Evening star., 1919-03-10
DEbS MUST SERVE
/ 1O-YEAR SENTENCE
Supreme Court of U. S. Up
holds His Conviction Un-
der Espionage Act.
OPINION is UNANIMOUS

The Supreme Court of the United
States today sustained the conviction
of Eugene V. Debs, socialist leader
found guilty of violating the espion-
age act through statements made In
speech at Canton, Ohio, last June, and
sentenced to ten years imprisonment.
The opinion of the court was unani-
nous.
In deciding the case the court in ef-
feet upheld the Constitutionality of
the so-called enlistment section of the
espionage act of 1917,
Frohwerk Also Loses Appeal.
Conviction under the terms of the
espionage act of Jacob Frohwerh of
Kansas City, because of articles ap-
pearing in the Missouri StaatsZei-
tung, of which he was editor. oriti-
cising Americas participation in the
war, also was upheld by the Supreme
Court in deciding appeals brought
iron. federal court Judgments sentence
ing him to ten years imprisonment
The section of the espionage act
under which Debs was convicted. sec
tion 3, part i, is the most drastic
in the measure. II not only makes
it q mtsdemeanor to circulate false
reports for the purpose of interfering
with military or naval operations
and enlistments, but also prohibits
the utterance or writing of ''disloyal,
profane, scurrilous or abusive lam
guage,' about the American form. OF
government military forces nag or
uniform, or which is intended to
bring them into contempt, or intend
cd to encourage resistance TO the
United States or to cripple the coun-
try In the prosecution of war.
Convicted ON Three Counts.
The Indictment on which Debs was
convicted charged him with attempting
to incite characterization. disloyalty,
mutiny and refusal of duty in the
military and naval forces attempting
to obstruct recruiting and enlistments
and with uttering and publishing Ian
guage intended to provoke and en-.
courage resistance to the United
States as well as to promote the
enemy's cause The indictment con-
tanned ten counts. but conviction was
enzY on three
When placed on trial Debs called
ne witnesses IN defense ami made the
only argument in his own behalf. In
appealing to the Supreme Court he
attacked the admission in evidence by
c4altsx platform. which he had In
aaa Es 1En an9IE. sr2IR dss I8s .n.sl ssslss 81
age ac<. ahd alleged ne had -heen tried
on his state of mind" Validity of
tho espionage act was also attacked
by Debk who alleged it violated the
right Of free speech
Governments Position.
In opposing the appeal in the Su-
prene Court the government denied
mitted that il was not convinced that
the facts charged in the Indictment
alleging the utterance of language
designed to encourage resistance to
the United States and to promote the
enemy's cause were sufficient TO war
rant conviction on that count For
that reason. the government made no
further contentious relative to that
charge.
Congress-, in enarting the espionage
act the government further contended.
intended to cover all wiIlfuI interference
with the process of raising an army and
argued that constitutional guarantees of
free speech do not include intentional
ircitenent Of violations of law
Justice Holmes. delivering the opin-
ion. reviewed. the statements made
by Dehs in his Canton speech virtu-
<
that had been made by the lower
court To the jury.
Verdict on Fourth Count.
Without going into further par
ticulars." Justice Holmes said. I'VE
are of opinion that the verdict on
the fourth count for obstructing and
attempting TO obstruct the recruiting
service of the United States, must be
sustained Therefore it Is less i'm
portant 10 consider whether that
upon the third count. for causing and
attempting TO cause insuboriination
etc in the military and naval forces
is equally impreguabfe.
SThe jury was Instructed that for
the purposes OF the statute the per-
sons designated by the act of May ls
1917 tselectiye service act), registered
and enrolled under it and thus sub
ject 90 be called into the active service
were part of the military forces of
the Cnited States The government
presents q strong argument from the
history of the statutes that the in
strUction was correct and In accordance
with established legislative usage. We
see no sufficient reason for differing
from the conclusion, but think IT un-
necessary to discuss the question in
detail"
Main Theme of Speech.