Walker v. City of Birmingham
| Decision Date | 09 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 999 |
| Citation | 181 So.2d 493,279 Ala. 53 |
| Parties | Ex parte Wyatt Tee Walker et al. In re Wyatt Tee WALKER et al. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. M. Breckenridge and Earl McBee, Birmingham, for respondent.
We review by certiorari convictions of petitioners for criminal contempt for violating a temporary injunction issued by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in equity.
On April 10, 1963, the City of Birmingham, a municipal corporation, presented its verified bill of complaint to one of the judges of the Tenth Judicial Circuit. The bill prayed for temporary and permanent injunctions. The judge to whom the bill was presented ordered the temporary injunction to issue upon the City's making bond for $2,500.00. The prescribed bond was filed and injunction issued out of the circuit court and was served on certain of petitioners.
The return of the sheriff shows that a copy of the injunction was personally served on petitioners as follows:
On Martin Luther King, A. D. King, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Wyatt Tee Walker, and Ralph Abernathy on April 11, 1963, at 1:00 a. m.;
On John Thomas Porter on April 12, 1963, at 4:13 p. m.; and
On N. H. Smith, Jr. on April 15, 1963, at 8:35 a. m.
We have not found a return of the sheriff showing service on the other petitioners who were adjudged to be in contempt. Notice to those not personally served is hereinafter discussed.
The injunction recites in part as follows:
'THESE, THEREFORE, are to temporarily Enjoin you Wyatt Tee Walker; Ralph Abernathy; Al Hibler; F. L. Shuttlesworth; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Aberham Woods, Jr.; Calvin Woods; A. D. King; Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights by serving copy on Fred L. Shuttlesworth as President, and all other persons in active concert or participation with the respondents to this action and all persons having notice of this action from engaging, sponsoring, inciting or encouraging mass street parades or mass processions or like demonstrations without a permit, trespass on private property after being warned to leave the premises by the owner or person in possession of said private property, congregating on the street or public places into mobs, and unlawfully picketing business establishments or public buildings in the City of Birmingham Jefferson County, State of Alabama or performing acts calculated to cause breaches of the peace in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, in the State jof Alabama or from conspiring to engage in unlawful street parades, unlawful processions, unlawful demonstrations, unlawful boycotts, unlawful trespasses, and unlawful picketing or other like unlawful conduct or from violating the ordinances of the City of Birmingham and the Statutes of the State of Alabama or from doing any acts designed to consumate (sic) conspiracies to engage in said unlawful acts of parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing or other unlawful acts, or from engaging in acts and conduct customarily known as 'Kneel-In's' in churches in violation of the wishes and desires of said churches, until further orders from this Court; and this you will in no wise omit under penalty, etc.'
On April 11, 12, and 13, 1963, certain meetings were held at which some or all of petitioners were present.
On April 11, 1963, 'The Revs. King, Abernathy, and Shuttlesworth were seated
at the round table.' Several copies of 'a news bulletin put out by the Alabama Christians for Human Rights' were brought there by 'Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker.' After the bulletin was distributed to members of the press, '* * * Rev. Martin Luther King took one copy of it and read verbatim the entire text.' The paper he read appears in the record as follows:
'COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 2
'NEWS from
'ALABAMA CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
5051/2 No. 17th Street
B'ham, Ala.
'STATEMENT BY M. L. KING, JR., F. L. SHUTTLESWORTH, RALPH D. ABERNATHY, et al. FOR ENGAGING IN PEACEFUL DESEGREGATION DEMONSTRATIONS
'In our struggle for freedom we have anchored our faith and hope in the rightness of the Constitution and the moral laws of the universe.
'Again and again the Federal judiciary has made it clear that the priviledges (sic) guaranteed under the First and the Fourteenth Amendments are to (sic) sacred to be trampled upon by the machinery of state government and police power. In the past we have abided by Federal injunctions out of respect for the forthright and consistent leadership that the Federal judiciary has given in establishing the principle of integration as the law of the land.
'However we are now confronted with recalcitrant forces in the Deep South that will use the courts to perpetuate the unjust and illegal system of racial separation.
'Alabama has made clear its determination to defy the law of the land. Most of its public officials, its legislative body and many of its law enforcement agents have openly defied the desegregation decision of the Supreme Court. We would feel morally and legal responsible to obey the injunction if the courts of Alabama applied equal justice to all of its citizens.
