# Bates v. City of Little Rock (229 Ark. 819)

The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. City of Little Rock, 229 Ark. 819 (1958), was reversed upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. See 361 U.S. 516 (1960).
Supreme Court of Arkansas
229 Ark. 819
Bates v. City of Little Rock
Williams v. City of North Little Rock
Appeals from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division
No. 4912, 4913.—Decided: December 22, 1958. Rehearing denied: January 19, 1959.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Linked cases: 229 Ark. 819 361 U.S. 516
* MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS – "BENNETT ORDINANCE", PURPOSE OF. – The primary purpose of the so-called "Bennett Ordinance" is to obtain revenue for the cities, and the obtaining of the membership list and the listing of contributors is merely to aid in determining the matter of tax status.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY – MEMBERSHIP LISTS. – When names of contributors and amounts paid by each is required as a mere incident to a permissible legal result, the information is not privileged under the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY – MEMBERSHIP LISTS, RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. – The mere fact that the furnishing of its membership lists and the names of contributors will hurt the prospects of the refusing organization, does not make the tax ordinance unconstitutional – anonymity at all events is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY – INFORMATION TO DETERMINE TAX STATUS. – Requiring the furnishing of information to the taxing power is not an unconstitutional invasion of the freedoms guaranteed. A taxpayer is required to file an income tax return giving the names of the sources of revenue; yet all this has been held to be within the power of the Sovereign, [See Hubbard v. Mellon, 5 F.2d 764, U.S. v. Harris, 347 U.S. 612].
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – DISCRIMINATION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF LAW. – Contention that so-called "Bennett Ordinances" were being enforced other than uniformly, held not sustained by the record.
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; William J. Kirby, Judge; affirmed.
George Howard, Jr. of Pine Bluff, Ark. and Robert L. Carter, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Gardner A. A. Deane, Jr. & Joseph C. Kemp, for appellee.
​Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; William J. Kirby, Judge; affirmed.
George Howard, Jr. of Pine Bluff, Ark. and Robert L. Carter, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Reed Thompson, for appellee.
[Opinion of the court by Justice ED F. McFADDIN. Justice J. SEABORN HOLT and Justice GEORGE ROSE SMITH, dissenting without opinion.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse