(250 U. S. 656) No. 511. Guiseppe CAVALLARO, petitioner, v. Steamship CARLO POMA, her engines, etc., Kingdom of Italy, claimant. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 259 Fed. 369. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. V. (250 U. S. 668) No. 512. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, petitioner, George W. RAGAN, Administrator, etc. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 184 Ky. 359, 212 S. W. 123. Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., for petitioner. Mr. Robt. D. Vance, of Henderson, Ky. (Mr. S. O. Heilbronner, of Henderson, Ky., of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky denied. (250 U. S. 672) No. 514. Howard W. SHOWALTER, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 719. Messrs. John A. Howard and J. M. Ritz, both of Wheeling, W. Va., for petitioner. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 669) No. 515. Frederick O. BALCOM, petitioner, V. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 259 Fed. 779. Messrs. Washington R. Prescott, George F. O'Shaunessy, and William M. P. Bowen, all of Providence, R. I., and Jesse C. Adkins, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Messrs. Robert P. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Ridgely, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 669) No. 517. CRENSHAW BROS. & SAFFOLD, a copartnership, etc., petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 183 Pac. 208, which denied motion to recall remittitur and correct judgment 181 Pac. 252. Mr. L. T. Hatfield, of Sacramento, Cal., for petitioner. Mr. Henley C. Booth, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, of the State of California, denied. (250 U. S. 669) No. 518. The T. L. SMITH COMPANY et al., petitioners, v. The CEMENT TILE MAOct. 20, 1919. For CHINERY COMPANY. opinion below, see 257 Fed. 423. Messrs. Thomas F. Sheridan, George L. Wilkinson, and Walter A. Scott, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Mr. John E. Stryker, of St. Paul, Minn., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 672) No. 519. Chauncey J. HAMLIN et al., as Surviving Executors, etc., et al., petitioners, v. Mary K. WELLINGTON, Individually and as Executrix, etc., et al. Oct. 20, 1919. Messrs. (40 Sup. Ct.) O'Brian, Donovan, Goodyear & Hellings, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Mr. Dana B. Hellings, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for petitioners. Mr. G. B. Wellington, of Troy, N. Y., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Surrogate's Court of Erie County, State of New York, denied. (250 U. S. 656) No. 525. WORTH BROTHERS COMPANY, petitioner, v. Ephraim LEDERER, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 533. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. (250 U. S. 657) No. 526. FORGED STEEL WHEEL COMPANY, petitioner, v. C. G. LEWELLYN, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 533. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. (250 U. S. 669) No. 527. Lewis A. STEBBINS, petitioner, v. A. F. SELIG. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 230. Messrs. L. A. Stebbins, of Chicago, Ill., and W. H. Sears, of Ranger, Ill. (Messrs. X. O. Pindall, of Little Rock, Ark., and Paule E. Price, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Thos. S. Buzbee, George B. Pugh, and Harvey T. Harrison, of Little Rock, Ark., and O. M. Young, of Stuttgart, Ark., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. No. 529. The TOLEDO & OHIO CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY. petitioner, v. The PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 126 N. E. 400. Messrs. Doyle & Lewis, of Toledo, Ohio (Messrs. Frank S. Lewis and Frederick W. Gaines, both of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for petitioner. Mr. John G. Price, of Columbus, Ohio (Mr. H. B. Arnold, of Columbus, Ohio, of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio denied. (250 U. S. 657) No. 535. CARBON STEEL COMPANY, petitioner, v. C. G. LEWELLYN, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 533. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. (250 U. S. 657) No. 536. STARK BROS. NURSERIES & ORCHARDS COMPANY, petitioner, v. William P. STARK and William H. Stark, Trustees, etc. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 9. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. (250 U. S. 670) No. 538. Clay Arthur PIERCE et al., appellants, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 20. 