Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/1007

971 FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN WAR TIME 971 judges, who frequently decide against the United States. It is clear that exclusion from the mails practically destroys the circulation of a book or periodical, and makes free speech to that extent im- possible. To say, as many courts do, that the agitator is still at Uberty to use the express or the telegraph,^'^ recalls the remark of the Bourbon princess when the Paris mob shouted for bread, " Why don't they eat cake?" Still another method of suppression of opinion has been used. Not only have we substantially revived the Sedition Act of 1798, but the Alien Act as well.^^^ Aliens have been freely deported ^'^ under statutes passed during the war,^^" and even naturalized citizens or native American women marrying foreigners are within the reach of this power. A former German subject who was natural- ized in 1882 refused in 191 7 to contribute to the Red Cross and the Young Men's Christian Association because he would do nothing to injure the country where he was brought up and educated. His naturalization certificate was revoked after thirty-five years on the presumption that his recent conduct showed that he took the oath of renunciation in 1882 with a mental reservation as to the country of his birth. He may therefore be deported as an enemy alien.^^ This completes the record of the restriction of speech in the United States during the late war, except for several decisions in the state courts which need not be discussed in detail.^^ Although we have not gone so far as Great Britain ^^ in disregarding con- "^ This alternative is even less valuable when the government controls the express and the telegraph. The New York World was recently denied the opportunity to use the telegraph to distribute a criticism of Mr. Burleson. Coluer's Weekly, May 17, 1919, p. 16. "* See 952, supra. 1'^ Charles Recht, American Deportation and Exclusion Laws, Boston, League for Democratic Control, 1919. "" Act of Feb. 5, 191 7, 39 Stat, at L. c. 29, § 19, p. 889; U. S. Comp. Stat. 1918, § 4289!/^^];; Act of Oct. 16, 1918, c. 186. 1*1 United States v. Wusterbarth, 249 Fed. 908 (N. J., 1918), Haight, J.; see also United States v. Darmer, 249 Fed. 989 (W. D. Wash., 1918), Cushman, J. 1*2 State Espionage Acts: State v. Hohn, 166 N. W. 181 (Minn., 1918); State v. Spartz, 167 N. W. 547 (Minn., 1918); State v. Tachin, 106 Atl. 145 (N. J., 1919). Mu- nicipal Ordinance regulating newspapers invalid: Star v. Brush, 170 N. Y. Supp. 987 (1918); 172 N.Y. Supp. 851 (r9i8). Lihel in war controversy: ajcilAin]sh.nyz&a. v. YidXly News, 19s Mich. 283, 161 N. W. 979 (19x7), 170 N. W. 93 (1918). Expulsion of col- lege student for pacifism: not reviewed, Samson v. Colvraibia, loi N. Y. Misc. 146, 167 N. Y. Supp. 202 (1917).
 * » The Defence of the Reahn Consolidation Act, 1914, 5 Geo. s, c. 8, § i, gives His