United States v. Haupt, 33481.

Decision Date24 November 1942
Docket NumberNo. 33481.,33481.
Citation47 F. Supp. 836
PartiesUNITED STATES v. HAUPT et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. Albert Woll, U. S. Atty., of Chicago, Ill., for the Government.

Paul A. F. Warnholtz and Benedict J. Short, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

The defendants in this case stand convicted of the crime of treason and it now becomes the solemn duty of the Court to fix punishment and impose sentence.

Where offenders stand convicted of serious crimes against the United States, it is customary for the Court, in pronouncing sentence, to recapitulate rather fully the testimony offered during the trial. This Court will depart from that procedure for the reason that the testimony is still fresh in the minds of all participants in the trial. These defendants had a fair trial, a thing of the past in the country they sought to befriend. How different this trial was from the treatment given in Germany to persons accused of similar offenses against the German Reich. Here, an able, considerate and patient jury of men and women from every walk of life, representative of the finest ideals of our American commonwealth was carefully chosen by both sides. This jury heard the evidence and rendered a verdict after listening to lengthy summations and arguments ably presented by counsel.

As was indicated at the time of the argument on the motion for a new trial, the Court made its own abstract of the testimony in this case day by day as the trial progressed. The five days preceding the argument on the motion for a new trial were devoted exclusively by the Court to a careful and exhaustive review of this abstract and of the transcript of the testimony herein. The Court feels that the verdict of the jury is well founded in the evidence.

In pronouncing sentence upon these six men and women, this Court is constrained to give full consideration to the fact that our nation, and every man, woman and child in it, are engaged in a global death struggle against forces of tyranny and evil unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Our enemies seek to destroy us both by force of arms on our far-flung battle fronts and through disaffection and treacherous sabotage within our own borders.

The home front in our titanic struggle against the enemy is equally important and certainly more vulnerable than our battle lines. This is a war of people against people, as well as cannon against cannon.

To endanger this home front, therefore, is as treasonable as the act of spiking our guns in the face of the foe.

Deliberately and in secret, under the cloak of American citizenship, the agents and helpers of the saboteur scheme and connive to destroy their neighbors and this nation.

Here then is the most iniquitous offense on the unholy list of crimes, an offense which imperils at one and the same time the structure of our government, the production of the tools for victory, the lives of our production workers and citizens, and the very ideals of free humanity.

It is the Court's duty in sentencing these defendants to make sure that the punishment meted out to them will act as a timely and solemn warning to all who would attempt to commit the smallest act of sabotage, as well as to those who would treasonably traffic with the enemies of the United States. Likewise the sentence must serve notice upon the enemy that the cunningly devised scheme for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Cramer v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1945
    ...act in this case means some physical action done for the purpose of carrying out or affecting (sic) the treason.' United States v. Haupt, N.D.Ill.1942, 47 F.Supp. 836, 839, reversed on other grounds, 7 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 661. 'The overt act is the doing of some actual act, looking towards......
  • Johnson v. Louisiana 8212 5035
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1971
    ...71 App.D.C. 132, 138, 107 F.2d 297, 303 (1939); United States v. Schneiderman, 106 F.Supp. 906, 927 (S.D.Cal.1952); United States v. Haupt, 47 F.Supp. 836, 840 (N.D.Ill.1942), rev'd on other grounds, 136 F.2d 661 (CA7 1943). In Winship, supra, the Court recognized this evidentiary standard ......
  • Agee v. Muskie
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • August 5, 1980
    ...be predicated (on) acts which are not a direct levying of war according to the construction of that phrase . . ." See United States v. Haupt, 47 F.Supp. 836 (N.D.Ill.1942), rev'd on other grounds, 136 (3) Kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201, 11, and 2. The Lindbergh Kidnapping statute, which orig......
  • McKee v. State, 6778
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1958
    ...imaginary, fanciful, captious or speculative, but an honest doubt that appeals to reason and in founded upon reason. United States v. Haupt, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 836, 840. All three officers used as witnesses testified the 1956 Chevrolet automobile in question was being used in transporting the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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