1919. For opinions below, see 257 Fed. 514; 260 Fed. 158. Messrs. Thomas W. White, of St. Louis, Mo., and Levi Cooke, of Washington, D. C. (Messrs. S. W. Fordyce, Jr., John H. Holliday, and Albert D. Nortoni, all of St. Louis, Mo., of counsel), for petitioners. Messrs. Alex. C. King, Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., and A. F. Myers, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. (250 U. S. 670) No. 539. The NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. Clinton F. PUGH. Oct. 20, 1919. Messrs. M. B. and H. H. Johnson, of Cleveland, Ohio (Messrs. William D. Turner, H. D. Howe, and John T. Scott, all of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Payer, Winch, Minshall & Karch, of Cleveland, tiorari to the Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Ohio, for respondent. Petition for a writ of cerDistrict, of the State of Ohio, denied. (250 U. S. 671) No. 542. The CITY OF NEW YORK, petitioner, v. CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 1022. Mr. William P. Burr, of New York City, for petitioner. Mr. John A. Garver, of New York City, for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 671) No. 545. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COM20, 1919. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 357. PANY, petitioner, v. Ellsworth G. COLE. Oct. Messrs. Andrew Squire and Thomas M. Kirby, both of Cleveland, Ohio (Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for petitioner. Mr. Albert E. Powell, of Cleve land, Ohio, for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 671) No. 546. Benjamin FRIEDMAN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 388. Mr. Benjamin Friedman, pro se. Mr. Alex C. No. 556. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. BALTIMORE TRUST COMPANY et al. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 99 S. E. 867. Messrs. Jack J. Spalding and Daniel MacDougald, both of Atlanta, Ga., and E. S. Ault, of Cedartown, Ga. (Messrs. King & Spalding, of Atlanta, Ga., and E. S. Ault, of Cedartown, Ga., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Cumming & Harper, of Augusta, Ga. (Messrs. Jos. B. Cumming and Bryan Cumming, both of Augusta, Ga., of counsel), for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia denied. (250 U. S. 671) No. 559. The COLUMBUS PACKING COMPANY, petitioner, v. The STATE OF OHIO on the relation of Hugo N. SCHLESINGER, Prosecuting Attorney, etc., et al. Oct. 20, 1919. Messrs. Smith W. Bennett and Ralph E. Westfall, both of Columbus, Ohio, for petitioner. Messrs. E. J. Hainer, of Lincoln, Neb., and Fred C. Rector, of Columbus, Ohio, Mr. for respondent Fairmont Creamery Co. Timothy S. Hogan, of Columbus, Ohio, for respondent Claude S. Chamberlain. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio denied. (250 U. S. 673) No. 565. WHITE OAK FUEL COMPANY, petitioner, v. Bertram U. CARTER et al., copartners, etc. Oct. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 54. Messrs. John P. Leahy, of St. Louis, Mo., and John V. Lee, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (250 U. S. 678) No. 57. Julius WILBUR, plaintiff in error, v. The STATE OF OREGON. Oct. 23, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. For opinion below, see 85 Or. 565, 167 Pac. 569, which denies rehearing of 85 Or. 565, 166 Pac. 51. Mr. Guy C. H. Corliss, of Portland, Or., for plaintiff in error. Mr. George M. Brown, of Roseburg, Or., for the State of Oregon. Dismissed, with costs, under Rule 16 (32 Sup. Ct. IX), on motion of Mr. Frederick S. Tyler in behalf of Mr. George M. Brown for the defendant in error. (250 U. S. 678) No. 45. Thomas S. HAYMOND, appellant, v. Anthony BOWEN et al. Oct. 27, 1919. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia. Mr. John A. Howard, of Wheeling, W. Va., for appellant. Mr. Allison S. Fleming, of Fairmont, W. Va., for appellees. Dismissed with costs on motion of counsel for the appellant. (250 U. S. 678) No. 299. H. E. KIRCHNER, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 27, 1919. On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. For opinion below, see 255 Fed. 301, 166 C. C. A. 471. Mr. J. W. Vandervort, of Parkersburg, W. Va., for petitioner. The Attorney General, for the United States. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General King in behalf of counsel for the petitioner. (250 U. S. 678) No. 247. The UNITED STATES of America on the relation of Simon WEINER, plaintiff in error and appellant, v. Nathan GORDON et al., etc., et al. Oct. 27, 1919. In error to and appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Alexander S. Drescher, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General King in behalf of counsel for the plaintiff in error and appellant. (250 U. S. 658) No. 395. A. L. BRACHT, petitioner, v. SAN ANTONIO & ARANSAS PASS RAILWAY COMPANY. Oct. 27, 1919. For opinion below, see 200 Mo. App. 655, 209 S. W. 579. Mr. I. N. Watson, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Kansas City Court of Appeals of the State of Missouri granted. (250 U. S. 673) No. 451. David LAMAR and Henry B. Martin, plaintiffs in error, V. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 27, 1919. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 561. Mr. Elijah N. Zoline, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error. The Attorney General, for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. (250 U. S. 673) No. 487. The CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY, petitioner, v. Edward B. PRYOR, receiver, etc. Oct. 27, 1919. Messrs. George T. Buckingham, of Chicago, Ill., and Charles T. Tittmann, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Kansas City Court of Appeals of the State of Missouri denied. (40 Sup.Ct.) (250 U. S. 616) (Argued Oct. 21 and 22, 1919. Decided No. 316. Jacob Abrams and others were convicted of conspiring to violate the Espionage Act, and they bring error. Affirmed. Mr. Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert P. 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 90-FREEDOM OF Stewart, for the United States. Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court. *617 the *Espionage Act of Congress (section 3, title I, of Act June 15, 1917, c. 30, 40 Stat. 219, as amended by Act May 16, 1918, c. 75, The acts of printing and disseminating, during the war with Germany, pamphlets con- On a single indictment, containing four taining disloyal, scurrilous, and abusive lan- counts, the five plaintiffs in error, hereinguage about the form of government of the after designated the defendants, were conUnited States, also language intended to in-victed of conspiring to violate provisions of cite, provoke, and encourage resistance to the United States in the war, etc., were not within the protection of the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by Const. U. S. Amend. 1. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 90-WAR 440 Stat. 553 [Comp. St. 1918, § 10212c]). ESPIONAGE ACT NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Espionage Act, as amended by Act May 16, 1918, passed during the emergency of the war with Germany, is not unconstitutional as an entirety, because in conflict with Const. U. S. Amend. 1, guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press. 3. CRIMINAL LAW 1159(3) CONFLICTING EVIDENCE CALLING FOR EXAMINATION OF RECORD ON DIRECTED VERDICT. Defendant's contention that there is no substantial evidence to support judgment, and that their motion for instructed verdict was errone Each of the first three counts charged the defendants with conspiring, when the United States was at war with the Imperial Government of Germany, to unlawfully utter, print, write and publish: In the first count, "disloyal, scurrilous and abusive language about the form of government of the United States;" in the second count, language "intended to bring the form of government of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, and disrepute;" and in the third count, language "intended to incite, provoke and encourage resistance to the United States in said war." The charge in the fourth count was that the defendants conspired "when the United States was at war with the Imperial German Government, unlawfully and willfully, by utterance, writ1177 - AFFIRMANCE IF ing, printing and publication to urge, incite and advocate curtailment of production of things and products, to wit, ordnance and ammunition, necessary and essential to the prosecution of the war." The offenses were charged in the language of the act of Congress. ously denied, presents a question of law calling EVIDENCE SUSTAINS ANY COUNT OF INDICT- Where the sentence imposed did not exceed that which might lawfully have been imposed under any single count of the indictment, containing four counts, the judgment on the jury's verdict of guilty must be affirmed, if the evidence is sufficient to sustain any one of the counts. It was charged in each count of the indictment that it was a part of the conspiracy that the defendants would attempt to accom 5. WAR 4-EVIDENCE SUSTAINING CONVIC- plish their unlawful purpose by printing, TION UNDER ESPIONAGE ACT. In a prosecution of five Russians, nondeclarant aliens, for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act as amended by Act May 16, 1918, evidence held to support conviction, as tending to prove that defendants were guilty as charged in both the third and fourth counts of the indictment, alleging respectively, that they published language intended to incite, provoke, and encourage resistance to the United States in the war with Germany, and that during such war they incited and advocated curtailment of ordnance and munitions. writing and distributing in the city of New York many copies of a leaflet or circular, printed in the English language, and of another printed in the Yiddish language, copies of which, properly identified, were attached to the indictment. All of the five defendants were born in Russia. They were intelligent, had considerable schooling, and at the time they were arrested they had lived in the United States terms varying from five to ten years, but none of them had applied for naturalization. Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Bran- Four of them testified as witnesses in their deis dissenting. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. own behalf, and of these three frankly avow- For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes government of the United States. The fourth defendant testified that he was a "Socialist" and believed in "a proper kind of government, not capitalistic," but in his classification the government of the United States was "capitalistic." It was admitted on the trial that the defendants had united to print and distribute the described circulars and that 5,000 of them had been printed and distributed about the 22d day of August, 1918. The group had a meeting place in New York City, in rooms rented by defendant Abrams, under an assumed name, and there the subject of printing the circulars was discussed about two weeks before the defendants were arrested. The defendant Abrams, although not a printer, on July 27, 1918, purchased the printing outfit with which the circulars were printed, and installed it in a basement room where the work was done at night. The circulars were distributed, some by throwing them from a window of a building where one of the defendants was employed and others secretly, in New York City. The defendants pleaded "not guilty," and the case of the government consisted in showing the facts we have stated, and in introducing in evidence copies of the two printed circulars attached to the indictment, a sheet entitled "Revolutionists Unite for Action," written by the defendant Lipman, and found on him when he was arrested, and another paper, found at the headquarters of the group, and for which Abrams assumed responsibility. Thus the conspiracy and the doing of the overt acts charged were largely admitted and were fully established. [1, 2] On the record thus described it is argued, somewhat faintly, that the acts charged against the defendants were not unlawful because within the protection of that *619 freedom of speech and of the press which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the entire Espionage Act is unconstitutional because in conflict with that amendment. This contention is sufficiently discussed and is definitely negatived in Schenck v. United States and Baer v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470, and in Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. Ct. 249, 63 L. Ed. 561. [3, 4] The claim chiefly elaborated upon by the defendants in the oral argument and in their brief is that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the judgment upon the verdict of guilty and that the motion of the defendants for an instructed ver the verdict. Troxell, Administrator, v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 227 U. S. 434, 442, 33 Sup. Ct. 274, 57 L. Ed. 586; Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U. S. 222, 225, 6 Sup. Ct. 33, 29 L. Ed. 373; Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Ohle, 117 U. S. 123, 129, 6 Sup. Ct. 632, 29 L. Ed. 837. We shall not need to consider the sufficiency, under the rule just stated, of the evidence introduced as to all of the counts of the indictment, for, since the sentence imposed did not exceed that which might lawfully have been imposed under any single count, the judgment upon the verdict of the jury must be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient to sustain any one of the counts. Evans v. United States, 153 U. S. 608, 14 Sup. Ct. 939, 38 L. Ed. 839; Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 12 Sup. Ct. 169, 35 L. Ed. 966; Debs v. United States, 249 U. S. 211, 216, 39 Sup. Ct. 252, 63 L. Ed. 566. [5] The first of the two articles attached to the indictment is conspicuously headed, "The Hypocrisy of the United States and her Allies." After denouncing President Wilson as a hypocrite and a coward because troops were sent into Russia, it proceeds to assail our government in general, saying: The second of the articles was printed in the Yiddish language and in the translation is headed, "Workers-Wake Up." After referring to "his Majesty, Mr. Wilson, and the rest of the gang, dogs of all colors!" it continues: dict in their favor was erroneously denied. A question of law is thus presented, which calls for an examination of the record, not for the purpose of weighing conflicting testimony, but only to determine whether there "Workers, Russian emigrants, you who had was some evidence, competent and substan- the least belief in the honesty of our governtial, before the jury, fairly tending to sustainment," |