New-York tribune., 1919-01-25
Forced Sale of
VE =.
Hearst Papers
Called Illegal
Justice Cropsey Decides
John Williamson Can't r.
Deprived of City Stand
Harman Exceeded Right
Park Commissioner Has M
Authority toInserfereWitb
Newsdealer, Court Insists

Newsdealers holding permits fro~
the city to operate stands in publ;e
parks or other city property cannot h
compelled to sell Hearst papers against
the wishes Of their customers. nor c.n
city officials revoke their permits -
do business for refusing to bandlo
such papers. according to a decis;o,
filed in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn
yesterday by Justice Cropsey.
The decision was filed in the csss
of John Williamson, whose permit N
operate Stands in Borough Hall park
was twice revoked. In both instances
the Supreme Court granted injunc.
tions protecting Williamson from in.
terfercnce in his business.
As the permit to do business undar
which the injunction issued expired
by limitation on December 81. the
value of the decision lies in MAKING
clear the rights Of permit holders
under the law.
Justice Cropsey's Decision
In his decision Justice Cropsey saws.
"The plaintiff has a license or per-
nit from the Park Commissioner to
maintain newsstand at Borough Hal.
The Commissioner has twice sought to
revoke this permit. This action is to
enJoln such revocation, and the motion
Is for an injunction pending the trial
Licenses or permits which carry with
them no property right may be revokee
without notice if the act is an admins
trative one. But even such license
or permit may not be revoked whim-
sically or in bad faith
Here the good faith Of the Com.
missioner is challenged. 1t appears tha.
the first revocation made by the acting
commissioner was done pursuant to
the direction of the Mayor This was
rescinded. But a revocation which is
based upon the opinion or objection Of
some person other than the officer hav-
ing authority, or even upon the direc-
ton of the Mayor, is not good.
Won't Sell Hearst Papers
"The second revocation was stated 70
be based on the refusal of the plaintiff
to sell New York Americans and
Evening Journals The plaintiff ad-
mltS jhat he refuses TO sell those pa
pers. He says that his refusal IS based
on the fact that he believes that they
are un-American IN spirit. and also
because many of his customers refuse
to deal with him if he continues to sell
those papers.
And he attaches some twenty or
more affidavits of customers who state
that that is their feeling and attitude.
No papers are presented which show
that the public are in any way incon-
venienced by the refusal of the plaintiff
to sell these particular papers. In
fact, the moving papers show that the
sales of these papers have greatly in
/ creased. There is nothing In plaintiffs
permit that requires him TO sell every
paper that is published nor that the
Park Commissioner may require him
to sell every paper published IN New
York
He is under no obligation, certainly,
to carry papers to which his customers
object and which viii interfere with
his business. It may be that on
trial the situation viii appear differ
entity than it does on *he papers sub
mitted. On the matters now appearing
the revocation seems not to have been
in the public interest, nor for any good
reason. The injunction should be cor
tinued pending trial.
Though Williamson's permits to do
business expired on December 81, he
IS still operating his stands by peunis
sion Of Park Commissioner Harman.