The third question concerns the quality and purpose of the speech which the Constitution aims to protect. In 1949, Justice Douglas speaking for a divided Court returned the following robustious answer to this question: "* * * a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."[184] But early in 1951 Justice Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, urges the Court to review its entire position in the light of the proposition that "the purpose of constitutional protection of freedom of speech is to foster peaceful interchange of all manner of thoughts, information and ideas," that "its policy is rooted in faith of the force of reason."[185] He considers that the Court has been striking "rather blindly at permit systems which indirectly may affect First Amendment freedom." He says: "Cities throughout the country have adopted the permit requirement to control private activities on public streets and for other purposes. The universality of this type of regulation demonstrates a need and indicates widespread opinion in the profession that it is not necessarily incompatible with our constitutional freedoms. Is everybody out of step but this Court? * * * It seems hypercritical to strike down local laws on their faces for want of standards when we have no standards. And I do not find it required by existing authority. I think that where speech is outside of constitutional immunity the local community or the State is left a large measure of discretion as to the means for dealing with it."[186] This diversity of viewpoint on the Court touching the above questions became of importance when, recently, the Court was faced with the problem of the relation of freedom of speech to the enumerated powers of the National Government, in contrast to the indefinite residual powers of the States.

TAXATION

The Supreme Court, citing the fact that the American Revolution "really began when * * * that government (of England) sent stamps for newspaper duties to the American colonies" has been alert to the possible uses of taxation as a method of suppressing objectionable publications.[187] Persons engaged in the dissemination of ideas are, to be sure, subject to ordinary forms of taxation in like manner as other persons.[188] With respect to license or privilege taxes, however, they stand on a different footing. Their privilege is granted by the Constitution and cannot be withheld by either State or Federal Government. Hence a license tax measured by gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in the business of publishing advertising in any newspaper or other publication was held invalid[189] and flat license fees levied and collected as a pre-condition to the sale of religious books and pamphlets have also been set side.[190]

FEDERAL RESTRAINTS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

Regulations of Business and Labor Activities

The application to newspapers of the Anti-Trust Laws,[191] the National Labor Relations Act,[192] or the Fair Labor Standards Act,[193] does not abridge the freedom of the press. In Gompers v. Bucks Stove and Range Co.,[194] the Supreme Court unanimously held that a court of equity may enjoin continuance of a boycott, despite the fact that spoken or written speech was used as an instrumentality by which the boycott was made effective. "In the case of an unlawful conspiracy, the agreement to act in concert when the signal is published gives the words 'Unfair,' 'We Don't Patronize,' or similar expressions, a force not inhering in the words themselves, and therefore exceeding any possible right of speech which a single individual might have. Under such circumstances they become what have been called 'verbal acts,' and as much subject to injunction as the use of any other force whereby property is unlawfully damaged."[195] A cognate test has been applied in determining when communications by an employer constitute an unfair labor practice which may be forbidden or penalized under the National Labor Relations Act without infringing freedom of speech. In Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.,[196] the Court held that the sanctions of the act might be imposed upon an employer for the protection of his employees, where his conduct "though evidenced in part by speech, * * * (amounted) to coercion within the meaning of the act."[197] In the opinion of the Court, Justice Murphy stated, "The mere fact that language merges into a course of conduct does not put that whole course without the range of otherwise applicable administrative power. In determining whether the Company actually interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, the Board has a right to look at what the Company has said, as well as what it has done."[198] But the constitutionality of legislation prohibiting the publication by corporations and unions in the regular course of conducting their affairs of periodicals advising their members, stockholders or customers of danger or advantage to their interest from the adoption of measures or the election to office of men espousing such measures has been declared by the Court to be open to gravest doubt.[199]

REGULATION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The leading case touching this subject is Ex parte Curtis, decided seventy years ago.[200] Here was sustained an act of Congress which prohibited, under penalties, certain categories of officers of the United States from requesting, giving to, or receiving from, any other officer, money or property or other thing of value for political purposes.[201] Two generations later was enacted the so-called Hatch Act[202] which, while making some concessions to freedom of expression on matters political by employees of the government, forbids their active participation in political management and political campaigns. The act was sustained against objections based on the Bill of Rights;[203] while an amendment to it the effect of which is to diminish the amount of a federal grant-in-aid of the construction of highways in a State which fails to remove from office "one found by the United States Civil Service Commission to have taken active part in political management or in political campaigns while a member of the state highway commission," was held not to violate Amendment X.[204]

LEGISLATION PROTECTIVE OF THE ARMED FORCES AND OF THE WAR POWER

The Federal Government may punish utterances which obstruct its recruiting or enlistment service, cause insubordination in the armed forces, encourage resistance to government in the prosecution of war, or impede the production of munitions and other essential war material.[205] The only issue which has divided the Court with regard to such speech has been the degree of danger which must exist before it may be punished. The recent decision in Dennis v. United States diminishes, if it does not eliminate, this issue.[206]

LOYALTY REGULATIONS: THE DOUDS CASES

"Section 9 (h) of the Labor Management Relations Act requires, as a condition of a union's utilizing the opportunities afforded by the act, each of its officers to file an affidavit with the National Labor Relations Board (1) that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and (2) that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods." The statute also makes it a criminal offense to make willfully or knowingly any false statement in such an affidavit.[207] In American Communications Association, C.I.O. et al. v. Douds[208] five of the six Justices participating sustained the requirement (1) and three Justices sustained the requirement (2) against the objection that the act exceeded Congress's power over interstate commerce and infringed freedom of speech and the rights of petition and assembly; and in Osman v. Douds[209] the same result was reached by a Court in which only Justice Clark did not participate. In the end only Justice Black condemned requirement (1), while the Court was evenly divided as to requirement (2). In the course of his opinion for the controlling wing of the Court, Chief Justice Vinson said: "The attempt to apply the term, 'clear and present danger,' as a mechanical test in every case touching First Amendment freedoms, without regard to the context of its application, mistakes the form in which an idea was cast for the substance of the idea * * * the question with which we are here faced is not the same one that Justices Holmes and Brandeis found convenient to consider in terms of clear and present danger. Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Communist doctrine or the holding of particular beliefs because it is feared that unlawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is in protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be substantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. * * * The contention of petitioner * * * that this Court must find that political strikes create a clear and present danger to the security of the Nation or of widespread industrial strife in order to sustain Sec. 9 (h) similarly misconceives the purpose that phrase was intended to serve. In that view, not the relative certainty that evil conduct will result from speech in the immediate future, but the extent and gravity of the substantive evil must be measured by the 'test' laid down in the Schenck Case."[210] In thus balancing the gravity of the interest protected by legislation from harmful speech against the demands of the clear and present danger rule the Court paved the way for its decision a year later in Dennis v. United States.

THE CASE OF THE ELEVEN COMMUNISTS

Dennis v. United States[211] involves the following legislation:

"Section 2. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person—

"(1) to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government;

"(2) with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any government in the United States, to print, publish, edit, issue, circulate, sell, distribute, or publicly display any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence;

"(3) to organize or help to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any government in the United States by force or violence; or to be or become a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.

"(b) For the purposes of this section, the term 'government in the United States' means the Government of the United States, the government of any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, the government of the District of Columbia, or the government of any political subdivision of any of them."[212]

The trial court had ruled that clause (2) of the act qualified both the other clauses; and this construction was endorsed by the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Court sustaining the convictions against objections raised under Amendment I was supported by three different opinions. Chief Justice Vinson, speaking also for Justices Reed, Burton and Minton emphasized the substantial character of the Government's interest in preventing its own overthrow by force. "Indeed," said he, "this is the ultimate value of any society, for if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed internal attack, it must follow that no subordinate value can be protected."[213] The opinion continues: "If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase 'clear and present danger' of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish. Obviously, the words cannot mean that before the Government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the Government is required. The argument that there is no need for Government to concern itself, for Government is strong, it possesses ample powers to put down a rebellion, it may defeat the revolution with ease needs no answer. For that is not the question. Certainly an attempt to overthrow the Government by force, even though doomed from the outset because of inadequate numbers or power of the revolutionists, is a sufficient evil for Congress to prevent. The damage which such attempts create both physically and politically to a nation makes it impossible to measure the validity in terms of the probability of success or the immediacy of a successful attempt."[214] The Chief Justice concluded this part of his opinion by quoting from Chief Judge Learned Hand's opinion for the Circuit Court of Appeals in the same case, as follows: "'In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.'"[215] In short, if the evil legislated against is serious enough, advocacy of it in order to be punishable does not have to be attended by a clear and present danger of success.

But at this point the Chief Justice appears to recoil from this abrupt dismissal of the clear and present danger formula for the more serious cases, and he makes a last moment effort to rescue the babe that he has tossed out with the bathwater. He says: "As articulated by Chief Judge Hand, it is as succinct and inclusive as any other we might devise at this time. It takes into consideration those factors which we deem relevant, and relates their significances. More we cannot expect from words. Likewise, we are in accord with the court below, which affirmed the trial court's finding that the requisite danger existed. The mere fact that from the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners' activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make the attempt. The formation by petitioners of such a highly organized conspiracy, with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the leaders, these petitioners, felt that the time had come for action, coupled with the inflammable nature of world conditions, similar uprisings in other countries, and the touch-and-go nature of our relations with countries with whom petitioners were in the very least ideologically attuned, convince us that their convictions were justified on this score. And this analysis disposes of the contention that a conspiracy to advocate, as distinguished from the advocacy itself, cannot be constitutionally restrained, because it comprises only the preparation. It is the existence of the conspiracy which creates the danger."[216] His final position seems to be that, after all, the question is one for judicial discretion. "When facts are found that establish the violation of a statute, the protection against conviction afforded by the First Amendment is a matter of law. The doctrine that there must be a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent is a judicial rule to be applied as a matter of law by the courts."[217]

Justice Frankfurter's lengthy concurring opinion premises "the right of a government to maintain its existence—self preservation." This, he says, is "the most pervasive aspect of sovereignty," citing The Federalist No. 41, and certain cases.[218] A little later he raises the question, "But how are competing interests to be assessed?" and answers: "Full responsibility for the choice cannot be given to the courts. Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. Their judgment is best informed, and therefore most dependable, within narrow limits. Their essential quality is detachment, founded on independence. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political, economic and social pressures. Primary responsibility for adjusting the interests which compete in the situation before us of necessity belongs to the Congress. The nature of the power to be exercised by this Court has been delineated in decisions not charged with the emotional appeal of situations such as that now before us. We are to set aside the judgment of those whose duty it is to legislate only if there is no reasonable basis for it."[219] But a difficulty exists, to wit, in the clear and present danger doctrine. He says: "In all fairness, the argument [of defendants] cannot be met by reinterpreting the Court's frequent use of 'clear' and 'present' to mean an entertainable 'probability.' In giving this meaning to the phrase 'clear and present danger,' the Court of Appeals was fastidiously confining the rhetoric of opinions to the exact scope of what was decided by them. We have greater responsibility for having given constitutional support, over repeated protests, to uncritical libertarian generalities. Nor is the argument of the defendants adequately met by citing isolated cases. * * * The case for the defendants requires that their conviction be tested against the entire body of our relevant decisions."[220]

Turning then to the cases Justice Frankfurter exclaims at last: "I must leave to others the ungrateful task of trying to reconcile all these decisions."[221] The nearest precedent was Gitlow v. New York.[222] Here "we put our respect for the legislative judgment in terms which, if they were accepted here, would make decision easy. * * * But it would be disingenuous to deny that the dissent in Gitlow has been treated with the respect usually accorded a decision."[223] But the case at bar was a horse of a different color. "In contrast, there is ample justification for a legislative judgment that the conspiracy now before us is a substantial threat to national order and security,"[224] which seems to be in essential agreement with the position of the Chief Justice and his three associates. Justice Frankfurter concludes with a homily on the limitations which the nature of judicial power imposes, on the power of judicial review. He says: "Can we then say that the judgment Congress exercised was denied it by the Constitution? Can we establish a constitutional doctrine which forbids the elected representatives of the people to make this choice? Can we hold that the First Amendment deprives Congress of what it deemed necessary for the Government's protection? To make validity of legislation depend on judicial reading of events still in the womb of time—a forecast, that is, of the outcome of forces at best appreciated only with knowledge of the topmost secrets of nations—is to charge the judiciary with duties beyond its equipment. We do not expect courts to pronounce historic verdicts on bygone events. Even historians have conflicting views to this day on the origin and conduct of the French Revolution. It is as absurd to be confident that we can measure the present clash of forces and their outcome as to ask us to read history still enveloped in clouds of controversy. * * * The distinction which the Founders drew between the Court's duty to pass on the power of Congress and its complementary duty not to enter directly the domain of policy is fundamental. But in its actual operation it is rather subtle, certainly to the common understanding. Our duty to abstain from confounding policy with constitutionality demands preceptive humility as well as self-restraint in not declaring unconstitutional what in a judge's private judgment is unwise and even dangerous."[225]

Justice Jackson's opinion emphasizes the conspiratorial element of the case, and is flatfooted in rejecting the 'clear and present danger' test for this type of case. He writes: "The 'clear and present danger' test was an innovation by Mr. Justice Holmes in the Schenck Case, reiterated and refined by him and Mr. Justice Brandeis in later cases, all arising before the era of World War II revealed the subtlety and efficacy of modernized revolutionary techniques used by totalitarian parties. In those cases, they were faced with convictions under so-called criminal syndicalism statutes aimed at anarchists but which, loosely construed, had been applied to punish socialism, pacifism, and left-wing ideologies, the charges often resting on far-fetched inferences which, if true, would establish only technical or trivial violations. They proposed 'clear and present danger' as a test for the sufficiency of evidence in particular cases. I would save it, unmodified, for application as a 'rule of reason' in the kind of case for which it was devised. When the issue is criminality of a hot-headed speech on a street corner, or circulation of a few incendiary pamphlets or parading by some zealots behind a red flag, or refusal of a handful of school children to salute our flag, it is not beyond the capacity of the judicial process to gather, comprehend, and weigh the necessary materials for decision whether it is a clear and present danger of substantive evil or a harmless letting off of steam. It is not a prophecy, for the danger in such cases has matured by the time of trial or it was never present. The test applies and had meaning where a conviction is sought to be based on a speech or writing which does not directly or explicitly advocate a crime but to which such tendency is sought to be attributed by construction or by implication from external circumstances. The formula in such cases favors freedoms that are vital to our society, and, even if sometimes applied too generously, the consequences cannot be grave. But its recent expansion has extended, in particular to Communists, unprecedented immunities. Unless we are to hold our Government captive in a judge-made verbal trap, we must approach the problem of a well-organized, nation-wide conspiracy, such as I have described, as realistically as our predecessors faced the trivialities that were being prosecuted until they were checked with a rule of reason. I think reason is lacking for applying that test to this case."[226] And again, "What really is under review here is a conviction of conspiracy, after a trial for conspiracy, on an indictment charging conspiracy, brought under a statute outlawing conspiracy. With due respect to my colleagues, they seem to me to discuss anything under the sun except the law of conspiracy. One of the dissenting opinions even appears to chide me for 'invoking the law of conspiracy.' As that is the case before us, it may be more amazing that its reversal can be proposed without even considering the law of conspiracy. The Constitution does not make conspiracy a civil right. The Court has never before done so and I think it should not do so now. Conspiracies of labor unions, trade associations, and news agencies have been condemned, although accomplished, evidenced and carried out, like the conspiracy here, chiefly by letter-writing, meetings, speeches and organization. Indeed, this Court seems, particularly in cases where the conspiracy has economic ends, to be applying its doctrines with increasing severity. While I consider criminal conspiracy a dragnet device capable of perversion into an instrument of injustice in the hands of a partisan or complacent judiciary, it has an established place in our system of law, and no reason appears for applying it only to concerted action claimed to disturb interstate commerce and withholding it from those claimed to undermine our whole Government. * * *"[227]

The dissenters were Justices Black and Douglas. The former reiterated his position in Bridges v. California; the latter italicized Justice Brandeis' dictum in the Whitney Case: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."[228] The answer would seem to be that education had not in fact prevented the formation of the conspiracy for entering into which the eleven defendants were convicted. If that be deemed a danger at all, it was certainly a clear and present one. Both dissenters, in fact, ignore the conspiracy element.

SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS

In a series of cases[229] in which certain organizations sued the Attorney General for declaratory or injunctive relief looking to the deletion of their names from a list of organizations designated by him to be subversive, the Court reversed holdings of the courts below which had denied relief. Two Justices thought the order not within the President's Executive Order No. 9835, which lays down a procedure for the determination of the loyalty of federal employees or would-be-employees. Justice Black thought the Attorney General had violated Amendment I and that the President's order constituted a Bill of Attainder. He and Justices Frankfurter and Jackson also held that the Attorney General had violated due process of law in having failed to give the petitioners notice and hearing. Justice Reed, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice and Justice Minton, dissented, asserting that the action of the Court constituted an interference with the discretion of the executive in the premises.

RECENT STATE LEGISLATION

Loyalty Tests

The decision in Dennis v. United States,[230] taken in conjunction with those in the two Douds[231] Cases, put the clear and present danger rule on the defensive in the field of federal legislation. Substantially contemporaneous holdings in the field of state action may reflect a similar trend. In Garner v. Los Angeles Board,[232] the Court sustained the right of a municipality to bar from employment persons who advise, advocate, or teach the violent overthrow of the government, or who are members of, or become affiliated with any group doing so, and to exact a loyalty oath of its employees. In Adler v. Board of Education[233] the Court sustained the Civil Service Law of New York as implemented by the so-called Feinberg Law of 1949.[234] The former makes ineligible in any public school any member of an organization advocating the overthrow of government by force, violence, or any unlawful means. The Feinberg Law requires the Board of Regents of the State (1) to adopt and enforce rules for the removal of ineligible persons; (2) to promulgate a list of banned organizations; (3) to make membership in any such organization prima facie evidence of disqualification for employment in the public schools. Referring to the Garner Case above, Justice Minton, for the Court, said: "We adhere to that case. A teacher works in a sensitive area in the schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds towards the society in which they live. In this, the state has a vital concern. It must preserve the integrity of the schools. That the school authorities have the right and the duty to screen the officials, teachers, and employees as to their fitness to maintain the integrity of the schools as a part of ordered society, cannot be doubted. One's associates, past and present, as well as one's conduct, may properly be considered in determining fitness and loyalty. From time immemorial, one's reputation has been determined in part by the company he keeps. In the employment of officials and teachers of the school system, the state may very properly inquire into the company they keep, and we know of no rule, constitutional or otherwise, that prevents the state, when determining the fitness and loyalty of such persons, from considering the organizations and persons with whom they associate."[235]

Group Libel

In 1952 in Beauharnais v. Illinois[236] the Court sustained an Illinois statute which makes it a crime to exhibit in a public place any publication which "portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion" or which "exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy." The act was treated by the State Supreme Court as a form of criminal libel, with the result that defense by truth of the utterance was not under Illinois law available unless the publication was also shown to have been made "with good motives and with justifiable ends." So construed, the Court held, the Act did not violate liberty of speech and press as guaranteed to the States by Amendment XIV. Said Justice Frankfurter:

"If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, we cannot deny to a State power to punish the same utterance directed at a defined group, unless we can say that this is a wilful and purposeless restriction unrelated to the peace and well-being of the State."[237] Pointing then to Illinois' bad record in the matter of race riots, he continued: "In the face of this history and its frequent obligato of extreme racial and religious propaganda, we would deny experience to say that the Illinois legislature was without reason in seeking ways to curb false or malicious defamation of racial and religious groups, made in public places and by means calculated to have a powerful emotional impact on those to whom it was presented. 'There are limits to the exercise of these liberties [of speech and of the press]. The danger in these times from the coercive activities of those who in the delusion of racial or religious conceit would incite violence and breaches of the peace in order to deprive others of their equal right to the exercise of their liberties, is emphasized by events familiar to all. These and other transgressions of those limits the States appropriately may punish.' * * * It is not within our competence to confirm or deny claims of social scientists as to the dependence of the individual on the position of his racial or religious group in the community. It would, however, be arrant dogmatism, quite outside the scope of our authority in passing on the powers of a State, for us to deny that the Illinois legislature may warrantably believe that a man's job and his educational opportunities and the dignity accorded him may depend as much on the reputation of the racial and religious group to which he willy-nilly belongs, as on his own merits. This being so, we are precluded from saying that speech concededly punishable when immediately directed at individuals cannot be outlawed if directed at groups with whose position and esteem in society the affiliated individual may be inextricably involved."[238]

CENSORSHIP OF THE MAILS: FRAUD ORDER

By legislation adopted in 1879 and 1934 Congress has specified certain conditions upon which a publication shall be admitted to the valuable second-class mailing privilege, one of which provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, the conditions upon which a publication shall be admitted to the second-class are as follows: "* * * Fourth. It must be originated and published for the dissemination of information of a public character, or devoted to literature, the sciences, arts, or some special industry, and having a legitimate list of subscribers; * * * nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to admit to the second-class rate regular publications designed primarily for advertising purposes, or for free circulation, or for circulation at nominal rates."[239] In Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc.,[240] the Court sustained an injunction against an order of the Postmaster General which suspended a permit to Esquire Magazine on the ground that it did not "contribute to the public good and the public welfare." Said Justice Douglas for the Court: "* * * a requirement that literature or art conform to some norm prescribed by an official smacks of an ideology foreign to our system. The basic values implicit in the requirements of the Fourth condition can be served only by uncensored distribution of literature. From the multitude of competing offerings the public will pick and choose. What seems to one to be trash may have for others fleeting or even enduring values. But to withdraw the second-class rate from this publication today because its contents seemed to one official not good for the public would sanction withdrawal of the second-class rate tomorrow from another periodical whose social or economic views seemed harmful to another official. The validity of the obscenity laws is recognized that the mails may not be used to satisfy all tastes, no matter how perverted. But Congress has left the Postmaster General with no power to prescribe standards for the literature or the art which a mailable periodical disseminates."[241] In Donaldson v. Read Magazine,[242] however, the Court sustained a Court order forbidding the delivery of mail and money orders to a magazine conducting a puzzle contest which the Postmaster-General had found to be fraudulent. Freedom of the press, said the Court, does not include the right to raise money by deception of the public.

The Rights of Assembly and Petition

The right of petition took its rise from the modest provision made for it in chapter 61 of Magna Carta (1215).[243] To this meagre beginning Parliament itself and its procedures in the enactment of legislation, the equity jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and proceedings against the Crown by "petition of right" are all in some measure traceable. Thus, while the King summoned Parliament for the purpose of supply, the latter—but especially the House of Commons—petitioned the King for a redress of grievances as its price for meeting the financial needs of the Monarch; and as it increased in importance it came to claim the right to dictate the form of the King's reply, until in 1414 Commons boldly declared themselves to be "as well assenters as petitioners." Two hundred and fifty years later, in 1669, Commons further resolved that every commoner in England possessed "the inherent right to prepare and present petitions" to it "in case of grievance," and of Commons "to receive the same" and to judge whether they were "fit" to be received. Finally Chapter 5 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 asserted the right of the subjects to petition the King and "all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning to be illegal."[244]

Historically, therefore, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right, as if Amendment I read; "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in order to "petition the government."[245] Today, however, the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, "cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental * * * [It] is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions,—principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. * * * The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question * * * is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purposes; not as to the relation of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects."[246] Furthermore, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for "a redress of grievances," in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interests and prosperity of the petitioners, and of their views on politically contentious matters.

RESTRAINTS ON THE RIGHT OF PETITION

The right of petition recognized by Amendment I first came into prominence in the early 1830's, when petitions against slavery in the District of Columbia began flowing into Congress in a constantly increasing stream, which reached its climax in the winter of 1835. Finally on January 28, 1840, the House adopted as a standing rule: "That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever." Thanks to the efforts of John Quincy Adams this rule was repealed five years later, after Adams' death.[247] For many years now the rules of the House of Representatives have provided that members having petitions to present may deliver them to the Clerk and the petitions, except such as, in the judgment of the Speaker, are of an obscene or insulting character, shall be entered on the Journal and the Clerk shall furnish a transcript of such record to the official reporters of debates for publication in the Record.[248] Even so petitions for the repeal of the espionage and sedition laws and against military measures for recruiting resulted, in World War I, in imprisonment.[249] Processions for the presentation of petitions in the United States have not been particularly successful. In 1894 General Coxey of Ohio organized armies of unemployed to march on Washington and present petitions, only to see their leaders arrested for unlawfully walking on the grass of the capitol. The march of the veterans on Washington in 1932 demanding bonus legislation was defended as an exercise of the right of petition. The administration, however, regarded it as a threat against the constitution and called out the army to expel the bonus marchers and burn their camps. For legal regulation of lobbying activities, see below.

