Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/972

936 936 HARVARD LAW REVIEW struction of the word "obstruct" in clause (3), so that as he puts it, "most of the teeth which we tried to put in were taken out." ' "These individual disloyal utterances, however, occurring with consider- able frequency throughout the country, naturally irritated and angered the communities in which they occurred, resulting sometimes in unfortu- nate violence and lawlessness and everywhere in dissatisfaction with the inadequacy of the Federal law to reach such cases. Consequently there was a popular demand for such an amendment as would cover these cases." ^ On May 16, 1918, Congress amended the Espionage Act by what is sometimes called the Sedition Act, adding nine more offenses to the original three, as follows: (4) saying or doing anything with intent to obstruct the sale of United States bonds, except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice; (5) uttering, printing, writing, or pubHshing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language, or language intended to cause contempt, scorn, contumely or dis- repute as regards the form of government of the United States; (6) or the Constitution; (7) or the flag; (8) or the uniform of the Army or Navy; (9) or any language intended to incite resistance to the United States or promote the cause of its enemies; (10) urging any curtailment of production of any things necessary to the prosecution of the war with intent to hinder its prosecution; (11) advocating, teaching, defending, or suggesting the doing of any of these acts; and (12) words or acts supporting or favoring the cause of any country at war with us, or opposing the cause of the United States therein. Whoever commits any one of these offenses in this or any future war is liable to a maximum penalty of $10,000 fine or twenty years' imprisonment, or both. This statute has been enacted and vigorously enforced under a constitution which provides: "Congi'ess shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Clearly, the problem of the limits of freedom of speech in war time is no academic question. On the one side, thoughtful men and journals are asking how scores of citizens can be imprisoned under this constitution only for their disapproval of the war as irreligious, unwise, or unjust. On the other, federal and state officials point ^ 4 Am. Bar Assoc. Jotjrn. 306. 8 Report of the Attorney General of the United States (19 18), 18.