’ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
noa. N. B. 0. Beilw
olstrlat Attorney
Center, Texas
thsir meeh0a8
aonatltute a
‘.-e here
opldon from thlr
oneoi th8aountira
1 bring SOID*aart Of
, to rootrein the
ng and ofiorlng lor 8ale,
thage, the lltereture c3
Thr %itahtower.
sale of its literature and
ion of ttelr religloua Coc-
tive of dl.Cticul-
SrlCdS of the pesc.0. The city govern-
bes no ordinances oaloulated to pre-
their’literature ald tbe holding of
e been oollea upon
heir aotivltles.
“ApDerant~ the tLlth preeched by the Jtbuvah
:i.itcesner is 0 rellFloa within the r.eating 0t the
Federal CoastitutiO;., but the dlssarination Oi theit
faith must be kept wittin due bounds, hao’ng ragsrd
to t ba rigbta of the ifaasral gcreroment, stste ena
~unlalpal eorerumnt to make reasmrbla rem 1ctiOne
for the health, misty and welrare ot its citizens,
and that their activities, den oerriaa to the extent
of provoking dlsturbanoes and ro;.a In a cormunlty,may
e. F1.B.D Ealley, pmg* 2
.
bo kept within due bound8 and rubdaot to reasonable
regul&tionr. Therefore, ma? I lak rhQthQr or not
thir rotlrltlor may br rortraima, either by the
alty govorrmeat of Carthage or by any prooeealng
. iq the ociurtr on thr theory that their method8 and
aotlritier oon8tItuto a nulaanor.
wDlrlopdty mo8aure8 prsaed by our Lcgirlaturo
ham been bald invalid. Ex parte Neokel, 220 2. W.
61, Sahellenger 1. Stat*, 222 S, 3. 246. The Fmderol
Court8 hare hsd thr Qxaot problem EeicrQ them, but ao
library in my tom has the reports. 42 F. Supp..577,
ir a ease styled Borohert t. City of Ranger.*
iia do not think that the aotlrities of Jabooab’r ;‘ritne8sQ8
mw ba reatralned either by the olty government of Carthago or by
w pSooasding8~in the ooI+,s on the theory that their meahod8 8&l
ectlvltler constitute 8 nulsanoo.
In the case at Borchert vd. City of Renger, TQI~E, 42
Fed. !%pp. 577, the Jehovah’8 ~~ftneassa obtoIned.an In&motion in
FQder~ Court sgainr:t t&e cities of Renger, Dublin, Comanche and
Colemen, whiuh pr&IbItsd these aities from rsetrelniaf the ao-
tirltlea of Jehorsh’s ‘X~~QSSQ~ under ordinanoes then in foror
fn the respectire oitles. Pedaral &&kg Jmtte8 c. Wlson under-
takes in that oase to set out whet Jehovah’s Xtnesses osn and
oannot do uador the Federal Constitution. He quotes from the
CasQ of .?ohneldQr vs. “tete of Naw Jaraey, 308 U. 3. 147, 60 ?up.
ct. 146, 150, 84 L. Ed. 145, as t011ow9:
*Alt::ou@ R munIolpslIty c;ay caeot regulations
In thQ Intercet of the puhLi0 Safety, health, welfare
or contQnlQnce , these my not abridge the Indlv.Iduel
lltertles seourad by the Conotltution to those who
wish to speak, *rrIte, print or clroulato Informetion
or opinion.
mXunlcipsl autborItle2, :is truntees fcr the publlo,
have t.h.e duty to keep their oomunltlas’ atrcets open
and avellsbla for nOV8mnt Of people +nd property, thQ
prlmry purpose to whloh ttie streets ero dQdi.oated. To
long 88 legislation to this and does not abridge the
cor.stLtutionsl llborty OS one rightfully upon the street
to impart Infomatlon ti;xqh speech or the dlstrlbutlon
of literature, It o:ay Iawf~lly ragulate the conduct of
those usln$ the streets. For txmpie, a person c3uia
.
not cxrrclsr this liberty by taking hi8 stead in thr
middle of s orowded atrset, contrary to trsZfi0 rsg-
uletloas, end calntaln his position to the stoppage
of all traitlo; a group of dlatrlbutors could not
inrlst upon a oonrtitutlonal rlcht to fcm a oordbn
aoroma the street sad to allow no pedestrlsn to pm8
v&o did not aooopt l tendered leaflet; nor do.6 ths
guarantee of freedom of apeeoh or of tha prerr de-
prive a,munlolpsllty of power to rnaot regulation8
agsiost throwfng literature broadoast in the atreetr.
Prohibition af suoh oonduot wuld not abridge the
constltutlonal liberty alaoe such sotivlty beara no
nuoesaary relotlonnhlp to the freedom to speak, urlta,
grlnt or distribute InformatIon or opinion. l**
*rn every asea, therefore, where leglolattvo
abridgement or the rlghtm is asserted, the oourtr
should be astute to examlnc tbe effeot of the ohd-
longed lsglsletlon. Ysro leglalatlrr prsrorenoer or
belief8 reapcctlag imtters~ of pub110 convmiienoe may
.
well support regulation dlreoted ut other personal
ctotlritlOs; but be lnaulfiolant to justffy suoh BU
dlmlnlahes the exerolse of rights st vital to the
nolntananae OS democretla lnstltutl; ns. And oo,aa
cases arise, the delloate and dlfflcult task fella
ur,on the courta to weigh the olraumstances end to
appraise the eabstantlallty oi tte reasons advanaed
in support oi the regulation or the rree enjoyment
0r the4rlghts. . . .*
flnce the -chnelder ease, the tupre~e Court of the
gnited Ttates has passed on thls question numerous tiFes in aon-
section with ordinances xhlch wre enacted to restrain the ao-
tlvltiea of Jehovah’s %Itnessen.
