In passage, the case against Foster would have been dismissed if the judge had interpreted the Constitution in which of the following ways?
Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.
Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.
The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?
Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.
Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.
My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .
You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.