United States v. Schenck
| Decision Date | 09 September 1918 |
| Docket Number | 111. |
| Citation | 253 F. 212 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SCHENCK et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Francis Fisher Kane and T. Henry Walnut, both of Philadelphia, Pa for the United States.
Henry J. Gibbons and Henry John Nelson, both of Philadelphia, Pa for defendants.
The jury was directed to acquit the defendants Sehl, Root, and Higgins, because there was not sufficient evidence to connect them with the charge in the indictment.
The motion for a new trial as to Charles T. Schenck and Dr Elizabeth Baer is based upon the claim that there was not sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between them.
The principal ground of error urged is the action of the court in admitting in evidence the minutes of the meetings of the executive committee of the Socialist party on August 13 and August 20, 1917. The evidence showed that Schenck was general secretary of the Socialist party; that the typewritten minutes and the notes in longhand were found in his office at the headquarters of the Socialist party, of which he was in charge, and were identified by him as such, and the longhand notes were stated by him to be those of the secretary. There was testimony to show that Schenck ordered the circulars printed and that they were distributed from the headquarters. There was testimony that the minutes were admitted by Dr Baer to be hers. In the minutes her name appears as secretary of the meeting. It was further shown by the mouth of the defendants' own witness that she was a member of the executive committee. The minutes were therefore evidence, at least, against her as admissions by her of acts done with others 'to the grand inquest unknown' and relevant and material to show her connection with the alleged conspiracy and overt acts in its accomplishment. There was evidence that what was proposed in the minutes was carried out by Schenck as general secretary of the Socialist party, that the plan adopted by the resolution of August 13th was ratified and further instructions given to Schenck at the following meeting on August 20th after the preparation and printing of the circulars, and that thereafter the circulars were distributed at the office under his charge and were sent through the mails to men who had been accepted in the draft. The minutes were therefore clearly admissible against him as declarations and acts showing a common design in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Interstate Circuit v. United States Paramount Pictures Distributing Co v. Same
...unlawful conspiracy may be and often is formed without simultaneous action or agreement on the part of the conspirators. United States v. Schenck, D.C., 253 F. 212, 213, affirmed 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470; Levey v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 688, 691. Acceptance by competi......
-
United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 48
...unlawful conspiracy may be and often is formed without simultaneous action or agreement on the part of the conspirators. United States v. Schenck, D.C., 253 F. 212, 213, affirmed 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470; Levey v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 688, 691. Acceptance by competi......
-
United States v. Food and Grocery Bureau of So. Cal.
...unlawful conspiracy may be and often is formed without simultaneous action or agreement on the part of the conspirators. United States v. Schenk, D.C., 253 F. 212, 213, affirmed 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470; Levey v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 688, 691. Acceptance by competit......
-
Morrow v. United States
...those already in the conspiracy in carrying out the common design. United States v. Cassidy et al. (D. C.) 67 F. 698; United States v. Schenck et al. (D. C.) 253 F. 212; United States v. Babcock, Fed. Cas. No. 14,487; Allen et al. v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 688. It is also true, a......
-
"THIS WEARISOME ANALYSIS": THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST FROM SCHENCK TO BRANDENBURG.
...here. They do no more than recognize a minimum compulsion of the Bill of Rights." 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941). (40.) United States v. Schenck, 253 F. 212, 212-13 (E.D. Pa. 1918), aff'd, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Like many a woman, Dr. Baer's status as a co-defendant was largely ignored by the Suprem......