The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, July 22, 1918, Page 6

_peaceful relations. the following to say of the statements which it was charged discouraged enlistments: “Our conclusion in IN FREEING A. C. Townley of the charge of disloyalty, the supreme court of Minnesota in its opinion has the matter 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 advocgte that as- sistance should not be rendered the government in the prosecution of the war. into the conflict. The language therefore can have no reference or application to the par- ticipation of the United States in the war, at least not in discouragement of enlistment nor in advocacy of withholding aid and assistance in the prosecution of the same. A VERDICT DECLARING TO THE CONTRARY COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. The object of the legislature in the enactment of this statute was not that the state should wholly take over the burden of prosecutions of the kind, which primarily are of federal cognizance. The purpose was to aid the federal authorities in the prevention and suppression of sedition and like conduct on the part of persons whose tendency to criticism and condemnation of all things govern- mental leads them to the border line of treason and sedition. (State vs. Holm, —— Minn. —, 166 N. W. 181.) For adjudications as to what acts or things done or said will constitute a violation of stat- utes of this kind we look to the federal courts, for in reality it is the federal government and its authority that are challenged by seditious conduct, rather than state authority, and the courts thereof constitute the proper tribunal for the establishment of rules guiding such cases. Few recent adjudications of, those courts are to be found in the reports. But the decisions-which might be cited will not permit of a conviction on vague inference or innu- endo. (Masses Pub. Co. vs. Patten, 245 Fed. 102; U. S. vs. Baker, 247 Fed. 124; U. S. vs. Hall, 248 Fed. 150; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2.) For the reasons stated we hold that the facts pleaded in the indictment do not consti- tute a violation of the statute. 2. The same conclusion must be reached as to the other indictment. The excerpts from the leaflet or circular set out in the indictment, which defendants are charged with circulating for the purpose of deterring enlistments, and in advocacy of nonassistance to the government in support of the war, purport to be a set of resolutions passed and adopted June 7, 1917, by a political organi- zation known as the National Nonpartisan league. They were printed with other matter in one pamphlet and distributed and circu- lated by defendants at the time and place stated in the indictment. For the purpose of a clear understanding of the matter so circulated, we set out the resolutions in full, as they appear in the indictment: RESOLUTIONS ON THE WAR BY NATIONAL NONPARTISAN LEAGUE Our country being involved in a world war, it is fitting that the National Nonpartisan league, while expressing its loyalty and will- ingness to support the government in its every necessity, should declare the principles and purposes which we as citizens of the United States believe should guide our nation in the conduct of the war. Whatever ideas we as individuals may have had, as to the wisdom of our nation engaging in this war, we recalize that a crisis now confronts us, in which it becomes necessary that we all stand unreservedly pledged to safeguard, defend and preserve our country. In making this declaration of our position, we declare unequivocally that we stand for our country, right or wrong, as against for- eign governments with whom we are actually engaged in war. Still we hold that when we believe our country ‘wrong, we should en- deavor to set her right. “The only justification for war is to estab- lish and maintain_human rights and interests the world .over. For this reason we are op- posed to waging war for annexation, either on our part or that of our allies, or demand- ing indemnity as terms of peace. Bitter experience has proved that any exactions, whether of land or reévenue, serve only to deepen resentments and hatreds, which in- evitably incite to future wars. . We therefore urge that our government, before proceeding further in support of our European allies, insist that they, in common with it, make immediate public declaration of terms of peace, without annexation of terri- tory, indemnities, contributions or interfer- ence with the right of any nation to live and manage its own internal affairs, thus being in harmony with and supporting the new democracy of Russia in “her declaration of these fundamental principles. We demand of no nation any concession which should be hid from the world. We con- cede to no nation any right of which we are ashamed. Therefore we demand the abolition of secret diplomacy. The secret agreements of kings, presidents and other rulers, made, broken, or kept without the knowledge of the people, constitute a continual menace to We demand that the guarantees of human conservation be recognized, and the standard of living maintained. To this. end we demand that gambling in the necessaries of life be made a felony, and that the federal This is Governor Burnquist of Minnesota, who h stated that the activities of the organized farmers The supreme court decision has utterly discredi porters throughout the state have incited mobs workers, on the ground that the indictment of Mr. conclusively proved the League’s disloyalty, prevent mob violence against Leaguers or to talities and indignities on League members an government control the food supply of the nation, and estab- lish prices for producer and consumer. & £ As a direct result of the -war, private corporations in our country have reaped unparalleled profits. The net earnings of the United States Steel corporation for 1916 were $271,- gg}.;gg, as against $28,496,867 in 1914, an increase of $248,- The DuPont Powder company shows a similar record. Its net_earnings for 1916 were $82,107,693, as against $4,831,793 in 1914, an increase of $77,275,900. We are unalterably opposed to permitting stockholders of private corporations to pocket these enormous profits, while at the same time a species of coercion is encouraged toward already poorly paid employes of both sexes, in urging them to purchase government bonds help finance the war. Pa- triodism demands services from all according to their ca- padity. To conscript men and exempt the blood-stained wealth coined from the sufferings of humanity is repugnant to the spirit of America and contrary to the ideals of democracy. We declare freedom of speech to be the bulwark of human liberty, and we decry all attempts to muzzle the public press or individuals, upon any pretext whatsoever. A declaration of war does not repeal the Constitution of the United States, and the unwarranted interference of military and other au- thorities with the rights of individuals must cease. K The contributory causes of the present war are various; but above the horrible slaughter loom the ugly incitings of an economic system based upon exploitation. It is largely a convulsive effort on the part of the adroit rulers of warring nations for control of a constantly diminishing market. Rival groups of monopolists are playing a deadly game for com- mercial supremacy. At the close of this war sound international standards must be established on the basis of a true democracy, Our economic organizations must be completely purged of privilege. Private monopolies must be supplanted by public administration of credit, finance and natural resources. The rule of jobbers and speculators must be overthrown if we are to produce a real democracy; otherwise this war will have been fought in _vain. Only in this spirit do we justify war, and only thus can lasting peace be established. WHAT ALL PROGRESSIVES ASK The question is whether these resolutions may be said to encroach upon 'or violate the prohibitions of the statute. No reference is made to enlist- ments in the American army, nor advice or sug- gestion made that assistance be not extended to the government. The resolutions are prefaced with expres- - sions of loyalty, and declare the purpose of the organization to stand by the government in the present crisis. The declaration of the loyalty and purpose of the association may be sham, as urged by the state, but we have no right to so assume. In the absence of some- thing in the resolutions showing to the con- trary, we are bound to treat the declaration so having been made in good faith. PAGE SIX . as repeatedly and openly of Minnesota are disloyal. ted the governor. against League members and Townley and the League and he has taken no steps to stop the infliction of gross bru- d workers by lawless town mobs. The declaration is followed by expressions in opposition to the waging of war for the purpose 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 diplo- macy, 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 offends the statute. NO OBJECTION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Then follow statements in reference to the prof- its made by certain manufacturers of war materials, and a demand that those thus profiting by the war contribute to the expense thereof in proportion to such profits as compared with poorly paid em- ployes. Patriotism, the zesolutions declare, “de- mands services from all according to their ca- pacity.” 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 pur- chase of government bonds by employes. The resolutions proceed with declarations of freedom of speech, and that a declaration of war does not repeal the Constitution. - A demand is made that interference by military and other au- thorities with individuals should cease. We do not know to what this may refer, though it can not, standing alone, be held to constitute an intended or other interference with the government’s mili- tary operations. Here follows some reference to the contributory causes of the war, with the statement that “above the horrible slaughter loom the ugly incitings of an economic system based upon exploitation. It is largely a convulsive effort on the part of adroit rulers of ‘warring nations for control of a con- stantly diminishing market. ‘Rival groups of meo- nopolists are playing a deadly game for commercial supremacy.” And in closing, the resolutions de- clare that at the end of the war sound international standards must be established on the basis of true democracy, completely purging economic organiza- tions of class privileges, and that the rule of jobbers and speculators must be overthrown if we are to have a real democracy. Just what is meant by the effort of adroit rulers to control a diminishing market is not clear, but the statement is not a violation of the statute. : ? Nor can it be held that the resolutions taken as a whole sup- port 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 infer- ences must be the basis of a con- viction under the statute. The resolutions taken as a whole appear to be nothing more serious than a rhetorical, and somewhat flam- boyant, platform upon which a certain class of citizens are solicited to join an organization ‘whose: avowed: pur- pose is the amelioration of the alleged revils of present economic conditions, and to bring about a more equal distribution of the wealth of the world among all classes of mankind, The pursuit of this object does not violate the statute in question. U. S. vs. Pierce, 245 Fed. 878, is not in point. 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 to both indictments should have been sustained. We an- swer the certified questions accord- ingly and remand the causes to' the court below for further proceedings. His sup- Reversed.: : ; Decision written for the court by “Justice J. H. N A S