The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-01-01
ANARCHISTS AND THE POLICE.
An Injunction to Restrain the Latter from In
terfering with Their Meetings Refused

CHICAGO. Dec. 1.-Several days ago the
Arbeiter Bund, an anarchistic society, ap-
pealed to the courts for an Injunction to
prevent the city's police from interfering
with their public meetings. The bill was
taken before Judge Shepard, who referred
the whole matter to Master in Cancery
Thomas q. Windes, to take testimony and
report back his findings. The master COM
pleted taking testimony several days ago,
and concluded his report to-day. The report
reviews both the facts and the law at
length, and shows that the master made
thorough examination of the legal authori-
ties. lie cites cases from many of the State
reports, and from several of the leading
wrlters-English and American-on equity
jurisprudence. Master Windes finds no prec-
edent for interference by injunction with
official conduct, unless property rights are
involved. The facts in this case he sug-
gests are sufficient to justify chancellor
In making precedent, in view of the uni
form practice of chaneery courts in restrain
ing husbands by injur ctiOn from commit
tlng acts of violence upon their wives dur
ing the tendency of divorce cases In the
absence of any other precedent, however,
he declines to recommend an Injunction, as
he does not deem 1t within the province of
q master to recommend injunctiOns save
where 1T is established clearly by precedent
that they should issue, and contents him.
self by suggesting that one issue.
AS TO the facts, he finds that the COM
plalnantS have q constitutional right to
meet; that there is no testimony beyond
the mere belief of Chief Hubbard and In
spector Bontield that the cOmplainants de-
sire to overthrow the laws of the State and
Nation. The statement of these two de-
fendents that some of the members of
the Arbeiter Bund belong to anarch-
throw of State and national law
was advocated, was not sufficient
to prove the Arbeiter Bund to be an illegal
and revolutionary organization, he says.
The af1idavits of compliments and eleven
other citizens, no one CT whom has ever
been accused of crime, say that the puSS
poses OF the Arbeiter Bund are lawful any
proper. This testimony has not been met
by the defendants, and the master, there
lore, declares the meetings proposed to be
held by the Arbeiter Bund are lawful, and
are not subject to police interference. The
master denies that to restrain the police
ir0m permitting the Arbeiter Bund meet
INNS would be an interference with their
"dlscretion;" and on that subject he says:
Counsel for defendants insisted on argu-
ment that an injunction in this case, if
issued, would be an interference with the
u
tie law and conservatOrs of the peace by
the judiciary, which is unwarranted. The
position that an Injunction shouldnOti inter-
fere with the official discretion of the execu-
tive officers of the law is, in my opinion, a
sound one, but not applicable to this case.
The Mayor and chief of police have no dis
cretionary power given them by law to
prevent the peacable assembly of citizens.
1t Is hostile, and even dangerous, to the
genius of our institutions, and in conflict
with those upon which they are based, to
assume that policeman, without judicial
responsibility, shall exercise the judicial
power TO grant or withhold the right of
citizens conStltutionally to meet in public
assembly. To state the proposition that
the policeman has this power, it seems to
nc, is sufficient TO refute it. There is no
testimony before me. except the mere be-
belief of two of the defendants that the
purposes of the Arbeiter Bund meetings are
Illegal. This would not be sufficient to
overcome. the presumption that the COM
plalnants' purposes are lawful; but this
presumption is fortified by the un-
cOntradicted affidavits of the COM
plainants that their purposes are lawful,
that they wish to meet publicly, and that
they have invited, and do invite, the police
to attend their meetings. If the mere be-
lief of police officer that projected public
meetings are for unlawful purposes shall
operate to the prohibition of such meetings,
such belief, created by error, malice, bigot-
~ or political partisanship, may be resorted
fundamental constitutional right. When
citizens have assembled, if they advocate
or proceed to the commission of unlawful
acts, or the overthrow OF government, or
the destruction of property, then the con-
SENATORS of the peace may exercise their
discretion in dispensing them. If, In this
case, the police have substantial ground for
their belief, they should not be engaged in
q debate before master In chancery de-
Tending an assumed judicial power, but, as
conservators of the peace. should arrest
complainants and appear as their accusers
IN a criminal proceeding"
The attorney for the Arbeiter Bund con-
siders the report of the master a partial
victory only. THE master simply has some
doubts about our remedy" he said, when
asked his opinion about 1t. THE facts are
in our favor, but the whole affair narr0ws
down to question OF law andnOt of facts"
Socialist George Schilling said: 1T does
not make much difference what is done by
the courts; the police will bulldoze us any
how. With the arbitrary power in the
hands of the Mayor to give or take away q
saloon license, they can do what they wish.
If they don't want us TO gather in the halls
connected with saloons, they will threaten
to have the license of a saloon-keeper re-
vOked if he permits any such meetings to
take place in his hall"
Chief of Police Hubbard said: when
| the speakers at the meetings of the Anarch-
lists say that the streets have got TO flow
with blood before they can get their rights,
| it is plain the gatherings are not for any
good purpose. At any meeting where the
law is openly detied, we shall see that it is
suppressed"