The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-07
LEGAL OR ILLEGAL DIsTUR- RANGE.

Just how Tar the authority or coust extends. or how far 1t can exercise it's authority is a question whose answer seems to depend on circumstances For example, the Philadelphia Record says:
 It has been held that there is no law under which a person may be restrained from doing anything which Is aliowaole in ordinary circumstances. out Of consio- eration for the sick. A notable case was that of prominent New York judge who was too i'll to be removed. and who was tortured by the piano playing of musi- cal neiuhbor When all requests were ig- nored the judges physician applied to court. affirming that the afhiction robbed the sick man of hls one chance of recov- ery. and that he must die unless the mu- sician could be forced to restrict her per formanoe.
 This was case, one would think. where the court might have stretched its au- thority a little. If any stretching was necessary, when human life was at stake, but the court. we are informed. while expressing indignation at the heart lessness of the neighbor admitted that 1t was powerless to interfere"
 This was the New York conception of Justice. law and humanity, we presume. In a recent instance in Chicago the city authorities ordered the police to stop the operation of a steam-hammer because the noise endangered the hfe of girl near by who was sick. with typhoid fever. Complaint having been made to the health department by the attending pny- sician that the girls life depended on the cessation of the noise that department appealed to the authorities of the city with the result as above stated. Here in Alabama the courts have more than once forbidden the passing of vehicles along A payed street near courthouse be- cause the noise interfered with the busi- ness of the court.
 There is a case in Chicago where the noise was part of legitimate business. and without which noise the work could not be carried on, yet it was stopped out of deference to the condition of the sick child In Alabama the ordinary and le- gitimate travel and traffic on the street, of which noise was a necessary adjunct, was stopped because the business of the court was hindered. We do not learn that there was or is any law in Chicago under which the city authorities acted but they assumed a right to act in the interests of humanity. We know of no specific law in Alabama under which the streets could be closed but it was done by the court because the noise hindered the transaction of the public business.
 What shall we think of the New York musician, man or woman, who refused to stop the piano-poundins. although as- sured that the noise was virtually mur- dering a neighbor? It occurs to us that in such a case the court should not only have put stop to the noise but should have stretched its authority far enough to punish the brutal neighbor who pre- farrad the noise of the instrument to a . sslanAn fife. It Is all we'll enough, oi ; course. that personal rights should be protected and respected. and that a per- son xhG is engaged in a legitimate occu- patton tn his own house should not be in- terfsrsd with. but we can see no reason why plsao playing is more sacred than operating a steam-hammer or driving a vehicle along the streets. Neither do we see why 1t Is any less criminal to endan'
 ger human life in one of the ways men.
 tioned than it is in the other. In fact
 we suspect that great many would pre-. fer the hammer to the incessant music However that may be. the three instances
 we mention show a wide variance in legal authority or in legal assumption.