilty, but afterwards withdrew it, and entered a plea of guilty, and thereupon a fine of $500 was imposed. He moved in arrest of this judgment, and, this being denied, sued out the writ of error, which brought the case here.
The motion to quash the indictment, the demurrer, and the motion to arrest the judgment entered upon the plea of guilty, all seem to rest upon the same contentions, two of which may be adequately stated as follows:
1. That the Selective Draft Act is unconstitutional; and
2. That, though not named in the grounds either of the motion to quash or the motion in arrest of judgment, it is assigned for error that the grand jury which returned the indictment was not designated, selected, listed, or impaneled as required by the statutes of the United States and the rules of the trial court.
These two contentions are substantially similar to some of those considered and disposed of by our opinion delivered June 29 1918, in another case, 252 F. 74, . . . C.C.A. . . . (No....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. United States
...That the principle recognized in the Dembowski case is applicable to Section 88 was also recognized, by implication, in Sugar v. United States, 6 Cir., 1918, 252 F. 79, which is discussed below in topic In support of Count I of the indictment the Government relies upon United States v. Mant......
-
Von Patzoll v. United States
...be reversed. 1 Rooney v. United States, 9 Cir., 203 F. 928, 932; Colbeck v. United States, 7 Cir., 10 F.2d 401, 403; Sugar v. United States, 6 Cir., 252 F. 79, 85; Di Preta v. United States, 2 Cir., 270 F. 73, 75; Kelly v. United States, 6 Cir., 258 F. 392, 402; Richardson v. United States,......
-
Hammerschmidt v. United States
...1112; U.S. v. Galleanni (D.C.) 245 F. 977; Firth v.U.S., 253 F. 36, 165 C.C.A. 56; Curley v.U.S., 130 F. 1, 64 C.C.A. 369; Sugar v. U.S., 252 F. 79, 164 C.C.A. 191; U.S. v. Sacks, 257 U.S. 37, 42 Sup.Ct. 38, 66 118; U.S. v. Janowitz, 257 U.S. 42, 42 Sup.Ct. 40, 66 L.Ed. 120. It is claimed o......
-
Johnson v. Biddle
...Maresca v. United States (C. C. A.) 277 F. 727, 740; Vedin v. United States, 257 F. 550, 551, 168 C. C. A. 534; Sugar v. United States, 252 F. 79, 84, 164 C. C. A. 191; Ex parte King (D. C.) 200 F. 622, 629; Commonwealth v. Washburn, 128 Mass. 421; People v. Reed, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 235, The ......