This is not a trial of political principles.
This cannot be turned into a political or State trial in the political
sense. You are not to be misled by any effort to digress your
minds from the real issue, which simply is whether these defendants
are guilty or not guilty of the crime charged in the indictment.
This is not a question of free speech. Free speech is guaranteed
to us under the Constitution. No American worthy of the name believes
in else than free speech. But free speech means not license, not
counseling disobedience of law. Free speech means that frank,
fair, full and orderly expression which every man or woman in
the land, citizen or alien, may engage in, in lawful and orderly
fashion. And that free speech is guaranteed to us, and no court
could deny it to anyone.
Prior to the enactment of the so-called
selective service law, aptly designated such by the President,
on the 18th day of May, 1917, any person could discuss in the
fullest manner possible the provisions of the pending legislation.
And any person in discussing that legislation could use even the
most vehement language and present any and all arguments that
seemed to him or to her best. But when that discussion becomes
embodied into law, then it becomes the duty of every person living
under this government to obey that law. Individual opinion might
still be fully expressed. Proper agitation for repeal might still
continue. But the law itself thenceforth must be obeyed. This
is a republic founded upon principles of democracy. It can remain
a republic only as the law is obeyed. The obedience to law is
the fundamental basis of American life. Once that basis disappears
or is destroyed, the whole fabric is destroyed and the foundation
upon which a government of free men rests, disappears. * * *
I may only say one thing more, concerning
which there can be little difference of opinion. Whatever may
have been the fate of persons of historical note, whether the
acts that they committed were within or without the law, is quite
immaterial in this case. This is a country of law and order. The
law must be obeyed. We are not dealing with a discussion of abstract
principles. We are not concerned with the views of the defendants,
whether they are right or wrong, on matters foreign to this case.
We are only concerned with the evidence in the case. If you believe
them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is a matter of no concern
to you nor to the court what their views may be. If you believe
them not guilty, then equally are we not concerned with their
political views.
I repeat in conclusion and lay it upon you
most earnestly that this is not a trial of free speech. This is
an indictment for crime. And the duty which rests upon you is
to determine on the evidence whether or not the defendants are
guilty or innocent of the crime charged in the indictment. Much
has been said by the defendants and by the counsel for the Government
as to what the country may think of your verdict. Gentlemen,
we are within the solemn confines of a court. All the country
wants from you is a just verdict on the evidence, a verdict that
I know you will render, because you have given such close attention.
And confining yourselves to that, it is your duty by deliberate
consideration to arrive at a conclusion on the evidence and not
to permit yourselves, as I am sure you will not, to be diverted
into any attack--to make it seem as if any person were here on
trial for the expression of opinion. The sole question is, has
the Government proved the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable
doubt? If so, your verdict is guilty. If not, your verdict is
not guilty.
Go to
Next Excerpt
Document maintained at:
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Essays/TrialSpeeches/courtcharge.html
by the SunSITE Manager.