THE CRUIKSHANK CASE

The right of assembly was first passed upon by the Supreme Court in 1876 in the famous case of United States v. Cruikshank et al.[250] The case arose on indictments under section 6 of the so-called Enforcement Act of May 30, 1870,[251] which read as 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 proper to refuse to issue a permit. Two Justices held that in the circumstances of the case the ordinance violated the right of certain citizens of the United States to assemble to discuss certain privileges which they enjoyed as such, to wit, their rights and privileges under the National Labor Relations Act.[254] Said Justice Roberts, expressing this point of view: "The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. We think the court below was right in holding the ordinance quoted in Note 1 void upon its face. It does not make comfort or convenience in the use of streets or parks the standard of official action. It enables the Director of Safety to refuse a permit on his mere opinion that such refusal will prevent 'riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.' It can thus, as the record discloses, be made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of views on national affairs for the prohibition of all speaking will undoubtedly 'prevent' such eventualities. But uncontrolled official suppression of the privilege cannot be made a substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise of the right."[255] Two other Justices invoked also the due process clause of Amendment XIV, thereby claiming the right of assembly for aliens as well as citizens. Said Justice Stone, who expressed this view: "I think respondents' right to maintain it does not depend on their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or non-existence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act. It is enough that petitioners have prevented respondents from holding meetings and disseminating information whether for the organization of labor unions or for any other lawful purpose."[256] Both Justices were in agreement that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were claimable only by natural persons, and not by corporations.[257] Two Justices dissented on the basis of Davis v. Massachusetts.[258]

RECENT CASES

In Bridges v. California[259] it was held that a telegram addressed to the Secretary of Labor strongly criticizing the action of a State court in a pending case was privileged under this amendment as an exercise of the right of petition. In Thomas v. Collins[260] a statute requiring registration before solicitation of union membership was found to violate the right of peaceable assembly. But a closely divided Court subsequently sustained an order of a State Employment Relations Board forbidding work stoppages by the calling of special union meetings during working hours.[261] Finally, a divided Court held June 4, 1951, that a combination to break up by force and threats of force of a meeting called for the purpose of adopting a resolution against the Marshall Plan did not afford a right of action against the conspirators under the Ku Klux Act of April 20, 1871.[262] While the complaint alleged that the conspiracy was entered into for the purpose of depriving the plaintiffs as citizens of the United States of their right "peaceably to assemble for the purpose of discussing and communicating upon national public issues," the Ku Klux Act was found not to extend to violations of that right except by State acts depriving persons of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Court, perhaps significantly, left open the question whether Congress can protect such rights against private action. "It is not for this Court," remarked Justice Jackson sententiously, "to compete with Congress or attempt to replace it as the Nation's law-making body."[263]

LOBBYING AND THE RIGHT OF PETITION

Today lobbying is frequently regarded as the most important expression of the right of petition. During the last half century lobbying has reached tremendous proportions; and there have been four Congressional investigations of such activities, the latest by a Committee of the House of Representatives. Meantime, in 1946 Congress passed the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, under which more than 2,000 lobbyists have registered and 495 organizations report lobbying contributions and expenditures.[264] Recently doubts have been cast upon the constitutionality of this statute by two decisions of lower federal courts sitting in the District of Columbia. According to the District Court therein, to subject a person, whose "principal purpose * * * is to aid" in the defeat or passage of legislation and who violates this Act by failing to file a detailed accounting, to a penalty entailing a three-year prohibition from lobbying is to deprive such person of his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition.[265] Insofar as Congress legitimately may regulate lobbying, its powers in relation thereto have been declared not to extend to "indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress." The latter was deemed to be "the healthy essence of the democratic process."[266]

Notes

[1] 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

[2] Ibid. 666.

[3] Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[4] Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

[5] Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

[6] De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).

[7] Annals of Congress, 434 (1789-1791).

[8] Records of the United States Senate, Sept. 9, 1789, United States Archives, cited in Appellees Brief in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Sec. 1879 (1833).

[12] Ibid. Sec. 1874.

[13] Principles of Constitutional Law, 224-225, 3d ed. (1898).

[14] Saul K. Padover, The Complete Jefferson, 518-519 (1943).

[15] 98 U.S. 145 (1879).

[16] Ibid. 164. In his 2d Inaugural Address Jefferson expressed a very different, and presumably more carefully considered, opinion upon the purpose of Amendment I: "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of of the general government." This was said three years after the Danbury letter. 1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 379 (Richardson ed. 1896).

[17] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

[18] Ibid. 15, 16.

[19] McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).

[20] Ibid. 212.

[21] 333 U.S. 203, 213 (1948).

[22] Ibid. 216-218. Justice Frankfurter's principal figure in the fight against sectarianism is Horace Mann, who was secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, 1837-1848. Mann, however, strongly resented the charge that he was opposed to religious instruction in the public schools. "It is true that Mr. Mann stood strongly for a 'type of school with instruction adapted to democratic and national ends.' But it is not quite just to him to contrast this type of school with the school adapted to religious ends, without defining terms. Horace Mann was opposed to sectarian doctrinal instruction in the schools, but he repeatedly urged the teaching of the elements of religion common to all of the Christian sects. He took a firm stand against the idea of a purely secular education, and on one occasion said he was in favor of religious instruction 'to the extremest verge to which it can be carried without invading those rights of conscience which are established by the laws of God, and guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the State.' At another time he said that he regarded hostility to religion in the schools as the greatest crime he could commit. Lest his name should go down in history as that of one who had attempted to drive religious instruction from the schools, he devoted several pages in his final Report—the twelfth—to a statement in which he denied the charges of his enemies." Raymond B. Culver, Horace Mann on Religion in the Massachusetts Public Schools, 235 (1929).

[23] 333 U.S. 203, 222 ff. (1948).

[24] Ibid. 213.

[25] Ibid. 225-226.

[26] Ibid. 231.

[27] Ibid. 232, 234.

[28] 333 U.S. 244.

[29] Ibid., 253, 254.

[30] Zorach v. Clauson, 303 N.Y. 161, 168-169; 100 N.E. 2d 403 (1951).

[31] Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).

[32] Ibid., pp. 313-314. Justices Black, Frankfurter, and Jackson dissented.

[33] Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429 (1952).

[34] Three dissenters, speaking through Justice Douglas, argued that, since the New Jersey Supreme Court had taken the case and decided it on its merits, the United States Supreme Court was bound to do the same. Ibid. 435-436.

[35] Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899).

[36] Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50 (1908).

[37] Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 (1930).

[38] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

[39] 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1751-1760; 60 Stat. 230 (1940).

[40] Davis v. Benson, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).

[41] Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 304 (1940).

[42] Pierce v. Society of Sisters of Holy Names, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

[43] Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (1879).

[44] Ibid. 167.

[45] Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 345 (1890).

[46] Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1879); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).

[47] 322 U.S. 78 (1944).

[48] Ibid. 89.

[49] 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

[50] Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).

[51] Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942).

[52] Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

[53] Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). On the same day the Court held that a State may not forbid the distribution of literature urging and advising, on religious grounds, that citizens refrain from saluting the flag. Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943).

[54] Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943).

[55] Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

[56] 334 U.S. 558 (1948).

[57] Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).

[58] Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951).

[59] Ibid. 314.

[60] Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951).

[61] Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951).

[62] See p. 1285. [Transcriber's Note: There is no mention of the Feiner case on p. 1285.]

[63] Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).

[64] 293 U.S. 245 (1934).

[65] 325 U.S. 561 (1945). cf. Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946) holding "an alien who is willing to take the oath of allegiance and to serve in the army as a non-combatant but who, because of religious scruples, is unwilling to bear arms in defense of this country may be admitted to citizenship * * *", overruling United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) and United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931).

