FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   932   933   934   935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956  
957   958   959   960   961   962   963   964   965   966   967   968   969   970   971   972   973   974   975   976   977   978   979   980   981   >>   >|  
follows: "That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, etc." The indictments charged the defendants with having deprived certain citizens of their right to assemble together peaceably with other citizens "for a peaceful and lawful purpose." The court held that this language was insufficient inasmuch as it did not specify that the attempted assembly was for a purpose connected with the National Government. As to the right of assembly the Court, speaking by Chief Justice Waite, went on to declare: "The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States. Such, however, is not the case. The offence, as stated in the indictment, will be made out, if it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawful purpose whatever."[252] HAGUE _v._ COMMITTEE OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION In this case[253] the question at issue was the validity of a Jersey City ordinance requiring the obtaining of a permit for a public assembly in or upon the public streets, highways, public parks, or public buildings of the city and authorizing the director of public safety, for the purpose of preventing riots, disturbances, or disorderly assemblage, to refuse to issue a permit when after investigation of all the facts and circumstances pertinent to the application he believes it to be p
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   932   933   934   935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956  
957   958   959   960   961   962   963   964   965   966   967   968   969   970   971   972   973   974   975   976   977   978   979   980   981   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
public
 

purpose

 

States

 

United

 

assembly

 

citizens

 
prevent
 
peaceably
 

persons

 
permit

connected

 

Government

 
defendants
 

grievances

 

intent

 

lawful

 

assemble

 

object

 
redress
 
National

meeting

 

conspiracy

 
sovereignty
 
alleged
 

consultation

 

counts

 

respect

 
affairs
 

petition

 

offence


stated

 

indictment

 

statute

 

question

 
disturbances
 

disorderly

 
assemblage
 

refuse

 
preventing
 

authorizing


director

 

safety

 

application

 
believes
 

pertinent

 

circumstances

 

investigation

 

buildings

 

ORGANIZATION

 
INDUSTRIAL