'MORE
MORE MHH
-2-
sameness made legal. However the ussuance (sic) of this injunction is a blatant of difference made legal.
'Southern law enforcement agencies have demonstrated now and again that they will utilize the force of law to misuse the judicial process.
'This is raw tyranny under the guise of maintaining law and order. We cannot in all good conscience obey such an injunction which is an unjust, undemocratic and unconstitutional misuse of the legal process.
'We do this not out of any desrespect (sic) for the law but out of the highest respect for the law. This is not an attempt to evade or defy the law or engage in chaotic anarchy. Just as in all good conscience we cannot obey unjust laws, neither can we respect the unjust use of the courts.
'We believe in a system of law based on justice and morality. Out of our great love for the Constitution of the U. S. and our desire to purify the judicial system of the state of Alabama, we risk this critical move with an awareness of the possible consequences involved.
'FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Phone 324-5944
Wyatt tee walker
Officer' '* * * Shuttlesworth read from a typed statement more or less re-affirming what was said in the statement that was read by Rev. King.' Shuttlesworth made the statement:
"That they had respect for the Federal Courts, or Federal Injunctions, but in the past the State Courts had favored local law enforcement, and if the police couldn't handle it, the mob would."
'* * * Rev. Martin Luther, in response to a question, said, 'We will continue today, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and on.' * * *'
Lieutenant House testified:
'Q All right. Now, a moment ago, you made the statement all three of them said that they were going to proceed regardless of the injunction, or words to that affect. I don't recall the exact words you used.
'A I don't recall whether they said regardless of the injunction, but all three of them in their statement says, 'This statement that Rev. Martin Luther King read was a joint statement of the three,' and so stated on the top of his statement, and all three of them mentioned knowledge of the injunction, and said they were going to continue on. I believe Rev. Martin Luther King stated that the--just before stating, 'We will continue on today, tomorrow, and Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, and on', just before that remark, he stated that, 'The attorneys would attempt to dissolve the injunction, but we will continue on today, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and on'.
'* * *
'Q What sort of reaction did you hear from those present, including the Rev. A. D. King?
J. Walter Johnson, Jr., reporter for Associated Press, testified:
'Q Were you present when the injunction was served?
'A Yes, I was.
'Q You were present, and that was in the middle of the night, you say?
'A Yes.
'Q Was this remark made then at that time?
'A That direct quote, they were marching at the--just a minute, and I will be happy to find it. He said this direct--this is what Shuttlesworth said, speaking of the injunction handed to him: 'This is a flagrant denial of our constitutional privileges.'
'Q All right.
'A 'In no way will this retard the thrust of this movement.' He said they would have to study the details. He said, 'An Alabama injunction is used to misuse certain constitutional privileges that will never be trampled on by an injunction. That is what they were saying that particular night right after the injunction.
'Q All right, who was present there at that time?
'A Ralph Abernathy was there, Martin Luther King, Mr. Shuttlesworth, Wyatt Tee Walker, and there was some others I did not recognize, did not know them.
'Q Some you did not know?
'a Some I did not know. Abernathy made a statement at that time also. He said, 'An injunction nor anything else will stop the Negro from obtaining citizenship in his march for freedom."
Elvin Stanton, news director for WSGN Radio, testified that he was present at a meeting on April 11th, and that:
Petitioners did not obtain a permit to march or parade. A march or parade occurred on Friday, April 12, and another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. City of Birmingham
...contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished. Howat v. State of Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550.' 279 Ala. 53, 60, 62—63, 181 So.2d 493, 500, 502. Howat v. State of Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550, was decided by this Court almost 50 years ago. That was......
-
Mechanic v. Gruensfelder
...of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210, affirming contempt convictions upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court, 279 Ala. 53, 181 So.2d 493. The Walker case bears striking similarity to the cases now before us. The City brought its bill of complaint seeking injunctive relief......
-
Berry, In re
...v. State of Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550.' (388 U.S. at p. 313, 87 S.Ct. at p. 1828, quoting from 279 Ala. 53, 60, 62--63, 181 So,2d 493, 500, 502.) The Supreme Court of the United States set forth the issue before it in the following terms: 'In the present case * * * we......
-
Ex parte Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings." Ex parte Purvis, 382 So.2d 512, 514 (Ala.1980); see Walker v. City of Birmingham, 279 Ala. 53, 181 So.2d 493 (1966), affirmed, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967); and United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 3......