[66] 325 U.S. 561, 578 (1945).

[67] Commentaries, Vol. IV, 151-152.

[68] Justice Frankfurter in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 521-522 (1951).

[69] Ibid. 524; citing Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897).

[70] Ibid. 524; citing Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610 (1914).

"While the courts have from an early date taken a hand in crystallizing American conceptions of freedom of speech and press into law, it is scarcely in the manner or to the extent which they are frequently assumed to have done. The great initial problem in this realm of constitutional liberty was to get rid of the common law of 'seditious libel' which operated to put persons in authority beyond the reach of public criticism. The first step in this direction was taken in the famous, or infamous, Sedition Act of 1798, which admitted the defense of truth in prosecution brought under it, and submitted the general issue of defendant's guilt to the jury. But the substantive doctrine of 'seditious libel' the Act of 1798 still retained, a circumstance which put several critics of President Adams in jail, and thereby considerably aided Jefferson's election as President in 1800. Once in office, nevertheless, Jefferson himself appealed to the discredited principle against partisan critics. Writing his friend Governor McKean of Pennsylvania in 1803 anent such critics, Jefferson said: 'The federalists having failed in destroying freedom of the press by their gag-law, seem to have attacked in an opposite direction; that is by pushing its licentiousness and its lying to such a degree of prostitution as to deprive it of all credit. * * * This is a dangerous state of things, and the press ought to be restored to its credibility if possible. The restraints provided by the laws of the States are sufficient for this, if applied. And I have, therefore, long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the presses. Not a general prosecution, for that would look like persecution; but a selected one.' Works (Ford ed., 1905), IX 451-52.

"In the Memorial Edition of Jefferson's works this letter is not included; nor apparently was it known to the Honorable Josephus Daniels, whose enthusiastic introduction to one of these volumes makes Jefferson out to have been the father of freedom of speech and press in this country, if not throughout the world. The sober truth is that it was that archenemy of Jefferson and of democracy, Alexander Hamilton, who made the greatest single contribution toward rescuing this particular freedom as a political weapon from the coils and toils of the common law, and that in connection with one of Jefferson's 'selected prosecutions.' I refer to Hamilton's many-times quoted formula in the Croswell case in 1804: 'The liberty of the press is the right to publish with impunity, truth, with good motives, for justifiable ends though reflecting on government, magistracy, or individuals.' People v. Croswell, 3 Johns (NY) 337. Equipped with this brocard our State courts working in co-operation with juries, whose attitude usually reflected the robustiousness of American political discussion before the Civil War, gradually wrote into the common law of the States the principle of 'qualified privilege,' which is a notification to plaintiffs in libel suits that if they are unlucky enough to be officeholders or office seekers, they must be prepared to shoulder the almost impossible burden of showing defendant's 'special malice.' Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, Chap. XII: Samuel A. Dawson, Freedom of the Press, A Study of the Doctrine of 'Qualified Privilege' (Columbia Univ. Press, 1924)." Edward S. Corwin, Liberty Against Government. 157-159 fn. (L.S.U. Press, 1948).

[71] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).

[72] Ibid. 461

[73] Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 543 (1922).

[74] Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); and see below. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 75, below.]

[75] See Justice Brandeis concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927); and cases reviewed below.

[76] Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[77] 133 U.S. 333 (1890).

[78] Ibid. 341-342.

[79] 236 U.S. 273 (1915).

[80] Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[81] Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).

[82] De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).

[83] 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

[84] 40 Stat. 217, 219.

[85] 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).

[86] 249 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1919).

[87] 249 U.S. 204 (1919).

[88] Ibid. 206.

[89] 249 U.S. 211 (1919).

[90] Ibid. 215-216.

[91] 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

[92] Ibid. 627. It should be noted that Justice Holmes couples with his invocation of the clear and present danger test in his dissent in this case the contention that rightly construed the act of Congress involved (The Espionage Act of May 16, 1918; 40 Stat. 553) required that defendant's intent be specifically proved. He wrote: "I am aware of course that the word intent as vaguely used in ordinary legal discussion means no more than knowledge at the time of the act that the consequences said to be intended will ensue. Even less than that will satisfy the general principle of civil and criminal liability. A man may have to pay damages, may be sent to prison, at common law might be hanged, if at the time of his act he knew facts from which common experience showed that the consequences would follow, whether he individually could foresee them or not. But, when words are used exactly, a deed is not done with intent to produce a consequence unless that consequence is the aim of the deed. It may be obvious, and obvious to the actor, that the consequence will follow, and he may be liable for it even if he regrets it, but he does not do the act with intent to produce it unless to aim to produce it is the proximate motive of the specific act, although there may be some deeper motive behind. It seems to me that this statute must be taken to use its words in a strict and accurate sense." 250 U.S. at 626-627. In the Holmes-Pollock Letters this is the main point discussed by the two correspondents regarding the Abrams Case; the clear and present danger doctrine is not mentioned. 2 Holmes-Pollock Letters, 29, 31, 32, 42, 44-45, 48, 65.

[93] 251 U.S. 466 (1920).

[94] Ibid. 479. See also to the same effect: Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920).

[95] 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

[96] Ibid. 668, 669.

[97] Ibid. 670.

[98] Ibid. 671. Justice Holmes presented a dissenting opinion for himself and Justice Brandeis which contains a curious note of fatalism. He said: "If what I think the correct test is applied, it is manifest that there was no present danger of an attempt to overthrow the government by force on the part of the admittedly small minority who shared the defendant's views. It is said that this Manifesto was more than a theory, that it was an incitement. Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief, and, if believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it, or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration. If, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way." Ibid. 673.

[99] 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

[100] Ibid. 373, 377. Apparently this means that the ultimate test of the constitutionality of legislation restricting freedom of utterance is whether there is still sufficient time to educate the utterers out of their mistaken frame of mind, and the final say on this necessarily recondite matter rests with the Supreme Court! Justice Brandeis also asserts (274 U.S. at 376) that there is a distinction between "advocacy" and "incitement," but fails to adduce any supporting authority.

[101] 301 U.S. 242 (1937).

[102] Ibid. 261-263.

[103] 310 U.S. 88 (1940).

[104] Ibid. 105.

[105] Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940).

[106] Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 (1931).

[107] Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277 (1915).

[108] Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

[109] Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).

[110] Ibid. 4.

[111] Ibid. 33. Dissenting opinions were written by Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Frankfurter (with whom Justices Jackson and Burton concurred) and Justice Jackson, (with whom Justice Burton agreed).

[112] 340 U.S. 315 (1951).

[113] Ibid. 319-320. Anent this finding, Justice Douglas, in his dissent, declared that: "Public assemblies and public speech occupy an important role in American life. One high function of the police is to protect these lawful gatherings so that the speakers may exercise their constitutional rights. When unpopular causes are sponsored from the public platform, there will commonly be mutterings and unrest and heckling from the crowd. * * * But those extravagances * * *, do not justify penalizing the speaker by depriving him of the platform or by punishing him for his conduct. * * * If * * * the police throw their weight on the side of those who would break up the meetings, the police become the new censors of speech. Police censorship has all the vices of the censorship from city halls which we have repeatedy [sic] struck down."—Ibid. 330-331.

[114] 333 U.S. 507 (1948).

[115] Ibid. 514-515.

[116] Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95 (1948).

[117] Ibid. 101. This dissent probably marks the climax of the clear and present danger doctrine.

"On March 20, 1949, members of the Vice Squad of the Philadelphia Police Department, at the direction of Inspector Craig Ellis, head of the Vice Squad, commenced a series of mass raids upon book stores and booksellers in Philadelphia. Inspector Ellis gave his men a list of books that in his opinion were obscene, and directed them to seize the books wherever found. Fifty-four booksellers were raided, and nearly twelve hundred copies of the books were confiscated.

"These raids were remarkable not only because of the scale on which they were conducted, but in several other respects. First, they were directed in major part against books written by authors in the forefront of American literature and published by some of the leading publishers in America. Second, the raids were conducted and the books were confiscated without warrants of search or seizure or court order of any kind. Third, the list of books to be seized was compiled by Inspector Ellis and a patrolman in his office, without consultation with the District Attorney's office or the obtaining of any legal opinion as to whether the books were obscene under the Pennsylvania statute.

