duct that would have interference with the war as an indirect and probably undesired effect, seems to me by no means enough to show an attempt to produce that effect. that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to be I return for a moment to the third count. That charges an intent to pro-lieve even more than they believe the voke resistance to the United States in its war with Germany. Taking the clause in the statute that deals with that in connection with the other elaborate provisions of the act, I think that resistance to the United States means some forcible act of opposition to some proceeding of the United States in pursuance of the war. I think the intent must be the specific intent that I have described, and for the reasons that I have given I think that no such intent was proved or existed in fact. I also think that there is no hint at resistance to the United States, as I construe the phrase. In this case sentences of twenty years' imprisonment have been imposed for the publishing of two leaflets that I believe the defendants had as much right to publish as the government has to publish the Constitution of the United States now vainly invoked by them. Even if I am technically wrong, and enough can be squeezed from these poor and puny anonymities to turn the color of legal litmus paper,-I will add, even if what I think the necessary intent were shown, the most nominal punishment seems to me all that possibly could be inflicted, unless the defendants are to be made to suffer not for what the indictment alleges, but for the creed that they avow, a creed that I believe to be the creed of ignorance and immaturity when honestly held, as I see no reason to doubt that it was held here, but which, although made the subject of examination at the [630] trial, no one has a right even to consider in dealing with the charges before the court. Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says 1180 very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas,-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the government that the 1st Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States through many years had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of July 14, 1798 [1 Stat. at L. 596, chap. 74], by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants [631] making any exception to the sweeping command, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Of course I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here; but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Justice Brandeis concurs with the foregoing opinion. 250 U. S. MEMORANDA CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT OPINIONS. L. CASS MILLER et al., Appellants, v. JOHN WIETHAUPT et al. [No. 136.] Constitutional law-due process of lawequal protection of the laws-validity of county road bonds. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri to review a decree which dismissed the bill in a taxpayer's suit to enjoin the issuing and registering of road improvement bonds. Mr. Thomas K. Skinker for appellants. Messrs. Richard F. Ralph and Charles A. Houts for appellees. May 19, 1919. Per Curiam: Affirmed upon the authority of State ex rel. Clay County v. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 195 S. W. 706. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. A. H. HEYWARD et al., Administrators, etc. [No. 205.] Eminent domain-taking-interference with drainage. Appeal from the Court of Claims to review an award of damages against the United States for interfering with drainage by river improvements. See same case below, 52 Ct. Cl. 87. Solicitor General King for appellant. Mr. E. C. Brandenburg for appellees. May 19, 1919. Per Curiam: Judgment affirmed by an equally divided court. SILAS WHITE, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [No. 689.] Error to district court-frivolous Federal question. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska to review a conviction of an Indian for an assault upon another Indian on an Indian Reservation. Mr. Thomas L. Sloan for plaintiff in error. Solicitor General King for defendant in error. May 19, 1919. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 47 L. ed. 190, 193, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 123; Consolidated Turnp. Co. v. Norfolk & O. V. R. Co. 228 U. S. 596, 600, 57 L. ed. 982, 983, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Manhattan L. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137, 58 L. ed. 1245, 1254, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 874; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20, 24, 62 L. ed. 124, 128, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 35; (2) United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 30 L. ed. 228, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109; United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 54 L. ed. 195, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93; Donnelly v. [634] United States, 228 U. S. 243, 270, 57 L. ed. 820, 831, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 449, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 710; United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28, 39, 58 L. ed. 107, 111, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; United States v. Nice, 241 U. S. 591, 60 L. ed. 1192, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 696. DANIEL DONAHOE, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. [No. 349.] Error to state court-Federal question. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois1 to review a judgment 1 Leave granted on June 9, 1919, to present a petition for rehearing herein within thirty days. which affirmed a judgment of the Appel-, late Court of the First District, affirming a conviction for conspiracy had in the Criminal Court of Cook County. See same case below, 279 Ill. 411, 117 N. E. 105. Messrs. Daniel Donahoe (p. p.) and Leo L. Donahoe for plaintiff in error. Mr. Edward J. Brundage for defendant in error. June 2, 1919. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 181, 43 L. ed. 936, 941, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co. 178 U. S. 239, 243, 44 L. ed. 1052, 1054, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 867; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 58 L. ed. 1557, 1561, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 60 L. ed. 186, 187, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97. Petition for certiorari denied. JOHN D. FAXON, Plaintiff in Error, v. CIVIL TOWNSHIP OF LALLIE, Benson County, North Dakota. [No. 240.] Error to state court-error or certiorari. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota to review a judgment which affirmed a judgment of the District Court of Benson County, in that state, affirming an order of a Board of Supervisors in a proceeding for the establishment of a public highway. See same case below, 36 N. D. 634, 163 N. W. 531. Mr. S. E. Ellsworth for plaintiff in ELBERT R. ROBINSON V. CHICAGO CITY Mr. Solomon T. Clanton for Elbert R. Robinson. June 2, 1919. Denied. CHARLES EDWIN LAYTON, alias Francis Edwin Leighton, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [No. 732.] Error to district court-decisions reviewable-judgment on writ of error coram vobis. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa to review a judgment denying a petition for a writ of error coram vobis. Messrs. Isaac B. Kimbrell and Martin J. O'Donnell for plaintiff in error. Mr. Solicitor General King for defendant in error. June 9, 1919. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Pickett v. Legerwood, 7 Pet. 144, 148, 8 L. ed. 638, 639; United States v. Abatoir Place (United States v. Frerichs) 106 U. S. 160, 162, 27 L. ed. 128, 129, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165. EARL DEAR, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. [No. 894.] Error to state court-Federal question. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois to review a judgment which affirmed a conviction of murder had in the Criminal Court of Cook County in that state. See same case below, 286 Ill. 142, 121 N. E. 615. Messrs. Emory J. Smith and Charles C. Williams for plaintiff in error. Edward J. Brundage and Edward C. Fitch for defendant in error. June 9, 1919. Per Curiam: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon the authority of Spencer v. [636] Duplan Silk Co. 191 U. S. 526, 530, 48 L. ed. 287, 290, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569, 56 L. ed. 1205, 1210, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712. 720, 58 L. ed. 1557, 1561, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 60 L. ed. 186, 187, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97. STRATHEARN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Limit- | THE TUG INTERNATIONAL, Her Engines, ed, Petitioner, v. JOHN DILLON. [No. 1036.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See same case below, 256 Fed. 631. Mr. Ralph James M. Bullowa for petitioner. Mr. W. J. Waguespack for respondent. June 9, 1919. Granted. NATIONAL BRAKE & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NEILS A. CHRISTENSEN et al. [No. 1047.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Messrs. John S. Miller, [639] Thomas B. Kerr, Charles A. Brown, and Edward Osgood Brown for petitioner. Messrs. Joseph B. Cotton, Willet M. Spooner, Louis Quarles, and William R. Rummler for respondents. June 9, 1919. Granted. BROOKS-SCANLON COMPANY, Petitioner, V. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA. [No. 1052.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. See same case below, 144 La. -, P.U.R. 1919E, 1, 81 So. 727. Messrs. J. Blanc Monroe and Monte M. Lemann for petitioner. Mr. W. M. Barrow for respondent. J. M. THOMPSON, Master and Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. PETER LUCAS and Gustav Blixt. [No. 1059.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Messrs. John M. Woolsey and L. De Grove Potter for petitioner. No appearance for respondents. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. LEO L. D'UTASSY. [No. 944.] in. etc., and International Bridge Company, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM L. MoFADDEN et al. [No. 970.] [640] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See same case below, 256 Fed. 192. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari here- of Texas. Mr. Fred H. Wood for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Wilson E. Tipple and Arthur W. Clement for defendant in error. May 19, 1919. Denied. See same case below, 200 S. W. 1143. Mr. Joseph Manson McCormick for petitioner. No appearance for respondent. |