state, territory or district." The defendant was not a civil officer and had been given no such authority. He was convicted of violating section 530 of the New York Penal Law which makes it a misdemeanor to "coerce" another person with a view to compelling wrongfully and unlawfully another person to do or abstain from doing an act which he has a legal right to do or to abstain from doing. While admitting that this statute was enacted for the purpose of dealing with labor disputes the court held that it could be applied to the case in point, since the facts proved brought the conduct of the defendant squarely within the provisions of the law.

Disbarment of Attorney-Violation of Conscription Act as Crime Involving Moral Turpitude. In re Hofstede (Idaho, June 25, 1918, 173 Pac. 1087). Hofstede was convicted of advising men of registration age not to register for the draft. He was then summoned to show cause why he should not be disbarred in accordance with the state statue authorizing the disbarment of attorneys by the state supreme court or district courts on the ground of conviction of felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. His defense was based upon the contention that the crime of which he had been convicted was not one which involved moral turpitude. The court did not agree with this view but decided that an effort to interfere with the work of raising an army in the United States for the conduct of the war was an act of disloyalty and involved moral turpitude. The disbarment was, accordingly, ordered.

Espionage Act-Inciting Insubordination in Army or Navy. United States v. Krafft (U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, April 23, 1918, 249 Fed. 919). The defendant was convicted of violating the third section of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, by uttering in the presence of soldiers of the United States army statements intended to cause insubordination, mutiny, disloyalty and refusal of duty on the part of such soldiers. The trial judge charged the jury that they might find a verdict of guilty only if satisfied that the statements alleged had actually been uttered and had been uttered with the intention on the part of the defendant to cause insubordination, mutiny, disloyalty, and refusal of duty. He refused to charge the jury that in order to convict the prosecution must prove that such insubordination, etc., had actually resulted from the defendant's remarks. This court held on appeal that the jury had been correctly charged. A violation of the clause of the statute in question results even from an entirely unsuccessful attempt to

stir up mutiny and disloyalty in the army or navy. To make the defendant's guilt dependent upon the results of his criminal efforts would be equivalent to making it depend not "upon what he did in the way of counseling disloyalty, but upon what his hearers did in the way of following his directions. In other words, the defendant could do all in his power to bring about disloyalty, but as long as he did not succeed he committed no crime." Such a construction is entirely foreign to the purpose of the Espionage Act, which aims to prevent not merely the results of disloyal propaganda but the propaganda itself.

Freedom of Press-Ordinance Prohibiting Publication and Sale of Certain Newspapers. Star Co. v. Brush (New York, Supreme Court, June 4, 1918, 170 N. Y. Supp. 987); New Yorker Staats-Zeitung v. Brush (New York, Supreme Court, June 4, 1918, 170 N. Y. Supp. 993); German Herold Publishing Co. v. Brush (New York, Supreme Court, June 4, 1918, 170 N. Y. Supp. 993). The city of Mt. Vernon, New York, passed an ordinance forbidding the publication or sale of any newspapers printed in the German language and of the New York American and the New York Evening Journal which were specifically named. The preamble to the ordinance declared that these papers were deemed to be "harmful to the best interest of this nation in the prosecution of the war." These three cases, which may be discussed together, are based on motions by the plaintiff newspapers for injunctions pending final judgment in the case to restrain the enforcement by the city officials of Mt. Vernon of the ordinance mentioned. The injunctions were granted in each case for the following reasons set forth by the court: First, Mt. Vernon has no greater police power than that enjoyed by other cities of the same class, the regulation and suppression of newspapers is not among the powers which it enjoys by virtue of constitutional provision or statutory authorization and the ordinance in question is accordingly ultra vires. Second, the legislature of the state itself could not have passed such a law nor could it have authorized the city to pass this ordinance without violating section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of New York which provides: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsibile for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press." If publications are circulated which are in violation of the law those responsible may be punished; but such publications cannot be suppressed arbitrarily because it is anticipated that they may violate the law or consti

tute a public menace. The existence of a state of war creates no new power in this respect on the part of municipalities. If the national safety demands a restriction upon the freedom of the press that restriction should be imposed by national and not by local action.

