◆ SpookStack

Q 20 Haque vs. Committee for Industria! Organization. The respondents in their bill of complaint specifically named and quoted Article IV, §2, now conceded te be inapplicable, and the dne process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amend- ment as the provisions of the Constitution which secure to them the righta of free speech and assembly. They omitted the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from their quotation. They made no specific allegation that any of those whose freedom had been interfered with by petitioners was a citizen of the United States. The general allegation that the acts of petitioners complained of violate the rights of ‘‘citizens of the United States, including the individual plaintiffs here’’, and other allegations of like tenor, were denied bv petitioners’ answer. There is no finding by either court below that any of respondents or any of those whose freedom of speech and assembly has been infringed are citizens of the United States, and we are referred to no part of the evidence in which their citizenship is mentioned or from which it ean be inferred. Both courts below found, and the evidence supports the findings, that the purpese of respondents, other than the Civil Libertics Union, in holding mectings in Jersey City, was to organize labor unions in various industries in order to secure to workers the bene- fits of collective bargaining with respect to betterment of wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment. Whether the proposed unions were to he organized in industries whieh might be subject to the National Labor Relations Act or to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board does not ap- pear, Neither court below has made any finding that the mectings were called te discuss, or that they ever did in fact discuss, the National Labor Relations Act. The findings do net support the conclusion that the proposed meetings involved any such relation- ship between the national government and respondents or any af them, assuming they are citizens of the United States, as to show that the asserted right or privilege was that of a citizen of the United States, and I cannot say that an adequate basis has been jaid for supporting a theory—which respondents themsclves evi- dently did not entertain—that any of their privileges as citizens of the United States, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, were abridged. as distinruished from the privileges guaranteed to all persons by the due process clause. True, the findings refer to the suppression hy petitioners of exhibits, one of which turns out to be a handbill advising workers they have the legal right, under the Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization. 21 Wagner Act, te choose their own labor union to represent them in collective bargaining. But the injunction, which the Court now rightly sustains, is not restricted 10 the protection of the right, said to pertain to United States citizenship, to disseminate information about the Wagner Act. On the contrary it extends and applies in the broadest terms to interferences with respondents in holding any lawful meeting and disseminating any lawful information by circular, leaflet, handbill and placard. If, as my brethren think, respondents, are entitled to maintain in this suit only the rights secured to them by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—here the right to disseminate informa- tien about the National Labor Relations Act—it ia plain that the decree is too broad, Instead of enjoining, as it does, interferences with all meetings for all purposes and the lawful dissemination of all information, it should have confined its restraint to interferencea with the dissemination of information about the National Labor Relations Act, through meetings or otherwise. The court below rightly omitted any such limitation from the decree, evidently be- eanse, as it deolared, petitioners’ acts infringed the due process clause, which guarantees to all persons freedom of speech and of assembly for any lawful purpose. No more grave and important issue can be brought to this Court than that of freedom of speech and assembly, which the due process clause guarantees te all persons regardless of their citizenship, but which the privileges and immunities clause secures only to citizens, and then only to the limited extent that their relationship to the national government is affected. I am unable to rest decision here on the assertion, which 1 think the record fails to support, that respondents must depend upon their limited privileges as citizens of the United States in order to sustain their cause, or upon so pripable an avoidance of the real isgne in the case, which re- apondents have raised by their pleadings and austained by their proof. That issue is whether the present proceeding can be main- tained ynder §24(14) of the Judicial Code as a suit for the pro- tection of rights and privileges guaranteed by the due process clause, I think respondents’ right to maintain it does not depend an their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or non-existence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act. It is enough that peti-