Arizona republican., 1904-08-01
Judge Parker and the Right of Privacy


 happy.
 Judge Parker and the Right of Privacy
 3ieH annoyance to which Judge Par her and his family have been subjected By camera fiends since Bsopus became the capital city of the democracy hls aroused widespread sympathy. f. is said that lurking kodakers have even invaded the slnCity of the judges incoming bath and forced him to give up his greatly Prized daily swim in the Hudson river.
 But there is one person in the Unit cd States who has no compassion for the candidate in his misery. That per- son Is Miss Abigail Roberson, a resce- l. able and handsome young woman re- ''S'nE at Rochester, New York Miss ho6er>on was the plaintiff in the fa- 'Nous case decided by Judge Parker a feW years ago, in which it was held altlAs the law did not recognize any right of privacy" in the matter of pictures. A firm of flour and box man. nrarturel-s had obtained. possession of one of Miss RobersOn's photographs without her own consent, and despite heT objections printed her picture on their flour sacks and boxes. She asked EOr nn injunction against the use of her I.ortrait
 The trial court decided in her favor and on appeal by the milling company this decision was upheld by the su- Treme court. But on appeal to the court of appeals, of which Judge Par keF is chief justice, the decisions of the lower courts were reversed and Miss Reberson's application for an iniunc- lion was dismissed. Judge Parker wrote the decision, and it was a frank and learned discussion of the question which was entirely new to the courts Judge Parker, while expressing his un- qualified sympathy for Miss Rober son, and stating his detestation of the practice of printing peoples portraits without their consent-a practice made fashionable by yellow and cheap news papers-pointed out that if the plain ti1s contention should be upheld the law thuz established would be danger ously far-reaching.
 But Miss Roberson has never forgiv- en the judge. She confesses that she is pleased 10 hear Of the judges pres ent annoyance, and in an open letter to him she directs his attention to his own inconsistencies. He should make no complaint, she thinks. Here are some of the pungent lines in her let ter:
 'I read in the Associated Press dis pitches yesterday afternoon that Mrs y a1ker was obliged to leave home to avoid the annoyance of ubiquit0 0us pho t0graphers, notwithstanding the warning given by you and reported in the same dispatch eS last Saturday morning in which it was announced that that would be the last day of promiscuous phCtographing of yourself and family. and wherein you are quoted as saving: 'I reserve the right to put my hands in my pockets and assume comfortable attitudes without being everlastin..ly afraid that l shall be snapped by some fellow with q camera
 ''I take this opportunity to remind you that you have no such right ae that which you assert. I have high au- thority for my statement, being n0Ih- ing less than a decision of the ,ourt of appeals of this state wherein you wrote the prevailing opinion. The az ton was one in which I was the plain tiff and the Rochester Folding Box Company and another corporation were the defendants and is reported n tbe Hist N. Y, at page 538.
 You may recolleCt that the sacts in that case were urdisputed and that it was admitted that the defendants, without my knOwlege or consent. and knowing that they had no right or au- thority so to do, had secured my Tfo- tograph and. having caused it to Ee enlarged and Autographed In life size, had circulated about twenty thous- and copies thereof as an advertisement Of the commodities in which one Of the defendants dealt; that the likeness cs were posted Conspicuously in stores, warehouses, saloons, and other public