"For once the publishers took the offensive. Houghton Mifflin Company, publisher of Raintree County, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., publisher of Never Love a Stranger, and The Vanguard Press, Inc., publisher of books by James T. Farrell and Calder Willingham among those seized, commenced actions in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia to restrain further police seizures of these books and to recover damages from the police officers for their unlawful acts. In these two actions the authors Harold Robbins and James T. Farrell, as well as Charles Praissman, a courageous bookseller whose stores had been raided, joined the publishers as parties plaintiff. The District Attorney of Philadelphia countered by commencing criminal proceedings against five of the booksellers whose stores had been raided, and on June 30, 1948 the grand jury, upon presentation of the District Attorney, indicted the booksellers on a charge of having violated the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the sale of obscene books.

"In the meantime the Federal court cases brought by the publishers has come to trial before Judge Guy K. Bard, and at the conclusion of the trials Judge Bard had enjoined further seizures of the plaintiff's books, as well as police invasion of Praissman's stores or seizure of his books without a warrant. At the time of this writing, the Federal court cases have not been finally decided.

"On January 3, 1949 the criminal cases came on for trial before Judge Curtis Bok of the Pennsylvania Court of Quarter Sessions. The defendants pleaded not guilty and waived trial by jury. They stipulated that at the times and places mentioned in the indictments they had had possession of the books for the purpose of offering them for sale to the public. The books were then placed in evidence, and the prosecution rested its case. The defendants 'demurred to the evidence,' the effect of which was to raise the issue of whether the court, in the light of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of the press, could hold, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the books before it were obscene within the meaning of the Pennsylvania obscenity statute." Introductory note to a republication by Alfred Knopf Inc. of Judge Bok's opinion in Commonwealth v. Gordon et al., 66 D & C (Pa.) 101 (1949).

On March 18, 1949 Judge Bok sustained the demurrers and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The opinion which accompanies his judgment pivots in part on the clear and present danger rule. It reads: "The only clear and present danger to be prevented by section 524 that will satisfy both the Constitution and the current customs of our era is the imminence of the commission of criminal behavior resulting from the reading of a book. Publication alone can have no such automatic effect."

This obviously overlooks the primary purpose of governmental interference with the distribution of "obscene literature," namely to protect immature minds from contamination. Dealing with this point Judge Bok protests against putting "the entire reading public at the mercy of the adolescent mind." Should, on the other hand, the adolescent mind be put at the mercy of the uninhibited reading tastes of an elderly federal judge?

[118] 310 U.S. 88 (1940).

[119] 310 U.S. 106 (1940).

[120] Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102, 105 (1940).

[121] Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co., 312 U.S. 287 (1941); See also Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Alliance v. Board, 315 U.S. 437 (1942).

[122] Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co., 312 U.S. 287, 293 (1941).

[123] American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321 (1941); Bakery and Pastry Drivers v. Wohl, 315 U.S. 769 (1942); Cafeteria Employees Union v. Gus Angelos, 320 U.S. 293 (1943).

[124] Teamsters Union v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470, 474 (1950).

[125] Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).

[126] Building Service Union v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532 (1950).

[127] Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460 (1950).

[128] Carpenters Union v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722, 728 (1942).

[129] Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).

[130] Ibid. 501, 502, citing Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277, which predates any suggestion of the clear and present danger formula. See above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Section CONTRASTING OPERATION OF THE COMMON LAW RULE, above.]

[131] Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U.S. 525 (1949); A.F. of L. v. American Sash Co., ibid., 538.

[132] Auto Workers v. Wis. Board, 336 U.S. 245 (1949). In Teamsters Union v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470 (1950), injunctions by State courts against picketing of a self-employer's place of business to compel him to adopt a union shop were sustained.

[133] Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).

[134] Ibid. 566.

[135] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907). Cf. Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402 (1918) in which the Court affirmed a judgment imposing a fine for contempt of court on an editor who had criticized the action of a federal judge in a pending case. The majority held that such conviction did not violate the First Amendment. Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissented on the ground that the proceedings did not come within the applicable federal statute, but did not discuss the constitutional issue. This decision was overruled in Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33 (1941).

[136] 314 U.S. 252 (1941).

[137] Ibid. 271.

[138] Ibid. 283, 284.

[139] 328 U.S. 331 (1946).

[140] Ibid. 350.

[141] Ibid. 349.

[142] 331 U.S. 367 (1947).

[143] Ibid. 376.

[144] Davis v. Massachusetts, 107 U.S. 43 (1897).

[145] Ibid. 47.

[146] 307 U.S. 496, 515, 516 (1939).

[147] 334 U.S. 558 (1948).

[148] Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).

[149] Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952). The decision overruled the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Here Judge Edgerton, speaking for himself and two associates, said: "Exploitation of this audience through assault on the unavertible sense of hearing is a new phenomenon. It raises 'issues that were not implied in the means of communication known or contemplated by Franklin and Jefferson and Madison.' But the Bill of Rights, as appellants say in their brief, can keep up with anything an advertising man or an electronics engineer can think of. * * *

"If Transit obliged its passengers to read what it liked or get off the car, invasion of their freedom would be obvious. Transit obliges them to hear what it likes or get off the car. Freedom of attention, which forced listening destroys, is a part of liberty essential to individuals and to society. The Supreme Court has said that the constitutional guarantee of liberty 'embraces not only the right of a person to be free from physical restraint, but the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties * * *.' One who is subjected to forced listening is not free in the enjoyment of all his faculties." He quoted with approval Justice Reed's statement in Kovacs v. Cooper, "The right of free speech is guaranteed every citizen that he may reach the minds of willing listeners."—191 F. 2d 450, 456 (1951).

[150] Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418 (1943).

[151] Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1930); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943).

[152] Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).

[153] Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946).

[154] Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942).

[155] Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943).

[156] Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951).

[157] 221 U.S. 418, 439 (1911). See below. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Section FEDERAL RESTRAINTS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS, above.]

[158] Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

[159] Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co., 312 U.S. 287 (1941); Carpenters Union v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722 (1942).

[160] 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

[161] 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

[162] 315 U.S. 568, 571, 572 (1942).

[163] 319 U.S. 624, 633 (1943).

[164] Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938).

[165] Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941).

[166] Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 516 (1939); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418 (1943); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 538 (1945); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 (1948).

[167] Radio Comm'n v. Nelson Bros. Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933); Communications Comm'n. v. N.B.C., 319 U.S. 239 (1943).

[168] Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Indus'l Comm., 236 U.S. 230, 244 (1915).

[169] 334 U.S. 131 (1948).

[170] Ibid. 166.

[171] Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952).

[172] Ibid. 502. Justice Frankfurter, concurring for himself and Justices Jackson and Burton, elaborates upon the vagueness of connotation of the New York Court's use of the word "sacrilegious." See Appendix to his opinion, Ibid. 533-40. Justice Reed, in his concurring opinion, suggests that the Court will now have the duty of examining "the facts of the refusal of a license in each case to determine whether the principles of the First Amendment have been honored." Ibid. 506-507.

[173] 314 U.S. 252 (1941).

[174] Ibid. 263.

[175] 323 U.S. 516 (1945).

[176] Ibid. 529-530.

[177] Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937).

[178] United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, fn. 4 (1938).

[179] 328 U.S. 331 (1946).

[180] Ibid. 353.

[181] Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 88 (1949).

[182] Ibid. 90.

[183] Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 180 (1949).

[184] Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949).

[185] Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 302.

[186] Ibid. 309. In a footnote Justice Jackson points to the peculiarly protected position of the Court today, thanks to ch. 479, Public Law 250, 81st Congress, approved August 18, 1949. This makes it unlawful to "make any harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds." Sec. 5. It also forbids display of any "flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement." Sec. 6. Moreover, it authorizes the marshal to "prescribe such regulations approved by the Chief Justice of the United States, as may be deemed necessary for the adequate protection of the Supreme Court Building and grounds and of persons and property therein, and for the maintenance of suitable grounds." Sec. 7. Violation of these provisions or regulations is an offense punishable by fine and imprisonment.

[187] Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 246 (1936).

[188] Ibid. 250.

[189] Ibid.

[190] Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944).

[191] Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945). A newspaper publisher who enjoyed a substantial monopoly of mass distribution of news was enjoined from refusing advertising from persons advertising over a competing radio station. The Court sustained the injunction against the objection that it violated freedom of the press, holding that appellant was guilty of attempting to monopolize interstate commerce. Lorain Journal v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951).

[192] Associated Press v. Labor Board, 301 U.S. 103, 133 (1937).

[193] Okla. Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946).

[194] 221 U.S. 418 (1911).

[195] Ibid. 430.

[196] 314 U.S. 469 (1941).

[197] Ibid: 477.

[198] Ibid. 478.

[199] United States v. C.I.O., 335 U.S. 106 (1948).

[200] 106 U.S. 371 (1882).

[201] 19 Stat. 143 Sec. 6 (1876).

[202] 53 Stat. 1147 (1939).

[203] United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

[204] Oklahoma v. United States Civil Serv. Comm., 330 U.S. 127 (1947).

[205] Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919); Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466 (1919); Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920); cf. Gilbert v. Minnesota 254 U.S. 325 (1920); Hartzel v.. United States, 322 U.S. 680 (1944).

[206] 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

[207] 61 Stat. 136, 146 (1947); "Taft-Hartley Act."

[208] 339 U.S. 382 (1950).

[209] 339 U.S. 846 (1950). Answering in 1882 the objection of a pensioner to the terms of an act under which he received his pension from the Government, the Court answered: "Pensions are the bounties of the government, which Congress has the right to give, withhold, distribute or recall, at its discretion." United States v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64, 68. Can it be doubted that Congress has power to repeal at any time the protection which present legislation affords organized labor?

[210] 339 U.S. 382, 394, 397 (1950).

[211] Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

[212] 54 Stat. 670 (1940).

[213] 341 U.S. 494, 509.

[214] Ibid. 509.

[215] Ibid. 510; citing 183 F. (2d) at 212.

[216] 341 U.S. 494, 510-511.

[217] Ibid. 513.

[218] 341 U.S. 494, 519-520.

[219] Ibid. 525.

[220] Ibid. 527-528.

[221] 341 U.S. 494, 539.

[222] 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

[223] 341 U.S. 494, 541.

[224] Ibid. 542.

[225] Ibid. 551-552.

[226] 341 U.S. 494, 567-569.

[227] Ibid. 572.

[228] 341 U.S. 494, 586; citing 274 U.S. 357, 376-377.

[229] Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951) heads the list.

[230] 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

[231] 339 U.S. 382; ibid. 846 (1950).

[232] 341 U.S. 716 (1951).

[233] 342 U.S. 485 (1952).

[234] New York Laws, 1949, c. 360.

[235] 342 U.S. 485, 493. Justice Frankfurter dissented on jurisdictional grounds. Justices Black and Douglas attacked the merits of the decision. Said the latter: "What happens under this law is typical of what happens in a police state. Teachers are under constant surveillance; their pasts are combed for signs of disloyalty; their utterances are watched for clues to dangerous thoughts. A pall is cast over the classrooms. There can be no real academic freedom in that environment. Where suspicion fills the air and holds scholars in line for fear of their jobs, there can be no exercise of the free intellect. Supineness and dogmatism take the place of inquiry. A 'party line'—as dangerous as the 'party line' of the Communists—lays hold. It is the 'party line' of the orthodox view, of the conventional thought, of the accepted approach. A problem can no longer be pursued with impunity to its edges. Fear stalks the classroom. The teacher is no longer a stimulant to adventurous thinking; she becomes instead a pipe line for safe and sound information. A deadening dogma takes the place of free inquiry. Instruction tends to become sterile; pursuit of knowledge is discouraged; discussion often leaves off where it should begin." Ibid. 510.

[236] 343 U.S. 250 (1952).

[237] Ibid. 258.

[238] Ibid, 259-263 passim. Justice Douglas, dissenting, urged the "absolute" character of freedom of speech and deplored recent cases in which, he asserted, the Court "has engrafted the right of regulation onto the First Amendment by placing in the hands of the legislative branch the right to regulate 'within reasonable length' the right of free speech. This to me is an ominous and alarming trend." Ibid. 285. Justices Black, Reed and Jackson also dissented. Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion is characteristically paradoxical: "An Illinois Act, construed by its Supreme Court to be a 'group libel' statute, has been used to punish criminally the author and distributor of an obnoxious leaflet attacking the Negro race. He answers that, as applied, the Act denies a liberty secured to him by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What is the liberty which that clause underwrites? The spectrum of views expressed by my seniors shows that disagreement as to the scope and effect of this Amendment underlies this, as it has many another, division of the Court. All agree that the Fourteenth amendment does confine the power of the State to make printed words criminal. Whence we are to derive metes and bounds of the state power is a subject to the confusion of which, I regret to say, I have contributed—comforted in the acknowledgment, however, by recalling that this Amendment is so enigmatic and abstruse that judges more experienced than I have had to reverse themselves as to its effect on state power. The thesis now tendered in dissent is that the 'liberty' which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the literal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge. The history of criminal libel in America convinces me that the Fourteenth Amendment did not 'incorporate' the First, that the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not." Ibid. 287-288. Proceeding from this position, Justice Jackson is able, none the less, to dissent from the Court's judgment. Cf. Chief Justice Stone's position in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, at 152-53, note 4 (1938).

[239] 20 Stat. 355, 358 (1879); 48 Stat. 928 (1934).

[240] 327 U.S. 146 (1946).

[241] Ibid. 158. Justice Frankfurter, while concurring, apparently thought that the question of Congress's power in the premises was not involved. Ibid. 159-160. On this broader question, see p. 269. (The Postal Clause).

[242] 333 U.S. 178 (1948); Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 (1904).

[243] Here it is recited in part: "That if we, our justiciary, our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall in any circumstances have failed in the performance of them toward any person, or shall have broken through any of these articles of peace and security, and the offence be notified to four barons chosen out of the five-and-twenty before mentioned, the said four barons shall repair to us, or our justiciary, if we are out of the realm, and laying open the grievance, shall petition to have it redressed without delay."

[244] 12 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 98 ff, "Petition, Right of" (New York, 1934).

[245] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) reflects this older view.

[246] De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 365 (1937). See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937).

[247] For the details of Adams' famous fight on "The Gag Rule," see Andrew C. McLaughlin, A Constitutional History of the United States, pp. 478-481, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., New York (1935).

[248] Rules and Manual United States House of Representatives (1949), Eighty-first Congress, by Lewis Deschler, Parliamentarian, United States Government Printing Office, Washington (1949), pp. 430-433.

[249] United States v. Baltzer, Report of the Attorney General, 1918, p. 48.

[250] 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

[251] 16 Stat. 141 (1870).

[252] 92 U.S. 542, 552-553 (1876). At a later point in its opinion the Court used the following language: "Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of right. That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the national government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty." Ibid. 555. These words have reference, quite clearly, to counts of the indictment alleging acts of the conspirators denying "equal protection of the laws" "to persons of color," Congress's power to protect which is derived from Amendment XIV and is confined as the Court says, to protection against State acts. The above quoted words have, however, caused confusion. See pp. 1176-1177.

[253] Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).

[254] 49 Stat. 449 (1935).

[255] 307 U.S. 496, 515-516 (1939).

[256] Ibid. 525.

[257] "As to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a corporation, it cannot be said to be deprived of the civil rights of freedom of speech and of assembly, for the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause is the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons. Northwestern Nat. L. Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U.S. 243, 255; Western Turf Asso. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359, 363;" 307 U.S. 496, 527 (1939). See also ibid. 514.

[258] 167 U.S. 43 (1897). This case was treated above, at p. 784.

[259] 314 U.S. 252 (1941).

[260] 323 U.S. 516 (1945).

[261] Auto Workers v. Wis. Board, 336 U.S. 245 (1949).

[262] Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 (1951); 17 Stat. 13, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 47 (3).

[263] 341 U.S. 651, 663 (1951).

[264] 2 U.S.C. Sec. 261-270. See also: General Interim Report of the House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities, Eighty-First Congress, Second Session, created pursuant to H. Res. 298, October 20, 1950, United States Government Printing Office, Washington (1950): see also 9 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 567, "Lobbying."

[265] National Association of Manufacturers v. McGrath, 103 F. Supp. 510 (1952). Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated this judgment as moot.—334 U.S. 804, 807.

[266] Rumely v. United States, 197 F. 2d 166, 174-175 (1952).



AMENDMENT 2

BEARING ARMS

Amendment 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The protection afforded by this amendment prevents infringement by Congress of the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose, but does not apply to such infringement by private citizens. For this reason an indictment under the Enforcement Act of 1870,[1] charging a conspiracy to prevent Negroes from bearing arms for lawful purposes was held defective.[2] A State statute which forbids bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, does not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms.[3] In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, the Court refused to hold invalid a provision in the National Firearms Act[4] against the transportation of unregistered shotguns in interstate commerce.[5]

Notes

[1] 16 Stat. 140 (1870).

[2] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876).

[3] Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886).

[4] 48 Stat. 1236 (1934).

[5] United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).



AMENDMENT 3

QUARTERING SOLDIERS

Amendment 3

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

"This amendment seems to have been thought necessary. It does not appear to have been the subject of judicial exposition; and it is so thoroughly in accord with all our ideas, that further comment is unnecessary."[1]

Notes

[1] Miller, Samuel F., The Constitution (1893), page 646.



AMENDMENT 4

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Page Coverage of the amendment 823 Necessity, sufficiency and effect of warrants 825 Records, reports and subpoenas 825 Search and seizure incidental to arrest 828 Search of vehicles 830 Use of evidence 830

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Coverage of the Amendment

This amendment denounces only such searches and seizures as are "unreasonable," and is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted and in a manner to conserve public interests as well as the rights of individuals.[1] It applies only to governmental action, not to the unlawful acts of individuals in which the government has no part.[2] It has no reference to civil proceedings for the recovery of debts; consequently, a distress warrant issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury under an act of Congress is not forbidden, though issued without support of an oath or affirmation.[3] But the amendment is applicable to search warrants issued under any statute, including revenue and tariff laws.[4]

Security "in their persons, houses, papers and effects" is assured to the people by this article. Not only the search of a dwelling, but also of a place of business,[5] a garage,[6] or a vehicle,[7] is limited by its provisions. But open fields are not covered by the term "house"; they may be searched without a warrant.[8] A sealed letter deposited in the mails may not be opened by the postal authorities without the sanction of a magistrate.[9] The subpoena of private papers is subject to its test of reasonableness.[10] Retention for use as evidence of a letter voluntarily written by a prisoner, which, without threat or coercion, came into the possession of prison officials under the practice and discipline of the institution, is not prohibited.[11] Where officers demand admission to private premises in the name of the law, their subsequent explorations are searches within the meaning of the Constitution, even though the occupant opens the door to admit them.[12] A peremptory demand by federal officers that a person suspected of crime open a locked room and hand over ration coupons kept there was held not to amount to a seizure in view of the fact that the coupons were government property which the custodian was under a duty to surrender.[13] Neither wiretapping,[14] nor the use of a detectaphone to listen to a conversation in an adjoining room,[15] nor interrogation under oath by a government official of a person lawfully in confinement[16] is within the purview of this article. Nor does it apply to statements made by an accused on his own premises to an "undercover agent" whose identity was not suspected and who had on his person a radio transmitter which communicated the statements to another agent outside the building.[17] Said Justice Jackson for the Court: "Petitioner relies on cases relating to the more common and clearly distinguishable problems raised where tangible property is unlawfully seized. Such unlawful seizure may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself was by subterfuge or fraud rather than force. But such decisions are inapposite in the field of mechanical or electronic devices designed to overhear or intercept conversation, at least where access to the listening post was not obtained by illegal methods."[18] But narcotics seized in a hotel room during absence of the owner, in the course of a search without warrant for either search or arrest, were not adducible as evidence against the owner, who, however, was not entitled to have them returned since they were legal contraband.[19]

Necessity, Sufficiency and Effect of Warrants

A warrant of commitment by a justice of the peace must state a good cause certain and be supported by oath.[20] A notary public is not authorized to administer oaths in federal criminal proceedings; hence a warrant based on affidavits verified before a notary is invalid.[21] A warrant of the Senate for attachment of a person who ignored a subpoena from a Senate committee is supported by oath within the requirement of this amendment when based upon the committee's report of the facts of the contumacy, made on the committee's own knowledge and having the sanction of the oath of office of its members.[22]

A belief, however well founded, that an article sought is concealed in a dwelling house furnishes no justification for a search without a warrant.[23] A warrant issued upon an information stating only that "affiant has good reason to believe and does believe" that defendant has contraband materials in his possession is clearly bad under the Fourth Amendment.[24] It is enough, however, if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that the offense charged had been committed.[25]

The requirement of the Fourth Amendment that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.[26] Private papers of no pecuniary value, in which the sole interest of the Federal Government is their value as evidence against the owner in a contemplated criminal prosecution, may not be taken from the owner's house or office under a search warrant.[27]

Records, Reports and Subpoenas

Since the common law did not countenance compulsory self incrimination, many years passed before the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret the constitutional provisions bearing upon the privilege against such testimonial compulsion. Not until Boyd v. United States[28] did it have to meet the issue; there, pursuant to an act of Congress, a court had issued an order in a proceeding for the forfeiture of goods for fraudulent nonpayment of customs duties, requiring the claimant to produce in court his invoices covering the goods, on pain of having the allegation taken as confessed against him. The order and the statute which authorized it were held unconstitutional in a notable opinion by Justice Bradley, as follows: "Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods, is [forbidden] * * * In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other."[29] Thus the case established three propositions of far-reaching significance: (1) that a compulsory production of the private papers of the owner in such a suit was a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment;[30] (2) that in substance such seizure compelled him to be a witness against himself in violation of Amendment V,[31] and (3) that, because it was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, it was also an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth.[32]

Only natural persons can resist the subpoena of private papers on the ground of self incrimination.[33] Even an individual cannot refuse to produce records which are in his custody on the plea that they might incriminate the owner or himself where the documents belong to a corporation,[34] or to a labor union.[35] A bankrupt can be compelled to turn over records which are part of his estate.[36] Papers already in the custody of a United States court in consequence of their having been used by the owner himself as evidence on another proceeding may be used before a grand jury as a basis for an indictment for perjury.[37] A corporation may challenge an order for the production of records if it is unreasonable on grounds other than self incrimination, i.e., if it is too sweeping,[38] if the information sought is not relevant to any lawful inquiry,[39] or if it represents "a fishing expedition" in quest of evidence of crime.[40] In Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling,[41] the question of the protection afforded by the Constitution against the subpoena of corporate records was thoroughly reviewed. Justice Rutledge summarized the Court's views in the following words: "* * * the Fifth Amendment affords no protection by virtue of the self incrimination provision, whether for the corporation or for its officers; and the Fourth, if applicable, at the most guards against abuse only by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be 'particularly described,' if also the inquiry is one the demanding agency is authorized by law to make and the materials specified are relevant. The gist of the protection is in the requirement, expressed in terms, that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable. * * * It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a specific charge or complaint of violation of law be pending or that the order be made pursuant to one. It is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose, within the power of Congress to command. * * * The requirement of 'probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,' literally applicable in the case of a warrant is satisfied, in that of an order for production, by the court's determination that the investigation is authorized by Congress, is for a purpose Congress can order, and the documents sought are relevant to the inquiry. Beyond this the requirement of reasonableness, including particularity in 'describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,' also literally applicable to warrant, comes down to specification of the documents to be produced adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry."[42]

As a means of enforcing a valid statute, the Government may require any person subject thereto "to keep a record showing whether he has in fact complied with it,"[43] and to submit that record to inspection by government officers.[44] It may also compel the filing of returns disclosing the amount of tax liability,[45] and of reports under oath showing instances where employees have worked in excess of hours of labor permitted by law.[46] Without violating either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, a judicial decree enjoining illegal practices under the Antitrust Act may provide that the Department of Justice shall be given access to all records and documents of the corporation relating to the matter covered by the decree.[47] The Supreme Court has intimated, however, that record keeping requirements must be limited to data which are relevant to the effective administration of the law.[48]