People v. Thompson

BURROUGHS, J.,

pro tem.

— The defendants were jointly charged by the grand jury of Yuba County with a violation of certain of the provisions of the act of the legislature approved April 30, 1919, commonly known as the “Criminal Syndicalism Act” (Stats. 1919, p. 281). The charging part of the indictment reads as follows: “In the County of Yuba, State of California, on or about the 28th day of July, 1923, F. W. Thompson, Malcolm Fullerton and Ed. Dawe, then and there being, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously become and were members of an organization, society, club and assemblage of persons known and designated as the ‘Industrial Workers of the World,’ and sometimes known and referred to as the ‘I. W. W.’ which said organization, society, club and assemblage of persons was then and there, organized and assembled to advocate, teach, aid and abet criminal syndicalism as a means of accomplish

[490]

ing a change in industrial ownership and control and effecting political changes.”

After plea of not guilty and trial, the defendants Thompson and Dawe were found guilty and defendant Fullerton not guilty. This is an appeal by the convicted defendants from the judgment and an order denying their motion for a new trial.

The portion of the act under which the defendants were prosecuted reads as follows:

“The term, 'Criminal Syndicalism,’ as used in this act is hereby defined as any doctrine or precept advocating, teaching, or aiding and abetting the commission of crime, sabotage (which word is hereby defined as meaning willful and malicious physical damage or injury to physical property), dr unlawful acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism, as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change.”

“Sec. 2. Any person who—subd. 4—'or is or knowingly becomes a member of any organization, society, group or assemblage of persons, organized or assembled to advocate, teach, or aid and abet criminal syndicalism’— subd. 5—‘is guilty of a felony.’ ”

, [1] It is claimed by the appellants that the act is unconstitutional in that it is an. attempt to create the crime of constructive conspiracy in violation of the constitutional right of personal liberty, in that the words “is or knowingly becomes” used in subdivision 2 of section 4 is an attempt to create an arbitrary classification, and that even if the above words are constitutional they must be read as if the word “knowingly” were inserted before the word “is” as well as before the word “becomes.” The very question here presented was before the court in