Case Information
*1 ’ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
noa. N. B. 0. Beilw
olstrlat Attorney
Center, Texas
thsir meeh0a8 aonatltute a ‘.-e here
opldon from thlr
one oi th8 aountira 1 bring SOID* aart Of , to rootrein the ng and ofiorlng lor 8ale, thage, the lltereture c3 Thr %itahtower. and
sale of its literature ion of ttelr religloua Coc- tive of dl.Cticul- SrlCdS of the pesc.0. The city govern- bes no ordinances oaloulated to pre- their’literature ald tbe holding of e been oollea upon heir aotivltles. the tLlth preeched by the Jtbuvah “ApDerant~
is 0 rellFloa within the r.eating 0t :i.itcesner dlssarination Oi theit Federal CoastitutiO;., but faith must be kept wittin due bounds, hao’ng ragsrd stste ena t ba rigbta of the ifaasral gcreroment, ~unlalpal eorerumnt to make reasmrbla rem 1ctiOne for health, misty and welrare ot its citizens, and that their activities, den oerriaa to the extent of provoking dlsturbanoes and ro;.a In a cormunlty,may *2 e. F1.B.D Ealley, pmg* 2
. bo kept within due bound8 and rubdaot reasonable regul&tionr. Therefore, ma? I ak rhQthQr or not thir rotlrltlor may br rortraima, either by alty govorrmeat of Carthage or by any prooeealng iq the ociurtr on thr theory that their method8 and a nulaanor. aotlritier oon8tItuto
wDlrlopdty mo8aure8 prsaed by our Lcgirlaturo ham been bald invalid. Ex parte Neokel, 220 2. W.
61, Sahellenger 1. Stat*, 222 S, 3. 246. The Fmderol Court8 hare hsd thr Qxaot problem EeicrQ them, but ao library in my tom has the reports. 42 F. Supp.. 577, ir a ease styled Borohert t. City of Ranger.*
iia do not think that the aotlrities of Jabooab’r ;‘ritne8sQ8 mw ba reatralned either by the olty government of Carthago or by w pSooasding8~in the ooI+,s on the theory that their meahod8 8&l ectlvltler constitute 8 nulsanoo.
In the case at Borchert vd. City of Renger, TQI~E, 42 Fed. !%pp. 577, the Jehovah’8 ~~ftneassa obtoIned.an In&motion in FQder~ Court sgainr:t t&e cities of Renger, Dublin, Comanche and Colemen, whiuh pr&IbItsd these aities from rsetrelniaf the ao- tirltlea of Jehorsh’s ‘X~~QSSQ~ under ordinanoes then in foror fn respectire oitles. Pedaral &&kg Jmtte8 c. Wlson under- takes in that oase to set out whet Jehovah’s Xtnesses osn and oannot do uador the Federal Constitution. He quotes from the CasQ of .?ohneldQr vs. “tete of Naw Jaraey, 308 U. 3. 147, 60 ?up. ct. 146, 150, 84 L. Ed. 145, as t011ow9:
*Alt::ou@ R munIolpslIty c;ay caeot regulations In thQ Intercet of the puhLi0 Safety, health, welfare or contQnlQnce , these my not abridge the Indlv.Iduel lltertles
seourad by the Conotltution to those who wish to speak, *rrIte, print or clroulato Informetion or opinion.
mXunlcipsl autborItle2, :is truntees fcr the publlo, have t.h.e duty to keep their oomunltlas’ atrcets open and avellsbla for nOV8mnt Of people +nd property, thQ prlmry purpose to whloh ttie streets ero dQdi.oated. To long 88 legislation to this and does not abridge the cor.stLtutionsl llborty OS one rightfully upon the street to impart Infomatlon ti;xqh speech or dlstrlbutlon of literature, those usln$ the streets. It o:ay Iawf~lly ragulate the conduct of
For txmpie, a person c3uia *3 .
not cxrrclsr this liberty by taking hi8 stead in thr middle of s orowded atrset, contrary to trsZfi0 rsg- uletloas, end calntaln his position to the stoppage of all traitlo; a group of dlatrlbutors could not inrlst upon a oonrtitutlonal rlcht to fcm a oordbn aoroma the street sad to allow no pedestrlsn to pm8 v&o did not aooopt l tendered nor do.6 ths leaflet; of freedom of apeeoh or of tha prerr de- guarantee prive a,munlolpsllty of power to rnaot regulation8 agsiost throwfng literature broadoast in the atreetr.
Prohibition af suoh oonduot wuld not abridge the constltutlonal liberty alaoe such sotivlty beara no to the freedom to speak, urlta, nuoesaary relotlonnhlp grlnt or distribute InformatIon or opinion. **
*rn every asea, therefore, where leglolattvo abridgement or the rlghtm is asserted, the oourtr examlnc tbe effeot should be astute of ohd- longed lsglsletlon. Ysro leglalatlrr prsrorenoer or belief8 reapcctlag imtters~ of pub110 convmiienoe may well support regulation dlreoted ut other personal ctotlritlOs; but be lnaulfiolant to justffy suoh BU dlmlnlahes the exerolse of rights st vital to the nolntananae OS democretla lnstltutl; ns. And oo,aa cases arise, the delloate and dlfflcult task fella ur,on the courta to weigh the olraumstances end to appraise the eabstantlallty oi tte reasons advanaed in support oi the regulation or the rree enjoyment 0r the4 rlghts. . . .* -chnelder ease, tupre~e Court of the
flnce Ttates has passed on thls question numerous tiFes in aon- gnited section with ordinances xhlch wre enacted to restrain the ao- tlvltiea of Jehovah’s %Itnessen.
