Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-01-16

Bund for an injunction restraining the
police from interfering with their meetings.
He held that the police had exceeded their
powers in prohibiting such assemblies.
There was no evidence to show that the
society was not a peaceable one. No in
junction was issued, as the authorities
agreed to respect the law in the future.
CHICAGO, January 15-Judge Tuley, of
the Circuit Court, in a decision rendered to-
day, holds that the Anarchists and Social
lists have not forfeited the constitutional
right to assemble peaceably and discuss any
question which interests them, provided
they do not plot to carry out their ideas by
the use of force against constituted author
ity.
This decision was the outgrowth of an
application made in December last by the
Arbeiter Bund for an injunction to restrain
the police authorities from forbidding the
embers of the Bund to hold public meet
ings, and from closing the public halls of
the city against them by threatening the
proprietors with a revocation of their Hcen-
ses.
The matter was referred to Master-in-
Chancery Windes to take testimony and re-
port. The master, after hearing the case,
made his report to the effect that there was
no evidence to show that the members of
the Bund were criminals, or that they were
plotting to overthrow the existing order of
things by force: but as no property rights
seemed TO be involved he would decline to
recommend the issuance of an injunction,
but would leave the question open for the
judgment of the Circuit Court. He was in
clined to be of the opinion, however, that
the members of the Bund had a right to
meet, and that they were entitled TO seek
their remedy in the courts through an action
for damages against the police authorities.
1t was the decision based on the masters re-
port which was handed down today. The
opinion is a long one
TEXT OF THE DECISION.
Judge Tuley begins by reciting the history of
the case, stating that the meeting which it was
sought to restrain the police from interfering
with was called for the purpose of hearing the
report of the Bund's Committee Constitu-
Iion and Bylaws, and of completing its organi-
cation: that the only objects of the society were
TO secure its members mutual benefits. social
intercourse and political education, as set forth
in the proposed constitutions that the police
were invited to be present, and that the police
did actually. by a show of force prevent. the
holding of the proposed meeting.
The opinion proceeds to say that on behalf of
the city authorities, it is claimed that the in
reference with the right of assembly of these
persons is justified on the ground that the
name Arbeiter Bund is mere cloak, and that
the real purpose of its members is to plot to
overthrow the Constitutions and laws of the
United States and of the State. That, as
police officers, 1t is within their jurisdiction to
forbid sucn meeting in order to prevent the
commission of crimes, and that over such dis
erection the Court has no jurisdiction.
Judge Tuley quotes from the masters report
that the objects of the Arbeiter Bund are: BY
means of enlightenment and education, by in
cessant agitation, by speech and writing TO or
ganize the people to full liberty, fraternity and
independence: to resist with energy the inroads
of chques that are hostile to the people, to pro-
1ecs and maintain the rights guaranteed by the
States and United States; to call attention of
the people to the danger that threatens it
through the corporation and power Of the
wealthy. and to incite them to use their whole
strength to secure the recognition of the un-
alienable rights of assured existence, liberty
and happiness 1t is made the duty of the
members to promote the organization of trades
unions, to assist organized labor in its fight
against exploitation and oppression, and to cul-
Tivate forbearance and friendship and to force
conscientious conduct.
A LACK OF EVIDENCE.
The Chancellor then proceeds as follows: 1
find no reason to differ from the Master in his
conclusion that the evidence fails to show that
the proposed assemblage of the members of
the society was for unlawful purposes Are
these purposes unlawful? Have these parties
a right to meet together peaceaby and in an
orderly manner for such purposes? 1t was
argued on behalf of the defendants counsel
that the constitution shows on its face the |
unlawful purpose because Of the condition of
membership that only persons of reputable |
character who declare for the abolition of the |
inhuman wage system can become members.
The solicitor is in error in the supposition |
that the law uphOlds or demands any particular |
There are many cooperative industries in the |
United States, and to advocate the co-opera- |
tive profit sharing found here or the participa- l
ton system IN vogue in France, cannot, in a |
free Government be held to be an unlawful |
purpose
The word exploitation" is a French word, |
for which in English we have no precise defini- |
ton. understand the object intended is op- /
position to the present system way of using |
capital-that is to say that capital shall be so /
used that labor will receive greater share of !
the combined earnings of labor and capital |
than at present, and that capital shall not be |
used so as to oppress the people by combina- |
tons and monopOlies. / may be mistaken in /
my Interpretation. but whatever NAV be the |
meaning as the object is to be accomplished |
by enlightenment and education of the masses,
] find no law which prohibits the formation of |
societies for such purpose.
NATURAL RIGHTS.
This right of free speech and free assemblage
is a natural right, and it would seem unneces-
sary to be expressly provided for in a Repub-
lcan form of government. It however is ex-
pressly secured to the people by the bill of
rights in our State Constitution. 1t is also in.
sisted for the defense that the objects and pur-
poses of this society. as set forth in their con-
stltution, are the same as that of the Interna-
tional, which the Supreme Court of Illinois, in
the case of Spies ct al versus the people, de-
clared to be an unlawful conspiracy.
The resemblance was not pointed out, but |
from review of the objects and purposes of
the Internationalists, as the same are declared
the opinion that there is this vital difference
between the societies, That is the Information
ais declared for force" for organization for
the purposes of rebellion for ''inexorable reyo-
lution," and for assassination" While in the
tsconstitutlon'' of this society there is nothing
to indicate thattheir objects and purposes are
to be accomplished by resort to force, revo-
luton, rebellion or assassination" in any con-
tingency.
Il is hardly necessary for me to remark that
if it appeared that tins society was such So
ciety as the Supreme Court describes the Inter
national TO be, it could have no standing in this
court. Men cannot appeal to law for protection
in overthrowing the law. 1t has been gravely
argued by the counsel for the city that the
all Anarchists are criminals, and, therefore, it
is argued their meeting in public assembly is
unlawful The Supreme Court did denounce /
the principles of anarchy and of socialism, but
lists were criminals. The Court held that An
archists who committed crime were criminals
and that the defendants in the case were guilty,
but the Court pronounced no judgment of out
lawTy against Anarchists as a body.
Judge Tuley then took up the claim on be-
half of the police that they had the right to
prevent the meeting, thereby preventing crime
and holds that the power granted by the law of |
the State for such purpose cannot be given
such latitude; tnat if the police may, at their
discretion, do what they think will prevent
what may, in their judgment, result in crime,
Legislatures courts or Government officers
would be entirely superfuous.
POLICE NOT SUPREME.
Police powers are then defined as settled by
numerous decisions, which were quoted, and
the opinion proceeded as follows am as
founded TO find at this day in this country that
it be urged by af1dayits and arguments in a
court of Justice that a policeman can forbid the
meeting Of a society, or a public meeting be- |