The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1918-07-27

| stirring up class against class. /
| haven't even. standing to one side
as DO, seen a single campaign car
ried through that that argument has
| not been used in the thirty years
that l have been upon earth with
maturity Of mind to know what was
going on.
Now the defendant isn't charged
in this indictment with stirring up
class against class. That isn't any
offense against the law. We haven't
come TO the time that the discus
sion of evils though 1t does stir up
class against class, is forbidden in
the United States and made Grimm
al. And when we do then We will
simply pass into the crustacean
stage. We won't see any more
is in force. Now let us see If we
can fetch our mind back to what
this defendant is charged with"
The. court proceeded to state that
the act Of June 15 covered very mar
row classes-the military and naval
forces OF the United States, and it
prohibited interference with them.
Certainly there was nothing in the
speech at Garrison to embarrass the
government in the movement of its
troops or to give information to-
Germany. Therefore / withdraw the
first count Of the indictment from
your consideration" said the court,
who proceeded to the consideration
Of the second and third counts Of
the indictment, under which the trial
goes to the jury.
IF he really was there to cause
or attempt to cause some SOL
der or other member of our
military and naval forces to do
80 inc
failure Of duty, you must find
him guilty or not guilty of that. You
can't decide whether he made a good
speech; whether he was fair in his
statement Of economic conditions;
whether you approve Of the stores
company or not. That is wholly
immaterial." This was under the
second count OF the Indictment
charging acts or statements tending
to create characterization or mutiny
or failure of duty among the naval
and military forces of the country.
Under the third count, the court
instructed the jury that it must ask
only whether Brinton made certain
statements alleged in the indictment
with Wilful intent to interfere with
the recruiting and enlistment SER
vice OF the United States army and
navy. IF you wander off into gem
eral themes of patriotism you will
get lost in a Wilderness" said the
court. But, If you keep your eyes
confined to that one single issue
You will not have much trouble.
Don't make the mistake of thinking
that you can cross the distance be-
tween the speech and the crime. You
must find the speakers intent and
pit is said that no one can
see what Is in another's mind. You
must judge by outward appear
| ances as to what his intent really
was"
The court commented at length
upon the fact that the governments
evidence was based upon long hand
notes furnished by witnesses that
had taken down only certain clauses
or phrases. They were not men, he
said, who had made practice of
reporting speeches, and he asserted
| that even newspaper reporters, sup
posed to have some ability in this
line, often got only g. few Of the
high spots. and made their reports
look like strangers to the party who
knew what he was trying to say.
IF the language quoted in this in
dictment was not used by Brinton
then that ends this law suit"
The judge discussed at some
length the crime Of profiteering
which he declared one Of the most
heinous evils which have arisen out
Of the war. He spoke OF the need
Of pitiless publicity to expose this
evil and effect a cure. He declared
it not disloyalty to discuss profiteer-
ing nor to condemn it, and declared
that the figures used by Brinton
were essentially the same as had
appeared in published reports of
government commissions appointed
to investigate profiteering. Con-
tinuing, he said:
II can conceive-and that is the
only reason why I let this case go
to you at alI-that a man might use
the discussion Of pEofiteering as
camouflage, and that his real object,
although covered up and honey
coated was to discouraged the sale
Of War Savings Stamps and Lib
erty Bonds. That is the real meat
of the case. Was Mr.. Brinton, in
discussing profiteering, actuated by
a clandestine purpose to discourage
the sale Of Liberty Bonds and War
Savings Stamps. If he was, he Is
guilty. 1t is only because it Is pos
stble to place that Interpretation on
his words that I submit the case to
you"
The court preceded this declara-
ton this declaration with an explain
alton of the close relation between
the sale of government securities
and the military and naval forces
OF the country, and declared that
anything that interfered with one
equally interfered with the other.