The “uprare Court of the United -tates has held that an srdlnance of th6 city of Dallas which prohibited the dletrl- bution of handbills on the streets wss unconstitutional aa applied to Jehovah’s ‘;iltnessea. Jamlson 98. Texas, 318 U. C. 413, 63 Sup. ct. 669, 87 L. IC. 569. That same Court held In Cargent vs. Texas jlS Us Ce 418, 63 Wprerje Court 667, 87 L. i:d. 873, that an ordlnanoe
b’r. N.B.D. Bailey, pa,ga L
of the olty of Parla, Texas, whloh makes It unlawlul Sor any person to aolloit or roll booke, ware8 or merahandlaa ordera within thr rraldanoe portion of Farla, xlthout first filing and obtaining 6 permit, whlah xculd be. iaaued an applloetioa aaly ii after lav66tlg6tlon the Mayor deemed it proper and drlaable, 16 unooa6tltutloml a6 applied to Jehovah'6 Wltneaaer, the reoant 06~6 of Yartln va. 319 U. E. III .Strutbers, 111, 63 2upruna Court 862, 87 L. Ed. 1316, l?upranm Oomt ha16 66 applied to Jahoveh’a ultne66e8 an ordlnanoa unconatltutlonal of the alty oi Struthera, Ohio, which reada, In pert, as rolltwr:
“. . . It la unlawful ior any person distributing handbills, clroulara or other advertisements t-o ring door bell, round the door knocker, cr otherwise summon the inmat or lnmataa of any ra6ldenoe tha door tOr the purpoaa oS reoolring such handbills, olrculara d other edrertlaeaients they or any peraon wlth~ them may be dlatrlbutlag. . . ,.e The &pre.ne Court of the Ynltod etetea baa held in one case thot Jehovah’s ‘:‘ltnesses ney be proseouted end oonvloted un- &;LL:tatuto of the Xate of Rea fiampshlre,which reads as
:
*?Zo person &all eddre,cs eny oiienalre, derlalve or annoying words to any other perscn who Is larriully is the street or In pub110 plsoe, nor 0611 him by any orfenslve or derlalve neme. . . ,* Chaplinsky va. New Ysmpshlre, 315 U. 5. 568, 62 Tupre-a Court 766, 86 L. IId. 1031,
The complaint in that oaae ohargad: *The corcplalnt ohurged that appellant 'wltb force and ems, in II certain publio ?leca in s&d city of KGahoStt?r, t0 wit, on the publio sidewalk on the easterly site of ,'rakefleld "trtet, near unto the antranaa Gf the City !fKl i., 31: unlawfully ropeat, the words follow- ing, edriressad to the ccrpllinant, that 1s to say, 'You are 6 God desnsd racketeer1 bnd *a damned Facist and the ~ho16 goverment Of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Faclsts* the se~“e being offensive, derjsive and annoying words and names. . . ,-
r 2T.e.o. %lll!y, pgc 5
‘:e mivht add th%t ttc fsat ttct 80~s ct the ectlvltlea or J&~veh~s ‘:4tneaaee rzay eppser to be u.npatrlotlo foes not destroy the protection xhlch they 6rc @tLcrwlsc ent ltlad to under . the Ccnstltutlon. In our Opinion 30. O-291$, :;hioh was wrltten
Eecenber 13, 1940, :ve held that s tbacher rrry be dlschargtd for refuse1 to salutti the flq or for refusal to teeoh pupils to sr,lcte the flq,, or t.sve ;roper reverence for It. Ye predloetcd this holdlcg on the cT’ze of :.*lcerovllle fchocl district vs. Gobltis, jr0 ‘T, 7. 586, 60 z-up. ct. 1~10, 84 I. rid. 1375. it the next term oi Court, the %pre:re Cn’Jrt or the United .:t9tos overruled r’:ecj.olc:: en6 vec:;.tcr: the ,!ud.m.ent ttiere entered by Its Czbitis n :!I ‘.cst Vir&n:e: "tntc Ec-.rd of ..dGcstir:n ve. brnette, d~c:cl 643, 63 3,~. Ct. 1157, 87 L. 4. lG2i3: ~'e therefore 319 u. -. overrule our Dpia:o:~ Yo. o-2915. ~lgo , the ^uprcye Court held during the October Tern 1941 that Jehovah’s ‘Itnesrea nre sub- ject to ordinances prescritln.: vcddlers’ llce.1 es, bet et the th:s decic: F hold:18 ttot they next tsr::. of court it overrdcd were oat subjeot any .ilnd of licenat tax. :lurdoc% vs. i.enn. j19 U. -. 105, 63 Pup. Ct. 370, 891, 97 '. ‘d. 1292, 146 ;.I.?. '1 . LOU&~S VS. i7e:ill~t.ttc, 319 :'. -. 157, 63 'lup. Ct. e77, PS~, f7 1.. xi. 1324.
Trust! :c tkat tho rorsg,ci.it~ m:‘I-;ers :our inculry, at tre Pour 3 vmy ti Uly ,
_-.. ., ,. .--.. 4 S&T-b.. .A . P. .r ‘$.A: * c ‘.. , r ” .-j,,‘ i._. ..I \.: