Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/641

Rh

of the situation, but they laid themselves open to severe criticism for the delay in realizing that a change of policy was necessary.

See Government Papers Cd. 7679 and Cd. 7680 (1915); Sir Edward Cook, The Press in Wartime (1920) ; Sir Philip Gibbs, Realities of War (1920) ; Neville Lytton, The Press and the General Staff (1921); Maj.-Gen. Callwell, The Experiences of a Dug-Out (1920); Sir Douglas Brownrigg, The Indiscretions of a Naval Censor (1919). (Ri.)

(2) UNITED STATES. American Federal legislation in the matter of censorship shows nothing comparable to the British and French Government censorship of newspapers. The Federal Government had no traditions of censorship except the disas- trous ones in connexion with the Alien and Sedition laws of 1798'. The First Amendment to the Constitution stated that " Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. . . ." There had been no sufficient number of cases before 1917 to afford a clear interpretation of this, except that it had been held to be as binding in war as in peace (Milligan case, 71. U.S. 2). In the first weeks after the United States had declared war, Congress rejected an amendment to the Espionage Act that would have established a censor's bureau. Recognizing that a war involving the whole nation necessitated full informa- tion, the President established a Committee on Public Informa- tion on April 14 1917. This agency for publicity concerning war efforts and purposes developed into a great news agency and a means of distribution of patriotic propaganda. Its only direct relation to the control of the press was a request made by it in the name of the Secretaries of State, War and the Navy that news- papers censor themselves in the matter of news that might help the enemy or embarrass the Government. There was no legal force behind this. It was generally observed but with much grumbling and denunciation of the chairman of the Committee, Mr. George Creel, as a " censor."

The adherence of Congress and the President to the traditions of a free press and free speech in simply requesting a voluntary cen- sorship was striking, but it was more in appearance than in reality. It seemed exceptional, for in addition to the usual reasons which justified the other belligerents in instituting official press bureaus and censors to control seditious utterances, the United States faced conditions unknown to them. It was the domicile of about 4,000,000 unnaturalized citizens of the Central Powers " enemy aliens," to use an old and misleading phrase that was revived. In addition there were millions more born in those lands and using their languages, who had become citizens legally. During two and a half years of neutrality, the free and acrimonious dis- cussion of the war and its issues had filled the Press, and been incessant in every home and community and school as well as in Congressional debates. The propaganda agencies of all the nations, and especially of the Central Powers, had flooded the mails, used the lecture platforms and organized their semi- official press. The country had heard much of the German espionage system, spies were suspected everywhere, and many acts of sabotage, arson, and violence in factories engaged in munition production were ascribed to them. The activities of German agents, some real and many imagined, seemed to call for vigorous action. In other respects, too, the United States departed from its old individualistic tendencies, as in instituting the draft, regulating food, raising huge loans, observing meatless days and sending an army of 2,000,000 to fight in Europe. That wise and necessary restraint did not more often give way to oppression and violence is amazing in a country where the fron- tier had but recently disappeared.

The fact that no new agency was established to control the Press did not mean that communication, the Press and public speech were to continue to be unrestricted. On April 6 1917, the day war was declared, the radio stations were taken over by the Department of the Navy under the law of 1912. On April 28 the President placed the cables in charge of the same depart- ment and the dispatch of messages and use of codes was strictly regulated. On the latter date the telegraph lines were placed in charge of the War Department but transferred later to the Post Office Department when the Government took over the telegraph and express companies. Under the old Internment

Statute of 1789, the Attorney-General was authorized by the President to intern dangerous enemy aliens and by an Act of Congress the Alien Property Custodian assumed charge of enemy aliens' property.

So far Federal officials were acting under pre-war legislation including the old Treason law. The earliest war measures aimed at sedition and disloyalty had as a background the passage of the conscription or Selective Service law. It was a great venture in legislation for the United States. The possibility of interference with its enforcement was clearly in mind in the Espionage Act (June 15 1917), which provided that (Section 3, title i): " Who- ever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or con- vey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies, and who- ever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both." The last of these clauses was the one oftenest invoked by Federal legal officers. Another section declared non-mailable all written or printed matter which violated any provision of the Espionage Act. This Act was not amended until May 1918 by the Passport and Sabotage Acts and the so-called " Sedition Law." The latter, a loosely drawn statute based on an Act of the state of Montana, sought to suppress all utterances of a disloyal charac- ter. It provided punishments up to 20 years' imprisonment for anyone who published " any language intended to bring the form of Government of the United States or the Constitution into contempt, scorn, contumely and disrepute." It opened the possibility for all kinds of complaints and prosecutions by those whose judgment was affected by war hysteria. The Federal Attorney-General, his assistant and the 88 U.S. district attorneys were flooded with silly complaints and beset by unofficial dis- loyalty hunters and amateur detectives, but kept their heads in most cases remarkably well, as did most of the judges. In the end no prosecutions were permitted until the Attorney-General reviewed the facts and gave authorization. The meaning of this statute was not interpreted by the Supreme Court until 1919, after the fighting was over. Not till then did the courts of first instance have a uniform and controlling indication that the re- lation between words alleged to be criminal and the armed forces of the nation must be direct enough to constitute " a clear and present danger." Before this, state and Federal courts had taken wide latitude in considering the " general tendency " of utter- ances. Men had been convicted for criticizing the Red Cross, doubting the utility of knitting socks for soldiers, using abusive and intemperate language in arguments about the war or pro- ducing such a motion picture as The Spirit of '76 which in one part represented British soldiers using bayonets at the Wyoming valley massacre. The obsession that the country was full of German spies persisted until 1918, although Federal officers had broken up German espionage early in the war.

The prosecutions and deportations, especially those instituted by Mr. A. Mitchell Palmer, the new Attorney-General, were subjects of most bitter complaint as the war ended. Federal legislation was supplemented by Acts of even a more drastic character, in most of the states. Many of the state Acts on sedition beardateof 1919, i.e. afterthe close of the war and there- fore subject to application and interpretation in fields quite un- related to the nation's safety during war. In 25 states the display of a red flag was a specified offence. The other source of com- plaint against Federal activity was the judicially unreviewable power exercised by the Postmaster-General, Mr. Burleson, in closing the mails to journals of which he disapproved. This control was most often exercised by cancelling their classification as second-class matter entitled to low mailing rates. This virtual exclusion from the mails was continued to the financial ruin of some newspapers even though the objection was based on the material in only one issue. Much bitter comment (some of it