Evening star., 1925-06-09
STATES ARE AIDED
IN FIGHT ON REDS
Supreme Court Decision Up
holding New York Law
Strengthens Al! Others.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

The decision of the Supreme Court
OF the United States upholding the
New York State law against the
preachment of anarchy is expected
now to result in the strengthening
of existing statutes as well as the
passage of new laws in many States
aimed at Communistic doctrines.
Until the Supreme Court spoke,
there had been a feeling among con
stitutional lawyers that it was ditfi-
cult to maintain the validity of GER
tain laws because the border line
between free speech as guaranteed
by the Constitution and the actual
commission of an overt act was too
vague to piece the two together.
During the World War the Supreme
Court did not hesitate, of course, to
uphold the espionage act with most OF
its various convictions where it was
asserted that a speech tended to in
terefere with the operation of the
selective service law by discoura ging
enrolment. But since the war there
has been an entirely different set of
circumstances before the court, es-
pecially in connection with the preach
ing of communism. The Communists
have taken refuge in such phrases as
mass dCllOn anu strikes anu eco
nomic force" and have managed in
most cases to prevent the States from
applying their own vaguely phrased
laws.
The opinion of the Supreme Court.
however. as voiced by Justice San
ford. states clearly that a State need
not wait for the preachment of q doc.
trine to result In the commission OF a
crime against the peace and order OF
the State, but that 1t may nip such
utterances in the bud by Furnishing
those who preach the doctrine of
overthrow of government or disburb-
ance of the peace. The court takes
the view that 'incitement to riot" has
always been punished by the States.
and that "philosophic distractions
are hardly an exception il they are
coupled with a definite purpose to
overthrow the existing order. ;
Only Two Dissent.
The dissenting opinions of Justices
Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis
Brandeis-known as the two lib.
erals" on the bench-are fully in line
with other dissenting opinions by
these same two justices, who did not
always agree with the ma jority. even
in the punishment of cases under war,
time laws.
minds Of Justices Holmes and
Brandeis ? belief that the mere
preachment of an offensive doctrine
by a minority is not as harmful as
the steps that are taken as a rule to
punish free speech. and that more
harm than good results in the attitude
of the States in their Inability to draw
the line between legitimate use of the
constitutional amendment relating to
tree speech and its abuse.
Free Speech Limited.
With the present membership of the
Supreme Court. however. a ma jority
clings tenaciouSly to the idea that
even the constitutional privileges of
free speech have their limits, and thai
the abstract welfare of the state is
higher than any individual right.
There have been decisions in the pa st
rendered by the Supreme Court on
kindred questions which would have
resulted in much freer interpreta
ton today of New York's law. but in
past history there has been nothing
comparable TO the communistic move.
ment staring the judges in the face.
The decision, therefore, is regarded
here as simply another result Of propa-
ganda carried on by the Soviets TO
bring about revolution in other coun.
tries. and natural counter-defense
against the use of the Constitution as
Z protection against the preaching of
anarchy.
Copyright 19c5l