The “uprare Court of the United -tates has held that
an srdlnance of th6 city of Dallas which prohibited the dletrl-
bution of handbills on the streets wss unconstitutional aa applied
to Jehovah’s ‘;iltnessea. Jamlson 98. Texas, 318 U. C. 413, 63 Sup.
ct. 669, 87 L. IC. 569. That same Court held In Cargent vs. Texas
jlS Us Ce 418, 63 Wprerje Court 667, 87 L. i:d. 873, that an ordlnanoe
b’r. N.B.D. Bailey, pa,ga L
.
of the olty of Parla, Texas, whloh makes It unlawlul Sor any
person to aolloit ordera or roll booke, ware8 or merahandlaa
within thr rraldanoe portion of Farla, xlthout first filing
an applloetioa and obtaining 6 permit, whlah xculd be. iaaued
aaly ii after lav66tlg6tlon the Mayor deemedit proper and
ldrlaable, 16 unooa6tltutloml a6 applied to Jehovah'6 Wltneaaer,
III the reoant 06~6 of Yartln va. .Strutbers, 319 U. E.
111, 63 2upruna Court 862, 87 L. Ed. 1316, the l?upranm Oomt ha16
unconatltutlonal 66 applied to Jahoveh’a ultne66e8 an ordlnanoa
of the alty oi Struthera, Ohio, which reada, In pert, as rolltwr:
“. . . It la unlawful ior any person distributing
handbills, clroulara or other advertisements t-o ring
the door bell, round the door knocker, cr otherwise
summonthe inmat or lnmataa of any ra6ldenoe to tha
door tOr the purpoaa oS reoolring such handbills,
olrculara d other edrertlaeaients they or any peraon
wlth~ them may be dlatrlbutlag. . . ,.e
The &pre.ne Court of the Ynltod etetea baa held in one
case thot Jehovah’s ‘:‘ltnesses ney be proseouted end oonvloted un-
&;LL:tatuto of the Xate of Rea fiampshlre,which reads as
:
*?Zo person &all eddre,cs eny oiienalre, derlalve
or annoying words to any other perscn who Is larriully
is the street or In the pub110 plsoe, nor 0611 him
by any orfenslve or derlalve neme. . . ,* Chaplinsky
va. New Ysmpshlre, 315 U. 5. 568, 62 Tupre-a Court 766,
86 L. IId. 1031,
The complaint in that oaae ohargad:
*The corcplalnt ohurged that appellant 'wltb force
and ems, in II certain publio ?leca in s&d city of
KGahoStt?r, t0 wit, on the publio sidewalk on the
easterly site of ,'rakefleld "trtet, near unto the antranaa
Gf the City !fKl i., 31: unlawfully ropeat, the words follow-
ing, edriressad to the ccrpllinant, that 1s to say, 'You
are 6 God desnsd racketeer1 bnd *a damned Facist and the
~ho16 goverment Of Rochester are Fascists or agents of
Faclsts* the se~“e being offensive, derjsive and annoying
words and names. . . ,-
r 2T.e.o. %lll!y, pgc 5
.
‘:e mivht add th%t ttc fsat ttct 80~s ct the ectlvltlea
or J&~veh~s ‘:4tneaaee rzay eppser to be u.npatrlotlo foes not
destroy the protection xhlch they 6rc @tLcrwlsc ent ltlad to under
. the Ccnstltutlon. In our Opinion 30. O-291$, :;hioh was wrltten
Eecenber 13, 1940, :ve held that s tbacher rrry be dlschargtd for
refuse1 to salutti the flq or for refusal to teeoh pupils to
sr,lcte the flq,, or t.sve ;roper reverence for It. Ye predloetcd
this holdlcg on the cT’ze of :.*lcerovllle fchocl district vs. Gobltis,
jr0 ‘T, 7. 586, 60 z-up.ct. 1~10, 84 I. rid.1375. it the next term
oi Court, the %pre:re Cn’Jrt or the United .:t9tos overruled the
Czbitis r’:ecj.olc:: en6 vec:;.tcr: the ,!ud.m.ent ttiere entered by Its
d~c:cl n :!I ‘.cst Vir&n:e: "tntc Ec-.rd of ..dGcstir:n ve. brnette,
319 u. -. 643, 63 3,~. Ct. 1157, 87 L. 4. lG2i3: ~'e therefore
overrule our Dpia:o:~ Yo. o-2915. ~lgo , the ^uprcye Court held
during the October Tern 1941 that Jehovah’s ‘Itnesrea nre sub-
ject to ordinances prescritln.: vcddlers’ llce.1 es, bet et the
next tsr::. of court it overrdcd th:s decic: F hold:18 ttot they
were oat subjeot to any .ilnd of licenat tax. :lurdoc% vs. i.enn.
j19 U. -. 105, 63 Pup. Ct. 370, 891, 97 '. ‘d. 1292, 146 ;.I.?.
'1. LOU&~S VS. i7e:ill~t.ttc, 319 :'.-. 157, 63 'lup.Ct. e77, PS~,
f7 1..xi. 1324.
Trust! :c tkat tho rorsg,ci.it~m:‘I-;ers :our inculry,
at tre
Pour 3 vmy tiUly ,
_-..
4 S&T-b.. .A. P. .r ‘$.A: ., ,. .--..* c ‘.. , r ” .-j,,‘
i._. ..I \.: