◆ SpookStack

ber a | 4 re i 2 dTaque vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. The bill alleges that acting under a city ordinance forbidding the leasing of any hall, without a permit from the Chief of Police, for a public meeting at which a speaker shall advocate obstruction of the Government of the United States or a state, or a change of govern- ment by other than lawful means, the petitioners, and their sul- ordinates, have denied respondents the right te hold lawful mcet- ings in Jersey City on the ground that they are Commnnists or Communist organizations ; that pursuant to an unlawful plan, the petitioners have caused the eviction from the municipality of ner- sons they considered undesirable because of their labor organization activities, anit have announced that they will continue so to do. Kt further alleges that acting under an ordinance which forbids any Peraon to ‘‘distribute or cause to be distributed or strewn about any atroet or public place any newspapers, paper, Periodical, book, mag- azine, circular, card or pamphlet’, the petitioners have discrimi- nated against the respondents by prohibiting and interfering with distribution of leaflets and pamphlets by the respondents while per- mitting others to distribute similar printed niatter; that. pursnant toa plan and eonspiracy to deny the respondents their Consti- tutional rights as citizens of the United States, the petitioners have caused respondents, and those acting with them, to be ar- rested for distributing printed matter in the streets, and have caused them, and their associates, to be carried beyond the limits of the city or to remote places therein, and have compelled them to board ferry boats destined for New York; have, with violence and forer, interfered with the distribution of pamphlets discussing the rights of citizens ander the National Labor Relations Act; have wn- iawiuity scurched persons coming into the city and seized priuted matter in their possession; have arrested and prosceuted respond- ents, and those acting with them, for attempting to distribute such printed matter ; and have threatened that if respondents attempt to hold public meetings in the city to discuss rights afforded by the National Labor Relations Act, they would be arrested; and unless restrained, the petitioners will continue in their antawful conduct. The bill further alleges that respondents have repeatedly anptied for permits to hold public meetings in the city for the stated pur- PRE, AA required by ordinance,? although they do not admit the ree Board of Comminnionars of Jorsey City Do Ordain: =. *rom and after the pasange of this ordinance, no publie parades or publi assembly in or upon the public strects, highways, publee parks or publie Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. 3 validity of the ordinance; but in execution of a common plan and purpose, the petitioners have consistently refused to issue any per- mits for meetings to be held by, or sponsored by, respondents, and have thus prevented the holding of such meetings; that the re- spondents dul not, and do not, propose to advocate the destruction or overthrow of the government of the United States, or that of New Jersey, but that their solo purpese is to explain to working- men the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, the benefits to be derived from it, and the aid which the Committee for In- dustrial Organization would furnish workingmen to that end; and all the activities in which they seek to engage in Jersey City were, and are, to be performed peacefully, without intimidation, fraud, vielence, or other unlawful methods. The bill charges that the suit is to redress ‘‘the deprivation, under color of state law, statute and ordmanee, of rights privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States and of rights secured by laws of the United States providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States’’ It charges that the petitioners’ condnet ‘is in violation of their [respondents] righis and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."' Tt alleges that the petitioners’ conduct has been “in pursuance of an unlawful conspiracy to injure op- press threaten and intimidate citizens of the United States, inelud- ing the individual plaintiffs herein, in the free exerc.se and enjoyment of the rights and privileges seenred to them by the Constitution and Jaws of the United States.” 2... The bill charges that the ordinances are unconstitutional and void, or are heing enforeed against respondents m an unconstitu- tional and diseriminatory way; and that the petitioners, as officials of the city, purporting te act under the ordinances, have deprived buildings of Jefscy City shall take place or be conducted until s permit shall bo obtained from the Director of Public Safety. ‘62 "The Director of Public Safety is hereby authorized and empowered to grant permits for parades and public assembly, upon application made to him at Irast three daya prior to the proposed parade or pubtic assembly. . “43. The Director of Public Safety is hereby authorized to refure to isaue said permit when, after investigation of all of the facta and circumstances pertinent to said apptication, he believes it ta be proper to refuse the issuance thergof; provided, however, that aald permit shall anly be refused for tbe purpese of preventing riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage. . ‘4. Any person or persons violating apy of the provisions of this ordi- tance shall upon conviction before a police magistrate of tha City of Jersey Gity be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or imprisonment in the Hudson County jail for a periad not erceeding ninety days or both.