Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was tried and convicted upon an information charging him with violating the Criminal Syndicalism Act of Kansas (P). The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. Under the Act, 'Criminal Syndicalism' is defined to be the doctrine that advocates crime, physical violence, arson, destruction of property, sabotage, or other unlawful acts or methods, as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political ends, or as a means of effecting industrial or political revolution, or for profit. . . . Any person who, by word of mouth, or writing, advocates, affirmatively suggests or teaches the duty, necessity, propriety or expediency of crime, criminal syndicalism, or sabotage . . . is guilty of a felony. . . .' P claimed that D did 'by word of mouth and by publicly displaying and circulating certain books and pamphlets and written and printed matter, advocate, affirmatively suggest and teach the duty, necessity, propriety, and expediency of crime, criminal syndicalism, and sabotage by . . . knowingly and feloniously persuading, inducing and securing' certain persons 'to sign an application for membership in . . . the Industrial Workers of the World organization.” D moved to quash the information as insufficient, for the reason, among others, that it failed to specify the character of the organization in which he was alleged to have secured members. This was overruled. D offered no evidence as to the doctrines advocated, suggested, or taught by the Industrial Workers of the World organization other than a copy of the preamble to the constitution of that organization containing the language set forth and quoted in the information. D stated that he was a member of that organization and understood what it taught; that while it taught the matters set forth in this preamble it did not teach or suggest that it would obtain industrial control in any criminal way or unlawful manner but in a peaceful manner; that he did not believe in criminal syndicalism or sabotage, and had not at any time advocated, suggested or taught the duty, necessity, propriety, and expediency of crime, criminal syndicalism or sabotage, and did not know that they were advocated, taught or suggested by the organization; and that in taking the applications for membership in the organization, which contained the preamble to the constitution, he had explained the principles of the organization so far as he knew them by letting the applicants read this preamble. The jury was instructed that it must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Industrial Workers of the World was an organization that taught criminal syndicalism as defined by the Syndicalism Act. D was convicted and moved for a new trial as the verdict in part was unsupported by the evidence. The only evidence presented by P was the preamble. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed and held that the language quoted from the I. W. W. preamble need not -- in order to sustain the judgment -- be held, necessarily and as a matter of law, to advocate, teach, or even affirmatively suggest physical violence as a means of accomplishing industrial or political ends. It was enough that was open to that interpretation and is capable of use to convey that meaning. . . P also claimed the statute . . . is obnoxious to the due-process-of-law clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution. Statutes penalizing the advocacy of violence in bringing about governmental changes do not violate constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.' It affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co