The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-16
MOUNT VERNON STIRRED.
Unfortunate Results Of an Ordinance
Regulating Public Meetings.

IoTtuuate tnit the cOincuy % eitcAS ic-
Gently enacted with reference to the ar
rest OF woman and two men and the
arrest OF the Rev. John Haynes Holmes
and two companions for attempting to
hold a meeting in a public place with
oLt permit from the Mayor of the city
rhould have brought Mount Vernon into
unpleasant notoriety.
| Several years ago an ordinance was
passed by the Aldermen OF the city for
bidding public meetings In the open un-
less q permit had been issued by the
Mayor. The ordinance was designed to
prevent the campaigning Of a candidate
whose election might be detrimental to
the interests Of the party then In pos
session OF the city.
The ordinance was not carefully drawn
and the Aldermen were advised that it
was likely to make trouble II It were
enforced. The then Mayor. a man of
keen understanding. did not try to en-
force It; on the contrary. he did not re-
fuse permits. nor did he try to inter-
fere with the progress of a campaign
that was to cost him his election.
The police have managed all open afr
meetings tactfully and with discretion,
faithfully reporting their conduct as re-
quired. 1t IL not unlikely that disloyal
expressions were freely used at some OF
these meetings. Common report has It
go. and the report was so published in
the Argus, Mount vernon's daily paper.
Thereupon. according to report, the
Mayor declared that he would Issue no
more permits to the Socialists to hold
open air meetings.
A few evenings afterward a meeting
was held at Fourth avenue and Second
street. A women Of the highest social
standing. who had held an important
post In welfare work overseas, began to
speak. She was promptly arrested; so
were two men with the party.
There was no question whatever con-
corning what was said. They were
charged with an attempt to hold a pub
lie meeting without permit. In the
meantime public meeting on the street
near by was permitted to go on. This
organization lad permit. II the one
group received a permit why should
it have been denied to another?
A young attorney OF ability was called
to the defence of tho prisoners. He had
defended the city In several cases and
always had won. He had defended the
Board OF Aldermen when suit was
brought against it by one Of the strong
est publishing corporations in the world.
The Aldermen had forbidden the sale
Of the publications of this corporation
within the city. This same attorney had
advised them that the ordinance was
illegal. When suit was brought against
them, backed by all the power of the
corporation, the attorney beat It off.
At the time of the arrest Of the speak
ers he was under engagement by the
city in ono of the most important suits
to which 1t has been a party. Under the
circumstances he did not feel it proper
to take sides in a suit in which the
city was interested. So he appeared In
the position OF amicus curise, or adviser
to the court without personal interest.
He was summarily dismissed without a
nearing by the Aldermen about forty
sight hours afterward. Thereby the city
lost the services of an able attorney.
Now all this turmoil might have been
avoided. To disobey a city ordinance
with malice prepense is not a mark OF
good citizenship. When the Mayor re-
fused the permit application to the court
for a writ of mandamus was the proper
method. Had its mandamus been re-
fused friendly suit to test the ordinance
could have been instituted. That this
course would have been wise Is shown by
Justice Keogh's decision on Thursday.
Instead. the whole city has been
stirred and malevolent expressions are
, hurled by hystericai people on both
sides. What is still more humiliatins
is the fact that an orderly community OF
estimable people has been held up as a
laughing stock through plain stupidity.
There is no need Of REFRESHING speech
The law against seditious utterance Is
! plain, and the law provides a punish.
ment therefor. The Constitution of the
United States also has a word or two
concerning the restriction of speech and
the right to assemble.
Inasmuch as the case was in the court
It would have been in the interests OF
propriety had the Rev. DR.. Holmes
awaited the decision OF the court before
making his dramatic appearance. The
! fact that he read from the Constitution
OF the United States is prima facie evi-
dence that he did not indulge IN sedi.
tious language. It is doubtful, however
IL this claim would apply to the angry
rabble which held possession OF pub
! lie thoroughfare. shouting Hang emf
"Deport 'emi" Drive 'em OUT Tht
, leaders of the mob were not arrested
Neither did they have a permit to assem-
BILE or to speak II the law was valid
In the one case, why did It not apply
to the other?
Assuming that disioyai and eeditious
language has prevailed at some Of these
meetings, what then7 II this has oc.
Cured and the offender has not beer
arrested and put to trial the Mayor
himself Is to blame. That function Is q
: part of his business and no should b.
held accountable therefor.
The manifest result of the miserable
effair will be the addition OF hundreds
to the ranks OF organizations that are
rot working for the good Of the com
munity. We have been making Social
lists OF an undesirable kind aitogethei
too rapidly by methods within the law
We cannot AFFORD 20 make them b,
methods that SAVIOR Of Kaiserism. Seri
GUS conditions arc now looming befor'
: Ms and playing politics on the edge Of
: he'll Is not q safe diversion.
II THrrrr YEARS IN MOUNT VERNON.
! MOUNT VERNON. October Is.