The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1918-06-15

States, shall be at once dismissed
from the services. Amy such en-
ploye shall be dismissed by the
head of the department. in which
any such official shall be dis
missed by the. authority having
power to appoint a successor to
the dismissed official"
This amendment SO soon after the
passage of the former act is a clear
Legislative Interpretation that the
mere use OF language unpatriotic
though it may be, is not in ana or
itself crime under the act of June
Is, 1917, unless it is spoken to or
in the hearing of some person specl-
fled in the act.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota
has recently had this whole subject
under examination in constituting a
statute of that state which is much
more comprehensive than the Feaeral
Law under which the present indIct-
ment is framed. The case referred to
is State VS.. Spartz, decided May H.
1913, but not, yet reported; There the
indictment charged the defendant in
the following language:
1.-THE said Jake Spartz at Dundas
in the Court of Rice and State of
Minnesota, did speak and use the
following language to the wit
nesses hereinafter named and to
wounded and should be dead long
ago That at said time the SAID
Louis Seimers we1 a solqler N
tRe army or navy OF the and UnTs wss
wounded while SO engaged as
such soldier in assisting the
United States Government in pros
ecuting the present war against
Germany. That 1t was intended
to express contempt by such Ian
guage for the soldiers OF the
government of the United States,
and to thereby discourage others
from giving their full and un-
qualified support to said govern
ment in carrying on and pros
ecuting the present war"
The sections of the state law,
(Chapter 469, Laws OF 1917).. under
whtoh the Indictment was framed
read as follows: E-F
Sec. 2. 'Tt shall be unlawful for
any person in any public place,
or at any meeting where more
than five persons are assembled
to advocate OF teach by word OF
should not enlist in the military
or naval forces OF the United
States or the state OF Minnesota,
Sec. 8. cit shall be unlawful Tor
by any written or printed matter
whatsoever, or by oral speech
that the citizens of this state
should not atd or assist the United
States in prosecuting or carry
ing on war with the public en-
emies of the United States"
A. demurrer was interposed to the
indictment and oYerruled by the trial
court This ruling was brought be-
fore the Supreme Court and reversed.
The court sets forth the reasons Tor
it's decision in the following instruc-
tive language:
"It will be noticed that the
gravaIhen of the offense under
each section of the law is the
teaching or adyocatlng that men
should not aid. That would seem
to show that the legislature did
not attempt by this act to pun
ish every casual remarki WlcKeo
though it be, but only those ut
terances which on their face show
q purpose to teach or advocate
what the statute forbids, or. which
are made under such clrcum-
stances that 1t would be permits
sibIe for a jury to find. a like
purpose, The so-called inuendoes
and recitals in this indictment do
not tend to show that the words
uttered might be interpreted by
the jury as teaching or advocat-
ing that citizens should not aid
the government in the prosecu-
tiOn of the War;-nOr are there
any averments of accompanying
circumstances showing that the
spoken words were intended to
advocate or teach, or could be un-
derstood by the hearers as ad-
voeating or teaching that citi-
zens should not render such aid
or assistance in the prosecution
of the war as the government re-
quires, or has indicated Sas prop
err
This decision is quite in harmony
with the long established principles
Of the Circuit Court Of Appeals OF
this Circuit, and of theSupreme Court
of the United States, as will be seen
from the cases above cited.
The uniform practice in framing
indictments under the act of June 15,
1917, has been to charge that the
seditious language was either spoken
to men belonging to one
of the classes mentioned in the act,
whose names are given, -or that 1t
was spoken to a public audience com
posed in part of such men. The At
has printed in leaflets
to juries. and opinions of
courts in cases arising under the act
since its passage. So far as these |
discose, the practice has been as I
have just indicated. AS the indict-
ment in the present case fails wholly |
to state that the language complained
Of was spoken to named persons be-