Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-02-06
The Sound Truck Issue
Sheds Light on Court

TIE SOuHO tJuSk issue
Sheds Light on Court
Rulings Reflect Differences in Taste
Rather Than Civil Rights Clash
By Gerard d. Reilly
The seeming inability OF the Supreme Court
to make up its mind on the issue Of sound
trucks has been the subject of considerable
amusement among editorial writer's, particu-
larly as the most recent procurement Of the
court brought forth five separate and impas.
stoned opinions from the embattled justices.
The net result of this decision, Kovacs ".
Cooper, was that majority Of the court now
holds to the view that a municipality Is not
infringing upon the constitutional right Of fres
speech by the adoption Of an ordinance pro-
hibiting the use Of such devices as sound trucks.
loud speakers and calliopes on the public
streets
About eight months ago the court. in an
other fve-four opinion, held in Saia vs.. New
York that q local ordinance which permitted
sound trucks to be operated only with the APP
proval Of the municipal police chief was invalid
In the Kovacs case the court refrained from
overruling the saia case on the ground that
the ordinances which had been assailed wers
distinguishable.
According to Justice Reed, whose opinion
commanded the concurrence Of Chief Justics
Vnson and Justice Burton, the Trenton IN. ~
ordinance under with the litigious Mr. Kovacs
was convicted was directed against instru-
ments emitting loud and raucous noises"
They pointed out that the ordinance con.
strued in the Saia case, however, was not con-
fined to sound trucks which made disturbing
noises Consequently they voted to sustain
the conviction Of the appellant.
Justice Jackson and Justice Frankfurter also
voted to sustain the conviction but on the
broader ground that the doctrine Of freedom
Of speech could not be invoked to include free
dom Ito use sound amplifers to drown out
the natural speech Of others"
In the minority opinions Justice Black and
Justice Rutledge argue that there was no real
distinction between the Kovacs case and the
Saia and hence the Trenton ordinance should
have been held invalid. Also dissenting but
without opinion were Justice Murphy and
Justice Douglas who had been On the major
ity side in the Saia case.
In the opinion Of the dissenters the Trenton
ordinance, far from being more reasonable
than the one struck down In the prior shia
opinion, was even more offensive from Q lib
barred the use Of all loudspeakers mounted
upon any vehicle from the city streets.
Justice Jackson agreed with this view Of the
matter, contending that the failure Of his ma
jority colleagues to overrule the gaia case
would create hopeless confusion among nu.
nicipal authorities in wrestling with the prob
lem Of protecting the comfort and convenience
OF the public against unjustinsd nuisances.
Inasmuch Is the record allowed shat the
charge upon which Kovaes had been convicted
did not accuse his sound truck Il making
either loud or raucous noises, II n dtnacult
indeed to ind any real difference between the
two cases. Consequently, 1t would appear that
the about-face OF the court was due primarily
to q change in mind on the part Of the Chief
Justice. for on the saia case he had Joined
in the majority opinion in which Justice Doug
las made the somewhat startling statement
that 'loudspeakers are today indispensable
instruments Of effective public speech The
sound truck has become an accepted method
Of political campaigning"
In the Kovacs case similar observation in
the Black dissent caused Justice Frankfurter
to remark, "Only disregard Of vital differences
between natural speech, even Of the loudest
spellbinders, and the noise Of sound trucks
would give sound trucks the constitutional
rights accorded to the unaided human voice."
This In turn drew from Justice Rutledge the
tart rejoinder, "' that the first amendment
limited its projections Of speech to the natural
range Of the human voice as 1t existed IN l79O
would be, for me, like saying the commerce
power remains limited to navigation by sail and
travel by the use OF horses and oxen in accord
ance with the principal modes Of carrying on
commerce in 1889"
The sharp division In the court, therefore.
rests upon differences In taste rather than to
any real conflict over civil rights This was
indicated by another decision handed down the
same day by the court in which the justices
were unanimous In UNFOLDING o New York City
trafdc regulation which was far more arbitrary
than the controversial sound truck ordinance.
In this case the Railway Express Agency,
which sells space on the exterior sides Of it,
trucks for advertising, had been convicted o.
violating . rule Of the police commissioner for
bidding the operation OF advertising vehicles
on the public street. The same regulation, how
ever, permitted truck owners to advertise the
business Of the owner. In attacking the validity
Of this regulation the Railway Express Agency
contended that 1t was not only repusnant 70
the due-process clause, but because OF its dis
criminatory treatment Of common and contract
carriers amounted to q denial Of equal protsc-
ton Of the law"
The advertisements in question consisted OF
posters advertising . popular brand Of cigar.
cites, radio station, q circus and the United
States Navy. Justice Douglas In his majority
opinion gave rather short shrift to this argu.
ment, stating that local authorities had broad
discretion in the PRONUNCIATION Of trafnc regu-
lations. Hence he reasoned that 1t was not up
to the court to decide whether one kind Of
advertising on trucks caused any greater degree
Of distraction to pedestrians and vehicle drivers
than another.
1t is true that the issue Of free speech was
not specifically raised by the appellant In the
Railway Express case, but few city jewellers
would be willing to argue that the blare Of
sound trucks is not a far more distracfiaz Gle.