Naturalization-Cancelation of Certificate of Citizenship-Disloyal Utterances as Evidence of False Oath of Allegiance. United States v. Wursterbarth (U. S. District Court, May 13, 1918, 249 Fed. 908); United States v. Darmer (U. S. District Court, May 10, 1918, 249 Fed. 989). In each of these cases an action was brought by the United States district attorney to cancel the certificate of citizenship of an American citizen of German birth on the ground that it had been fraudulently procured. Wursterbarth was naturalized in 1882 and at that time took the oath required by statute renouncing and abjuring all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereign and especially the emperor of Germany. After the entrance of the United States into the war he was asked on three occasions to give money to the Red Cross or to the Young Men's Christian Association war fund. Each time he replied that he would do nothing to injure the country in which he was born, brought up and educated, that he hoped that Germany would win the war, and that he only came to this country on a vacation or visit. The truth of these statements was defiantly admitted. The court canceled the certificate of citizenship. These facts, it declared, indicated that Wursterbarth at the present time bears an allegiance to Germany superior to that which he bears to the United States. It is fair to presume that 35 years of residence and citizenship in this country would strengthen his allegiance to the United States and weaken his allegiance to Germany. It follows, therefore, the oath of allegiance to this country which he took at the time of his naturalization was false. The presumption in his favor arising from so long a period of good citizenship including the holding of public office is of no consequence since during that time no occasion has arisen until now to test the reserve allegiance which he had held to Germany. Furthermore any doubt regarding a person's right to enjoy the privileges of citizenship should be resolved in favor of the government. The Darmer case differs from this only in the fact that the expressions of disloyalty upon which the action was based were even more striking than in the case against Wursterbarth.

Shipping-Effect of War in Canceling Agreement between Owner and Charterer. Essex S. S. Co. v. Langbehn (U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals,

April 3, 1918, 25 Fed. 98). An agreement between a shipowner and charterer entered into in July, 1914, allowed the charterer to select as the destination of the cargo one of three ports, among which was Hamburg. As a British vessel the ship in question was forbidden on the outbreak of war between England and Germany from trading with an enemy port. The owner accordingly refused to take the vessel to Hamburg although that port had been selected by the charterer in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It was held, following the doctrine laid down in the case of The Kronprinzessin Cecilie (244 U. S. 12, 37 Sup. Ct. 490, 61 L. Ed. 960), that the outbreak of war justified the nonperformance of such a contract. This release from obligation, however, was mutual. Since the owner could not be compelled by the charterer to take his vessel to a German port in violation of the law of his country, so likewise the owner could not compel the charterer to select either of the other two ports named in the agreement as the destination of the vessel when he had originally and in good faith selected Hamburg.

NEWS AND NOTES

EDITED BY FREDERIC A. OGG

University of Wisconsin

By action of the members of the executive council, it has been decided to postpone indefinitely the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, which it had been voted to hold at Cleveland in December. This decision has been based mainly on the request of President Wilson urging the reduction of travel in war time as much as possible. Consideration may later be given to the question of holding a meeting early in the summer of 1919; and announcement will be made of any action taken.

Professor W. B. Munro, of Harvard University, is serving with the general staff committee on education and special training, in connection with the plans and operation of the students' army training corps at colleges and universities.

Professor James W. Garner, of the University of Illinois, visited France and Great Britain during the past summer, collecting data on the international law problems of the present war.

Professor C. A. Dykstra, of the University of Kansas, is acting for the year as secretary of the Cleveland Civic League.

Dr. B. F. Moore, of the University of Kansas, is attached to the war trade board at Washington.

Mr. Harry T. Nightingale, of the Illinois state board of equalization, has been appointed acting assistant professor of political science at Oberlin College. Professor Karl F. Geiser is on leave of absence for the year, engaged in war work.

Dr. Benjamin B. Wallace, of the political science department at Northwestern University, has resigned.