Court Opinion

ID: 3515349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 22:26:34.62893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:07.635720
License: Public Domain

The indictment in this case contains only one count and charges the appellant with violating not the whole of Chapter 178, Laws of 1942, but with violating the "disloyalty" and the "respect for the flag" provisions thereof, two distinct crimes which should have been *Page 58 
charged in separate counts, but no objection has been made thereto by the appellant. The punishment prescribed by this statute is "imprisonment in the state penitentiary until treaty of peace be declared by the United States, but such imprisonment shall not exceed ten years;" and this appellant was sentenced accordingly. I will put aside this indeterminate sentence provision of the statute which in effect is but a variation of concentration camp confinement for the duration of the war, and will express no opinion thereon.
I concur in all that Justice ALEXANDER has said, but it may not be amiss for me to specifically set forth two of the reasons why I think the disloyalty provision of this statute is constitutionally invalid. 1. As Justice ALEXANDER has pointed out, a sufficiently ascertainable standard of "guilt" can not be found in the word "disloyalty" to satisfy the requirements of due process of law. 2. As my affirming associates admit, for the statute to be constitutionally valid it must be within — must not exceed — the state's war power. This power exists only when the nation is at war and is to enact legislation in aid of the prosecution of the war or to prevent the obstruction of its successful prosecution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, and Section 10 of our National Constitution; Gilbert v. State of Minn., 254 U.S. 325, 41 S.Ct. 125, 65 L.Ed. 287; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, sec. 213, page 631. The disloyalty to the State or Nation condemned in this statute is not limited therein to such as may adversely affect the prosecution of this war but covers all such disloyalty whether it affects the prosecution of the war or not, and therefore is in excess of the state's war power.
I cannot close this opinion without saying that I am at a loss to perceive how the successful prosecution of the war in which we are now engaged can be so obstructed by such things as this appellant here said and did as to justify depriving our people of the blessing of the *Page 59 
freedom they have enjoyed since our national constitution was adopted to believe, write and say what they pleased as to the policies and conduct of their state and national governments. I may not, and do not, believe what this appellant is teaching and I unhesitatingly say that until we have won this war he should refrain therefrom, but nevertheless he had the constitutional right to say and do what he here said and did. It would be well for us to pause in our prosecutions of the members of this misguided but war harmless sect (Jehovah's Witnesses) and ponder the wise words of Madariaga, quoted by the late Lord Tweedmuir in "Pilgrim's Way," page 222: A democracy that goes to war, if beaten, loses its liberty at the hands of its adversary; if victorious it loses its liberty at its own hands," and be warned thereby that if we are not to lose our liberty in winning this war, we must be careful to sacrifice it for the time being only to the extent necessary to enable us to fight the war.
Alexander and Anderson, JJ., concur in this opinion.