◆ SpookStack

12 Hague vs, Committce for Industrial Organization. Streets and parks is as ahsolute as one's ownership of his home, With consequent power altogether to exclude citizens from the use thereof, or unless, though the city holds the streets in trust for public use, the absolute denial of their use to the respondents is a valid exercise of the police power. The findings of fact negative the latter assumption. port of the former the petitioners rely upon Dams vy. Massachy- setts, 167 LS. 43. There it appeared that, pursuant to enabling legislation, the city of Boston adopted an ordinance prohibiting anyone from speaking, discharging fire arma, selling goods, or maintaining any booth for public amusement on any of the public grounds of the city except under a Permit from the Mayor. Davia spoke on Boston Common without a permit and without applying to the Mayor for one. He was charged with a violation of the ordinance and moved to quash the complaint, tater alia, on the ground that the ordinance abridged his privileges and immunities ad 8 citizen of the United States and denied him due process of law because it was arbitrary and unreasonable, His contentions were overruled and he was convicted, The judgment was af- firmed by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and by this court, The decision seems to be grounded on the holding of the State court that the Common ‘was absolutely under the control of the legislature’’, and that it was thns ‘conclusively determined there was no right in the plaintiff in error to use the common except in such modé and subject to such regulations as the legislature in its wisdom may have deemed proper to prescribe.”? The Court added that the Fourteenth Amendment did not destroy the power of the states to enact police regulations as to a subject within their control or enable citizens to use public preperty in defiance of the constitution and laws of the State. The ordinance there in question apparently had a different pur. pose from that of the one here challenged, for it was not directed solely at the exercise of the right of speech and assembly, but was addressed as well to other activities, not in the nature of civil rights, which doubtless might be regulated or prohibited as respects their enjoyment in parks. In the instant ease the ordinance deals only with the exercise of the right of assembly for the purpose of communicating views entertained by speakers, and ia not a general measure to promote the public convenience in the use of the streets or parks. In sup- Hague vs. Commitice for Industrial Organization, We have no oecasion to determine whether, on the facts d closed, the Daris Case was rightly decided, but we cannot ae that it rules the instant case. Wherever the title of 5 res parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in ae “r } use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used or poses of assembly, communicating thonghis between citizens, diseussing public questions. Such use of the streets an p | places has, fram ancient times, heen a part of the priser | mmnities, tights, and liberties of citizens, The privilege of a a , af the United States to use the streets and parks for comma al views an national questions may be regulated in the intere ‘ all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised an dination to the teneral comfort and convenience, and in sonsene with peace and good order; but it must not, In the suise 7 i bridged or denied. ; Fe ine the court below was right in holding the ordina quoted in Note 1 void upon its face.* Jt does not man oe convenience in the use of siteets or parks the standar “ a action, It enables the Director of Safety to refuse 8 ee mere opinion that siteb refusal will prevent ‘‘riots, ok vanes disorderly assemblage."’ It can thus, as the record dis: roses made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free espr a views on national affairs for the prohibition oF Bea ws oubtediy ‘‘prevent’’ such eventualities. Bu r seer eakion at the privilege cannot be made a substitute for duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise me The bill recited that pelicemen, acting under Peta nts tions, had searched various persons, including t een nea had seized innocent eireulars and pamphlets wit “ atitty probable cause. It prayed imjunctive relic£ agains aan this conduet, The District Court made no indines elie? cerning such searches and seizures and grante aa ee nl veenest, to them, The Cirenit Court of Appeals di not on the terms of the deeree but found that unreasonape a . seizures had oceurred and that the prohibitions » ae Amendment had been taken over by the Fourteen fect citizens of the United States against such action. 1 strain The deerce as affirmed by the court helow docs not Tes i sisi essed to i searches or seizures. In each of its provisions addr 23 Lovell v, Griffin, sxpra, | Supreme Court of New Jersey in Thomas : onstruction of the ordinanee Bb, ee rhnmae os Casey, 121 N. J. L, 185.