The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, July 22, 1918, Page 5

Minnesota Judges So Fair to the League That No Big Newspaper Dared to Print the Opinion—Read It Now , . perpetuate and extend industrial autocracy. It is the struggle of political overlords to extend and perpetuate their power to rob and exploit their fellowmen. Auto- cratic rulers who have robbed and exploited the fathers and mothers now slaughter the children for the single purpose of further intrenching themselves in their in- famous position and securing and legalizing their posses- sion of the fruits of others’ toil and thrusting the world under the yoke of political autocracy, which is ever the shield and the mask of industrial autocracy. This language and the statements or assertions i thereof are to be considered and construed in con- i nection with facts of general notoriety and of 3 The complete opinion of the supreme court of Minnesota holding that the war views and war policies of the Nonpartisan league do not discourage enlistments or other- wise hinder the United States in the prose- cution of the war follows: State of Minnesota, plaintiff, vs. A. C. Townley and Joseph Gilbert, de- fendants. SYLLABUS—1. Defendants indicted jointly, charged with violations of chapter 463, General Laws 1917, joined in a general demurrer to the indictment, which was overruled and the proceeding certified to this court for determination. The matter set forth in the indictment considered and held not to constitute a violation of the statute. 2. .The subject matter of section“$8 is within the title of the act. Reversed and remanded. OPINION—These two prosecutions involve the same questions and are considered and disposed of together in one opinion. Defendants were jointly indicted by the grand jury of Martin county and thereby charged by two separate indictments of. vio- lations of chapter 463, General Laws 1917. Defendants joined in general demurrers to each indictment, -which - were overruled by the trial. court. ’ Whereupon,.at the instance of defend- ants, the proceedings were certified to this court for the determination of two questions applicable to both, namely (1), is section 3 of the statute on which the indictments are founded invalid as not within the subject of the act expressed in its title, and (2), do: the facts stated in the indictment constitute a violation of the statute? NO DOUBT OF LOYALTY In the view we take of the second question, we make but brief mention sof the first. ' The title to the act names as the subject thereof the interference with ‘or discouragement of enlistments in the military or naval .forces of the United States, or of the state of Min- nesota. Section 3 declares it unlaw- . ful to advocate or teach by written or printed matter or by oral speech that citizens of this state “should not aid or assist the United States in prosecuting or carrying on war.” The contention is that the prohibition against advocating -that the citizen should not aid or assist in the prose- cution of .the. war is not within the title. .of the.act, which names only the interference with. enlistment, and is therefore invalid. Whether the provisions of section 3 have reference only to the sale of bonds and stamps, or include as ‘'well interference by written or printed matter or by oral speech, otherwise than prohibited by the former sections of the act, we think the substance of the provisions of section 3 within the scope of the title to the act, and we so hold. With- out further reference thereto we come directly to the second question, name- - 1y, whether the facts stated in either ~indictment show a violation of the stat- ute, considering that they are founded in part at least upon section 3. 1. The indictment in case No. 20927 charges that at the time and place gtated therein the defendants wil- fully and unlawfully advocated that citizens of the state should not aid the United States in carrying on the war with the’ public eénemies thereof, and to: that end and for, that purpose did publish. and circulate a certain printed leaflet or folder containing, among other things, the following: The moving cause of this. world war . was' and_ is political autocracy used to . Supreme court of Minnesota on League war resolutions: “The question is whether these resolutions may be said to encroach upon or violate the prohibitions of the statute. What the Court Said No refer- ence is. made (in the resolutions) to enlistments in the American army, NOR ADVICE OR SUGGESTION MADE THAT ASSIST- ANCE BE NOT EXTENDED TO THE GOVERNMENT. “The resolutions are prefaced with expressions of loyalty, and declare the purpose of the organization to stand by the government in the present crisis. “The declaration of the loy- -alty and purpose of the associa- tion may be sham, AS URGED BY THE STATE, BUT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO SO AS- SUME. In'the absence of some- ’ thing in the resolutions show- ing to the contrary, WE ARE BOUND TO TREAT THE DEC- LARATION SO HAVING BEEN MADE IN GOOD FAITH. “The declaration is followed by expressions in opposition - to the waging of war for the pur- pose of indemnity or annexation of territory, and the United States government is. urged to disclaim any such purpose. THIS IS NOT OBNOXIOUS TO THE