Commonwealth v. Davis
| Decision Date | 01 January 1895 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. DAVIS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James W Pickering, for defendant.
M.J Sughrue, 2d Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
The only question raised by these exceptions which was not decided in the former case of Com. v. Davis, 140 Mass. 485, 4 N.E. 577, is one concerning the construction of the present ordinance. That such an ordinance is constitutional is implied by the former decision, and does not appear to us open to doubt. To say that it is unconstitutional means that, even if the legislature has purported to authorize it, the attempt was vain. The argument to that effect involves the same kind of fallacy that was dealt with in McAuliffe v. New Bedford, 155 Mass 216, 29 N.E. 517. It assumes that the ordinance is directed against free speech generally (as in Village of Des Plaines v. Boyer, 123 Ill. 348, 14 N.E. 677, the ordinance held void was directed against public picnics and open-air dances generally), whereas in fact it is directed toward the modes in which Boston Common may be used. There is no evidence before us to show that the power of the legislature over the common is less than its power over any other park dedicated to the use of the public, or over public streets, the legal title to which is in a city or town. Lincoln v. Boston, 148 Mass. 578, 580, 20 N.E. 329. As representative of the public, it may and does exercise control over the use which the public may make of such places, and it may and does delegate more or less of such control to the city or town immediately concerned. For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in his house. When no proprietary rights interfere, the legislature may end the right of the public to enter upon the public place by putting an end to the dedication to public uses. So it may take the less step of limiting the public use to certain purposes. See Dill.Mun.Corp. §§ 393, 407 651, 656, 666; Commissioners v. Armstrong 45 N.Y. 234, 243, 244.
If the legislature had power, under the constitution, to pass a law in the form of the present ordinance, there is no doubt that it could authorize the city of Boston to pass the ordinance and it is settled by the former decision that it has done so. As matter of history, we suppose, there is no doubt that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization
...71, affirming the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking through Mr. Justice Holmes, in Commonwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510, 39 N.E. 113, 26 L.R.A. 712, 44 Am.St.Rep. 389, and that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be reversed. 1 'The Board of Commissioners of Je......
-
Lowell v. City of Boston
...Mass. 187, 188;Lincoln v. Boston, 148 Mass. 578, 580, 20 N.E. 329,3 L.R.A. 257, 12 Am.St.Rep. 601;Commonwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510, 511, 39 N.E. 113,26 L.R.A. 712, 44 Am.St.Rep. 389. The petitioners, in support of their contention that the town took the title subject to a trust for the ......
-
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization
...731, 42 L.Ed. 71, upon appeal from a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Davis, reported in 162 Mass. 510, 39 N.E. 113, 26 L.R.A. 712, 44 Am.St.Rep. 389. In the cited case an ordinance of Boston forbade speaking on the Common without a permit from the ci......
-
Bizzell v. Bd. Of Aldermen Of City Of Goldsboro
...for that purpose is sustained by the great weight of authority (Quincy v. Kennard, 151 Mass. 563 ; Commonwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510 [39 N. E. 113, 20 L. R. A. 712, 44 Am. St. Rep. 389]), and by this court the delegation of such power, even to a single individual, was sustained in Wilson......
-
Associational speech.
...Ct. 2971, 2984 (2010). (171.) See, e.g., Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 67:2 (1992). (172.) Commonwealth v. Davis, 39 N.E. 113 (Mass. 1895) (Holmes, J.), aff'd, 167 U.S. 43 (173.) Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). (174.) Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939......
-
CROSSING DOCTRINES: CONFLATING STANDING AND THE MERITS UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
...note 73 and accompanying text. (108.) Whether such exclusion would have been found invalid is another matter. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 39 N.E. 113 (Mass. 1895) (Holmes, (109.) 568 U.S. 398(2013). (110.) Id. at 416. (111.) Id. (112.) United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 168 (1974). (......
-
Types.
...(84.) 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). (85.) McAuliffe v. Mayor and Board of Alderman of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 (1892) Commonwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510 (1895) aff'd sub nom, Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. (86.) See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (holding statute conditioning rec......
-
The dangers of fighting terrorism with technocommunitarianism: constitutional protections of free expression, exploration, and unmonitored activity in urban spaces.
...(1991). (123.) GALEN CRANZ, THE POLITICS OF PARK DESIGN: A HISTORY OF URBAN PARKS IN AMERICA 23, 77 (1982). (124.) Commonwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510, 511 (125.) Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 44 (1897) (126.) Tien, supra note 103, at 121. (127.) Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 ......