Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1919-11-04
Judge Morrill, on the Blasphemy Case

Judge Morrill, on the Blasphemy Case
: The remarks made by Judge John A
Morrill, In imposing the sentence In the
case Of Michael z. Moskus, convicted OF
blasphemy, on the 9th of October, are
OF interest not only ss showing his judg
ment regarding the case in hand, but
also In their general application. BE
said:
i In view of what the counsel have said
think 1t is proper that I should state
how / feel in regard to this matter.
have no doubt, from the evidence In the
case, that when this man showed upon
the screen the picture of the Anuncia-
tiop, he coupled It With words substan-
TALLY as stated in the Indictment, and
that he did 1t with the intent to ridicule
the Gospel of Christ. was convinced OF
this when witness after witness, called
for the defense, went upon the witness
stand and attempted to say that be
stopped in his comments with the reply
which, according to bis description, the
Virgin Mary gave to the angel Gabriel.
Witness after witness for the defense
II WOut upOu bu0 otouu ouu tOoShVA shos ~
stopped in his comments at that point.
If he did, the presentation of that picture
with bis remarks lost all force whatever
from the standpoint of the man as dis
believer in the doctrine OF the virgin
birth of Christ. If he stopped at that
point It lost all force whatever. But /
do not think he did stop there, and am
satisfied that, in carrying out what was
in his mind, of disbelief In the doctrine
of the virgin birth of Christ, he used sub
stantially the language stated In the in
dictment. And whether he stated that
in language which carried further OBJ
scene thought has come into my mind,
but / express no views upon 1t. 1t is
enough that he used the language sub
stantialiy as stated in the indictment ;
but must say that, as listened to those
witnesses, after the picture is produced
here, the thought was driven home to
me that the language which he used In
Lithuanian carried q further obscene sug-
gestion beyond anything that is ex-
pressed in the indictment. But that l
have no reason to take into account, and
do not take 1t into account.
Now further think that the language
which he used, and which has been
translated by some witnesses as "czars,
counts and PRIESTS, and by others as
sczars, landlords and priests', was used
by him in sense of designating the idea
of religion, capitalism and government.
That the "priests'', In the sense in which
he used the term there, and intended 1t
to be understood, referred to religion In
generals typical Of religion In gen.
eral; that the term ''counts", or "land-
lords' referred to the people OF wealth,
and that the word "czsrs", was their
conception of government in general.
Now, II he did use the word "priests"
az intended to convey conception of
religion in general-and have no doubt
that he did, from the language of the
witnesses on the stand, both those for
the defense and for the State-there is
no other construction possible. If be
did, then the third and the fourth counts
| in the indictment are substantially sus-
tanned, and the jury were warranted In
their verdict in this case, and wherever
further the allusion was made to the
trinity or clergy, capitalism and govern
ment and speaking of those in terms re-
/ toIEiuh " buo uOiy
There, to my mind, was the weight OF
this indictment, because II he used the
term "priests" to carry the conception
of religion In general-and have no
doubt that he did it-he intended to
carry to the minds OF those who heard
him practical conception of religion as
a deception, then he practically said that
religion is a cheat, and that the people
who believed it were cheated; that 1t was
deception from the beginning to the
end.
Now II anybody, openly, maliciously
and wantonly, with an intent to deride,
rdicule and hold in contempt the Chris
tian religion, makes such statements, they
20 very far toward dissolving all the OBJ
legations by which civil society is pre-
served. There is no community and no
society that can tolerate wilful and a
spiteful attempt to subvert its religion,
and none will. It is for that reason such
an offense is an offense against the peace
and good order of the State.
Coming now to what took place when
the picture of the cruoifxion was shown;
all the witnesses for the State and for
the defense, with the exception of two,
the young man and the young woman
who were called towards the last of the
trial, with these two exceptions, all OF
the twenty-three or twenty-four wit
nesses stated that when the lecturer was
nearly through with his remarks, when
the picture Of the crucifixion was still on
the screen, his remarks were then greeted
with laughter and applauseI Now, what
caused such laughter and applausep II
that picture had been shown in a rever-
ent manner, and II his remarks had been
simply bis moderate statement of bis
own views, 1t would have been nothing
which would have caused laughter OF
the clspping of the hands or anything OF
the kind. But I have no doubt that what
caused that demonstration was the slur.
ring, vile and obscene remarks with
which he closed that part Of the lecture,
which have been related upon the wit.
ness stand by the witnesses called for the
State. do not believe that anything
could have wrung from those witnesses
the repetition of those remarks that were
on the border of describing what was
sometimes called worship-but was that
form of orgies which was known In an
Cl6ut 0TocC0s 4uOo0 WuO oE0 Aouhloi
with Grecian history will know to what
1 refer. There Is just one step forward
from what he said when he made thai
Iremark to that form of debauchery which
sometimes was called worship, which Il
familiar to the readers OF ancient GreciaI
history. There is nothing new about it
Nov the monstrous thing is that thit
man should come here, and addressing
an audience of persons both of the intel
ligence, and lack of intelligence thai
these witnesses have shown here upor
the witness stand, should attempt to in
culcate into their minds that here, II
this land of free speech any such tall
will be tolerated. Freedom of speech II
this country Is not license; It is nothing
of the kind. These people who have
come to this land from land where, &C
cording to what they say, In many casei
life, as we know it here in the Goth cen
tury, was not worth living, that thesl
people should be taught by any body tina
freedom of speech will permit suob doc
trines to be put forth without penalty Il
something that should require th'
thoughtful attention of everybody. Th,
Kneeland case is not comparable to thi
case. The only cases comparable with !
: are the Chandler case In Delaware, snt
the Updegraff case In Pennsylvania, ant
the old Taylor case In England.
These people who appear upon th,
witness stand have shown readily enougl
;nko ,vhak oro da ~ soo;oty thar fall. M