STATUTE. “There is a demand for the abolition of secret diplomacy, and condemnation of secret agreements by kings, presidents and other rulers, to be made, broken or kept without the knowledge or consent of the people. THAT IN NO WAY OF- FENDS THE STATUTE. ° - “Then follow statements in This is Justice J. H. Quinn, who wrote the decision of the Minnesota supreme court, completely exonerating the League and President Townley of the charge of disloyalty. Justice Quimm hails from Fairmont, the county seat of Martin county, Minn.,, where the small-town prosecutor, Allen, -caused the indictment of Mr. Townley for circulating resolutions denouncing .. war profiteers. reference to the profits made by certain manufacturers of war materials, and a demand that those thus profiting by the war con- tribute to the expense thereof in proportion to such profits as com- pared with poorly paid employes.. Patriotism, the resolutions de- clare, ‘demands services from all according to their capacity.’ THAT IS ALL TRUE, but the assertion of the facts as to profits by dealers in war material, and the demand that they contribute to the expense of the war in proportion thereto, IN. NO PROPER VIEW CAN BE SAID TO DISCOURAGE ENLISTMENT, OR THE PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT BONDS BY EMPLOYES. “The . resolutions proceed with declarations of freedom of gpeech, and that a declaration of war does not repeal the Consti- tution. -A demand is made that interference by military and other authorities: with individuals should cease. what this may refer though IT CAN NOT, STANDING ALONE, BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE AN INTENDED OR OTHER IN- We do not know to TERFERENCE WITH -THE GOVERNMENT'S MILITARY' OP- ERATIONS." . . . : \ “Nor can-it b‘evliel’d_ that the resolutions fiken as a’ whole support the charge. The court- can not inject by inference matter of substance between the lines -of the . resolutions, and predicate a conviction thereon, FOR THE FACT AND NOT THE PROSECUTOR’S INFERENCES MUST BE THE BASIS OF A CONVICTION UNDER - THE STATUTE. . . . . IT IS PERHAPS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO SAY THAT THE RESOLUTIONS HAVE NOT YET ATTRACTED THE ATTENTION OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. “On the whole: our.conclusion is that the demurrers tojboth indictments should have been-sustained.” ‘ : PAGE FIVE common knowledge, and in that at- mosphere and light we are to deter- mine whether the natural tendency thereof is the discouraging of enlist- ment in the present war, or the advo- cacy that assistance should not be ex- "~ tended the federal government in the prosecution of the same. If such be the natural tendency and effect of the language defendants are presumed to have so intended, and the conclusion necessarily would follow that the de- murrer to the indictment was prop- erly overruled. And the same re- sult would follow if the language set out in the indictment, considered in the same light, leaves the question of the natural tendency thereof in the . respect stated, and the purpose of de- fendants in circulating the same in doubt, for in such case the question would be one of fact or mixed law and fact for the consideration and de- termination of a jury. ° But our conclusion in the mat- ter is that the language, properly considered and taken in the light of the surrounding pertinent- facts, can not be held as tending _ to discourage enlistment in the army or otherwise to advocate that assistance should not be ren- dered the government in the prosecution of the war; nor is the matter left in such doubt or un- certainty as to make the question one of fact. ~ APPLIES DIRECTLY TO GERMAN AUTOCRACY The matter complained of treats of the. origin of the present war be- tween the German empire and its al- lies on the one hand, and France and her allies on the other, the cause, pur- pose and probable consequences there- of, coupled with the condemnation of those responsible for bringing the curse upon the people. It is a matter of common knowledge that the mili- tary autocracy of Germany and Aus- tria caused and brought on the war, and it has been obvious from the beginning that the purpose and object thereof was territorial expansion, and thereby to subject to the authority of those governments peoples of other lands and countries. The language quoted from the . indictment is. an accurate. char- - acterization of the . German- Austrian military machine and of the purposes intended to be. ac- complished, as indicated and shown by facts of common re- pute at the time the matter was published and circulated by de- fendants, namely, in September, 1917. It contains no reference to the United . States government, ~nor to the president or the con- gress, or others in official author- ity, AND THE LANGUAGE USED HAS NO APPLICATION TO EITHER, We have in this - country no political autocracy, and no autocratic rulers, such as they have in-some of the Euro- pean governments engaged in and which are wholly responsible for the war. The language makes no reference to enlistments or the "otherwise formation of an army by the United States, nor -can anything therein contained be - construed as = advecating non- _assistance in the prosecution of its aims and purposes in entering