Bates v. City of Little Rock
| Citation | 229 Ark. 819,319 S.W.2d 37 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 4912,4913,s. 4912 |
| Parties | Daisy BATES, Appellant, v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Appellee. Birdie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Robert L. Carter, New York City, George Howard, Jr., Pine Bluff, for appellants.
Joseph C. Kemp and Gardner A. A. Deane, Jr., Little Rock, Reed W. Thompson, North Little Rock, for appellee.
The issue on these appeals is the constitutionality of the so-called 'Bennett Ordinance', which was enacted by the City of Little Rock, and also by the City of North Little Rock. Appellant Bates was fined $25 for violation of the Little Rock ordinance; and appellant Williams was fined $25 for violation of the North Little Rock ordinance. There were separate appeals; but the cases are disposed of in this single opinion since constitutionality is the point at issue in each case, and the claims and defenses of each appellant are the same.
On October 14, 1957, the City of Little Rock 1 adopted its Ordinance No. 10638 (here under attack), reading in its entirety as follows:
'An Ordinance Requiring Certain Organizations Functioning or Operating Within the City of Little Rock, Arkansas to List Certain Information With the City Clerk: and for Other Purposes.
'Whereas, it has been found and determined that certain organizations within the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, have been claiming immunity from the terms of Ordinance No. 7444, as amended, governing the payment of occupation licenses levied for the privilege of doing business within the city, upon the premise that such organizations are benevolent, charitable, mutual benefit, fraternal, or non-profit, and
'Whereas, many such organizations claiming the occupation license exemption are mere subterfuges for businesses being operated for profit which are subject to the occupation license ordinance;
'Now, Therefore, be it Ordained by the City Council of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas:
'Section 1. The word 'organization' as used herein means any group of individuals, whether incorporated or unincorporated.
'Section 2. Any organization operating or functioning within the City of Little Rock, including but not limited to civic, fraternal, political, mutual benefit, legal, medical, trade, or other organization, upon the request of the Mayor, Alderman, Member of the Board of Directors, City Clerk, City Collector, or City Attorney, shall list with the City Clerk the following information within 15 days after such request is submitted:
'A. The official name of the organization.
'B. The office, place of business, headquarters or usual meeting place of such organization.
'C. The officers, agents, servants, employees or representatives of such organization, and the salaries paid to them.
'D. The purpose or purposes of such organization.
'E. A financial statement of such organization, including dues, fees, assessments and/or contributions paid, by whom paid, and the date thereof, together with the statement reflecting the disposition of such sums, to whom and when paid, together with the total net income of such organization.
'F. An affidavit by the president or other officiating officer of the organization stating whether the organization is subordinate to a parent organization, and if so, the name of the parent organization.
'Section 3. This ordinance shall be cumulative to other ordinances heretofore passed by the City with reference to occupation licenses and the collection thereof.
'Section 4. All information obtained pursuant to this ordinance shall be deemed public and subject to the inspection of any interested party at all reasonable business hours.
'Section 5. Any section or part of this ordinance declared to be unconstitutional or void shall not affect the remaining sections of the ordinance, and to this end the sections or subsections hereof are declared to be severable.
'Section 6. Any person or organization who shall violate the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not less than $50.00 nor more than $250.00, and each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense. The City Council in the enforcement of this ordinance shall have the power to seek injunctive relief.
Daisy Bates, a resident of Little Rock, is the State President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (hereinafter referred to by the letters 'NAACP'); and Birdie Williams, a resident of North Little Rock, is President of the North Little Rock Branch of the NAACP. Daisy Bates was notified to comply with the Little Rock ordinance, and Birdie Williams was notified to comply with the North Little Rock ordinance. Each furnished all the information required by the ordinance except that part of Section E, which requires that there be furnished: 'A financial statement of such organization, including dues, fees, assessments, and/or contributions paid, by whom paid, and the date thereof, together with the statement reflecting the disposition of such sums, to whom and when paid, together with the total net income of such organization'. In refusing to furnish the information required by Section E, Daisy Bates (by her attorney) advised the City of Little Rock:
'E. The financial statement is as follows
'January 1, 1957 to December 1, 1957
'Total receipts from memberships and contributors $1,791.55
'Total expenditures 1,491.46
---------
'Balance on Hand $300.09
'F. I am attaching my affidavit as president indicating that we are a Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a New York Corporation.
'We cannot give you any information with respect to the names and addresses of our members and contributors or any information which may lead to the ascertainment of such information. We base this refusal on the anti-NAACP climate in this State. It is our good faith and belief that the public disclosure of the names of our members and contributors might lead to their harassment, economic reprisals, and even bodily harm. Moreover, even aside from that possibility, we have been advised by our counsel, and we do so believe that the City has no right under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arkansas to demand the names and addresses of our members and contributors. We assert on behalf of the organization and its members the right to contribute to the NAACP and to seek under its aegis to accomplish the aims and purposes herein described free from any restraints or interference from City or State officials. In addition we assert the right of our members and contributors to participate in the activities of NAACP anonymously, a right which has been recognized as the basic right of every American citizen since the founding of this country.
'I am enclosing herein a copy of the Constitution of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Constitution and By-Laws for Branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.'
A similar refusal for similar reasons was made by Birdie Williams, concerning the North Little Rock request. For refusal to furnish the requested information each appellant was fined $25 by the Circuit Court; and each in prosecuting her appeal to this Court raises this Federal issue: the ordinance involved--insofar as it requires the names and addresses of the members of and contributors to, the local branch of the NAACP, is an invasion of the rights guaranteed by the amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 2 All the other points urged blend into the one just stated.
The appellants have cited and discussed, inter alia: National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070; Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660; Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192; Pennekamp v. State of Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 66 S.Ct. 1029, 90 L.Ed. 1295; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 63 S.Ct. 997, 87 L.Ed. 1344; Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098; De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 57 S.Ct. 255, 81 L.Ed. 278; Joint Anti-Facist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817; Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093; N.A.A.C.P. v. Patty, D.C.E.D.Va.1958, 159 F.Supp. 503; and American Communications Ass'n, C. I. O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925. Also in the oral argument before this Court appellants laid great stress on the case of N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488, which was decided after the filing of appellant's brief in this Court. It was claimed that N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama was conclusive against the validity of the ordinance here challenged.
It would unduly extend this opinion to review each of the above cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v. City of Little Rock
...the cases were consolidated in the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and, with two justices dissenting, the convictions were upheld. 229 Ark. 819, 319 S.W.2d 37, 43 [Fastcase Editorial Note: The Court's reference to 229 Ark. 819, 319 S.W.2d 37 is short for Bates v. City of Little Rock, 229 Ark. 81......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADV. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Bennett
...complying with the ordinance. This is but an application of the old statement that one cannot both eat his cake and keep it." 319 S.W.2d at pages 41, 42 and 43. This court sees nothing in the Bates decision which sheds any light on how the Supreme Court of Arkansas will construe Act 12 as a......