[85] 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).
[86] 249 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1919).
[87] 249 U.S. 204 (1919).
[88] Ibid. 206.
[89] 249 U.S. 211 (1919).
[90] Ibid. 215-216.
[91] 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
[92] Ibid. 627. It should be noted that Justice Holmes couples with his invocation of the clear and present danger test in his dissent in this case the contention that rightly construed the act of Congress involved (The Espionage Act of May 16, 1918; 40 Stat. 553) required that defendant's intent be specifically proved. He wrote: "I am aware of course that the word intent as vaguely used in ordinary legal discussion means no more than knowledge at the time of the act that the consequences said to be intended will ensue. Even less than that will satisfy the general principle of civil and criminal liability. A man may have to pay damages, may be sent to prison, at common law might be hanged, if at the time of his act he knew facts from which common experience showed that the consequences would follow, whether he individually could foresee them or not. But, when words are used exactly, a deed is not done with intent to produce a consequence unless that consequence is the aim of the deed. It may be obvious, and obvious to the actor, that the consequence will follow, and he may be liable for it even if he regrets it, but he does not do the act with intent to produce it unless to aim to produce it is the proximate motive of the specific act, although there may be some deeper motive behind. It seems to me that this statute must be taken to use its words in a strict and accurate sense." 250 U.S. at 626-627. In the Holmes-Pollock Letters this is the main point discussed by the two correspondents regarding the Abrams Case; the clear and present danger doctrine is not mentioned. 2 Holmes-Pollock Letters, 29, 31, 32, 42, 44-45, 48, 65.
[93] 251 U.S. 466 (1920).
[94] Ibid. 479. See also to the same effect: Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920).