◆ SpookStack

4 Tague vs. Committes for Industrial Organization. respondents of the privileges of free speech and peaceable assembly secured fo them, as citizens of the United Statos, by the Fourteenth Amendment. Tt prays an injunction against vantinwance of peti- tioners’ conduct. The bill allewes that the cause is of a civil nature, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, wherein the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000, exclusive of interest and eosts: and is a suit in eqnity to redress the deprivation, under color of state Jaw statute and ordinance. of rights. privileres and immu«unities se. cured by the Constitution of the United States, and of rights secured by the laws of the United States providing for equal risthts of citizens of the United States and of all persous within the jur- isdietion of the United States, The answer denies generally, or qualifies, the allecations of the bilt but does not deny that the individual respondents are citizens of the United States; denies that the amount in controversy ‘Sas to each plaintiff and against rach defendant!" exceeds $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and alleges that the supposed grounds of fed- eral jurisdiction are frivolous, no facts being alleged sufficient to shew that any substantial federal question is involved. After trial upon the merits the District Court entered findings of faet and conclusions of law and a decree in favor of respondents.? In brief, the court found that the purposes of respondents, other than the American Civil Liberties Union, were the organization of unorganized workers into labor unions, causing suck unions to exer- eise the normal and legal functions of labor organizations, such as collective bargaining with respect to the betterment of wages, hours of work and other terms and eonditions of employment, and that these purposes were lawful; that the petitioners, acting in their official capacities, have adopted and enforced the deliberate policy of exeluding and removing from Jersey City the agents of the respond- ents: have interfered with their right of passage upon the streets and access to the parks of the city; that these ends have heen aceora- plished by force and violence despite the fact that the persons affected were acting in an orderly and peaceful manner; that ex- clusion, removal, personal restraint and interference, by force and violence, is accomplished without authority of law and without promptly bringing the persons taken into enstndy before a ju- dicial officer for hearing. a 725 F. Supp. 127, Haque vs. Commitiee for Industrial Organization. 5 The court further found that the petitioners, as officials, acting in reliance on the ordinatice dealing with the subject, have adopted and enforeed a deliberate policy of preventing the re- spondents, and their associates, from distributing circulars, leaflets, or handbills in Jersey City; that this has been done by policemen acting forcibly and violently; that the petitioners propose to con- - tinue to enforce the policy of such prevention; that the circulars and handbills, distribution of which has been prevented, were not offensive to public morals, and did not advocate unlawful conduct, but were germane to the purposes alleged in the bill, and that their distribution wax being carried out in a way consistent with public order and without molestation of individuals or misuse or littering of the streets. Similar findings were made with respect to the pre- vention of the distribution of placards. The findings are that the petitioners, as officials, have adopted and enforced a deliberate policy of forbidding the respondents and their associates from communicating their views respecting the Na- tional Labor Relations Act to the eitizens of Jersey City by hold- ing meetings or assemblies in the open air and at public places; that there is no competent proof that the proposed speakers have ever spoken at an assembly where a breach of the peace oecurred or at which any utterances were made which violated the canons of proper discussion or gave oevasion for disorder consequent upon what was said; that there is no competent proof that the parka of Jersey City are dedicated to any general purpose other than the reereation of the public and that there is competent proof that the municipal authorities have granted permits'to varrous persons other than the respondents to speak at mectings in the streets of the city. ‘The court found that the rights of the respondents, and each of them, interfered with and frustrated by the petitioners, had a value, as to each respondent, in excess of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs; that the petitioners’ enforcement of their policy against. the respondents caused the latter irreparable camage; that the respondents have been threatened with manifold and repeated persecution, and manifold and repeated invasions of their rights; and that they have done nothing to disentitle them to equitable relief, The eourt concluded that it had jurisdiction under Sec. 24(1) (12) and (14) of the Judicial Code ;* that the petitioners’ official 528 U.S.C. §41(1), (22) and (14).