◆ SpookStack

18 Hague vs. Comatittee far Industrial Organization. As will presently appear, the right to maintain a suit in equity to restrain state officers, acting tnder a state law, from infringing the rights of freedom of speech and of assembly guaranteed by the due process clause, is given by Act of Congress to every person within the jurisdiction of the United States whether a citizen or not, and such a suit may be maintained in the district court without allegation or proof that the jurisdictional amount required by § 24(1) of the Judicial Code is involved, Henee there is no oeva- sion, for jurisdictional purposes or any other, to consider whether freedom of speech and of assembly are immunities secured by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Aimondment to citizens of the United States, or te revive the contention. rejected by this Court in the Slewqhicr-House Cases, supra, that the privi- leges anc immunities of United States citizenship, proteeted by that clause, extend beyond those which arise or grow out of the rela- tionship of United States citizens to the national government.' 1 The privilege or immunity asserted in the Slaughter-House casea was the freedom to pursue a common business or calling, alleged to have been infringed by a state monopoly atatute. It shotit not be forgotten that the Court, in deciding the ¢asc, did not deny the contention of the dissenting justices that. the asserted freedom waa in fact inffiuged by the state Inw. It rested its decision rather on the ground that the (mimunity claimed waa not one belonging to persona by virtue of their citizenship, “*Tt ja quite clear’’, the Court de- clared (p. 743, ‘‘that there is a citizenship ef the United States. and a citizen- ship of a State, which ore distinct from each other, and which depend on different characteristics in the individunl.’? And it held that the protection of the privileges and immunitica clausc ‘lid not extend to those ‘‘fusdamental "” rights attached to state citizenship which are peculiarly the creation and con- ecrn of state goveronentsa and which Mr, Justice Washington, in Corfield +. Coryell, 4 Wash, (, ©. 371, 6 Fed. Cas. No, 5250, mistakenly thonght to be guaranteed by Article TV, $2 of the Constitution. The privileges and im- munities of citizens of the United States, it was pointed out, ure confined to that limited class ef intcreata growing out of the relationship between the citizen ond the national government erented by the Constitution and federal laws. Slaughter-Holer Cases, 16 Wall, 36,79; see Twining v. Now Jersey, 211 U.S, 78, 97, 98. That limitation upon the operation of the privileges and immunities cianme has not been relaxed hy any later decisions of this Court. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 430, 448; McPherson rv. Blacker, 146 U. 8. 1, 38; Giozza v. Tiernan, 145 U. 8. G57, 661; Drunean +. Missouri, 152 U. 8. 477, 382, Upen that grotind ap- peals to this Court to extend the clause beyond the limitation have uniformly been rejected, and oven those basic privileges and immunitios secured againat: federn! infringervent by the first sight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause. Walker rv, Sauvinet, 92 0.5. 90; Hurtada vr, California, 10 UL 8. 516; Prosser ve. Tilingis, 116 UL §. 259; O'Neill ©. Vermont, 144 0. 8. 224, Maxwell », Dow, 174 «U. & 581; West e Louisiana, 194 U. 8. 258; Twining v. New Jeracy, supra; Palko +. Connecticut, 302 U. 8. 219. The reason fer thia narrow ronstruction of the clause and the eonsistently exhibited reluctance of thia Court to cularge its scope haa heen well understood since the decision of the Slanghter-Huouses Cases. Jf its restraint upon atate Hague vs. Commstiee for Industrial Organization. 19 That such is the limited application of the privileges and immuni- ties clause seems now to be conceded by my brethren, But it is said that the freedom of respondents with which the petitioners have in- terfered is the ‘freedom to disseminate information concerning the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, to assemble peace- ably for discussion of the Act, and of the opportunities and advan- tages offered by it’’, and that these are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States sceured against state abridgment by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It has been said that the right of citizens to assemble for the purpose ia 4 privilege of petitioning Congress for the redress of grieva of United States cttizenship protected by the privileges and im- munities clause. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. 8. 542, 552- 5G. We may assume for present purposes, althongh the step is a long and by no means certain one, see Marwell v. Dot, 176 ULS8. SRL: Trining v. New Jersey, supra, that the right to astemble to dis- cuss the advantages of the National Labor Relations Act is likewise a privilege seoured hy the privileges and immunities clause to citizens af the United States, but not to others, while freedom to as- semble for the purpose of discussing 3 similar state statute would not be within the privileges and immunities clause. But the diffi- eulty with this assumption is, as the reeord and briefs show, that. it is an afterthought first emerging in this case after it was submitted to us for decision, and like most afterthoughts in litigated matters it is without adequate support in the reeord. action were to be extended more than ia needful to protect relationships be- tween the citizen and the national government, and if it were to be deemed to extend to those fundamental rights of person and property attached to citizenship by the conunon law and enactments af the atates when the Amend- mont was adopted, such as were described in Corfield vr. Coryell, supra. it would enlarge Congressional and judicial central of state aetion and multiply re- strictions upon it whore naturc, though difficult to anticipate with precision, would be of snfticient gravity to cause serious apprehension for the rightful indepemience of local government. That waa the issue fought out in the slanghfer-House Cases, with the decision against enlargement, Of the fifty or more cases which have been brought to this Court sisee the adoption of ‘the Fourteenth Amendment in which state statutes have been asaniled an violating the privileges and immunities clause, in only a single case wre watainte held to infringe & prividege or immunity peeuliar to citizenship of the United States. In that one, Colgate v. Harvey, 296 UL A, 404, it waa thought neressary to support the decision hy pointing to the apecifle reference in the Mlaughter-Tlonse Cases, supra, 79, to the right to piss freely from atate fo atate, susinined aaa right of mafional citizenship in Crandall ©. Nevada, 6 , the adoption of the Amendinont, ; .: cases will be found collected in Footnote 2 of the disstnting opinion im Colgate v, Marvey, 296 [1 8, 404, 445. To these should be added Holden t Hardy, 169 U. 8. 306; Ferry Spokane P. & 9. BR. Co., 258 U.S. 314; New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 7, 8, 63; Whitfield v, Chio, 207 U. 8. 431; Breadtove t. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277; Palko v. Connectieut, 302 U. 8. 319. uw Wil