◆ SpookStack

10 Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. wen of one state carries with him into another fundamental privi- Jeges and immunities which come to him necessarily by the mere fact of his citizenship in the state first mentioned, but, on the contrary, that in any state every citizen of any other stale is to have the same privileges and immunities which the citizens of that state enjoy. The section, in effect, prevents a state fram dis- critninating against citizens of other states in favor of its own." The question now presented is whether freedom to disseminate information concerning the provisions of the National Labor Rela. tions Act, to assemble peaceably for diseussion of the Aet, and of the opportnnitics and advantages offered by it, is a privilege or im- munity of a citizen ef the United States secured avainst State ebridgment™ by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whether R. &. 1973 and Section 24(14) of the Judicial Code afford redress in # federal court for such abridgment. This is the narrow question presented by the record, and we confine our decision to it, without consideration of broader issues which the parties urge. The bill, the answer ani the findings fully present the question. The bill alleges, and the findings sustain the allegation, that the re- spondents had no other purpose than to inform citizens of Jersey City hy suces oe speech, and by the written word, respeciing matters grow- ing out of national legislation. the eonstitutionality of which this court has sustained. Although it has been held that the Fourteenth Amendment ere- ated no rights in eitizens of the United States, but merely secured existing richts against state abridement,! it is clear that the right peaceably fo assemble and to discuss these topics, and to communi- cate respecting them, whether oraliy or in writing, is a privileze = inherent in citizenship of the United States which the Amendment went nab protects, In the Slaughter-House Cases it wag said, 16 Wall. 79; “The rictht te peaceably assemble and petition for redress of prievances, 19 Downham or. Alexandria, 14 Wall. 173; Chambers v. B. & O. R, Co., 207 U. 8. 142; LaTourette r. MeManter, 248 U. 8. 465: Chalker v. Birmingham & N. W. Ry. Co, 249 U. 8. 522; Shaffer v, Carter, $52 0. 8. 37; United States e. Wheeler, 254 U. 8, 281; Dongias v. N. ¥., N. H. & H.R. Co, 279 U.S. ait; Whitheld v. Ghie, 297 U. 8. 431. 20 As to what constitutes state action within the meaning of the amendment, eee Virginia t. Rives, 100 U, 8. 313: Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. 8, 329, 347; Home Tel. Co. +. Los Angeles, 227 U. 8. 278; Mooney v, Holeban, 204 U.S. 103, 112; Lovell ». Grifin, 203 TL 8, 244, $50, 21The Btauchter-House Canes, 16 Wall. 36, 77; Minor v. Happeractt, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Virginia, 190 U. 8. 339; In re Kemmler, 136 U. 8. 436, 448, om Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. 1l the privileze of the writ of Aabeas corpus, are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Tn United States ¥. Cruikshank, 02 U.S. 542, 352-358, the eourt said: “The right. of the people peaceably to asseinble for the purpose of petitioning Conuress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national gav- ernment, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed hy, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the irt of ifs citizens to mect peaceably for consultation in reapeet to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in these counts that the objeet of the defendants was {o prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the seope of the sovereignty of the United States,”’ No expression of a contrary view has ever been voiced by this eourt., ; The National Lahor Relations Act declares the policy of the United States to be to remove obstructions to commerce by encour- aging callective bargaining, pretecting full freedom of association and self-organization of workers, and, through their representa- tives, negotiating as to conditions of employment. Citizenship of the Tnited States would be little better than a name if it did not earry with it the right to diseuss national legis- lation and the bencfits, advantages, and opportunities to acerue to citizens therefrom. All of the respondents’ proscribed activities had this single end and aim. The District Court had jurisdiction under Section 24( 44). . Natural persons, and they alone, are entitled to the privileges and immunities which Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment secures for ‘citizens of the United States.’? Only the individual spondents may, therefore, maintain this suit. m Renan What has been said demonstrates that, in the light of the facts found, privileges and immunities of the individual respondents as citizens of the United States, were infringed by the petitioners, by virtne of their official positions, under color of atdinances of Jer- sey City, unless, as petitioners contend, the city’s ownership of Oricat T on #, Tiaggs, 172 1. 9, 587; Holt v. Indiana Manutac turing Ca, 176 . 9. G8; Western Turf Association v. Greenberg, 2o4 UT, §. 359; Selover, Bates & Co, v. Waleh, 226 Uw. 8. 112, aa