City of Chicago v. Trotter

• Decision Date: 22 January 1891
• Citation: 136 Ill. 430,26 N.E. 359
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. TROTTER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

136 Ill. 430

26 N.E. 359

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.TROTTER.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 22, 1891.

Error to appellate court, first district.

Action brought by the city of Chicago against John Trotter, a member of the Salvation Army, for marching in a procession through the streets of the city without a permit. Defendant was found guilty, but the judgment was reversed by the appellate court. The city brings error.

John A. May and W. J. Bulger, for plaintiff in error.

McMurdy & Job and Griggs & Allen, for defendant in error.

BAKER, J.

The city of Chicago is organized under the general act for the incorporation of cities and villages, (Rev. St. c. 24.) Among the powers given to the city council by the various clauses of section 1 of article 5 of the act are these: To regulate the use of the public streets; to regulate and prohibit the exhibition or carrying of banners, placards, advertisements, or hand-bills in the streets or public grounds, or upon the sidewalks; to prevent and suppress riots, routs, affrays, noises, disturbances, and disorderly assemblies in any public or private place; to declare what should be a nuisance, and to abate the same, and to impose fines upon parties who may create, continue, or suffer nuisances to exist; to prevent and regulate the rolling of hoops, playing of ball, flying of kites, or any other amusement or practice having a tendency to annoy persons passing in the streets or on the sidewalks, or to frighten teams and horses; to regulate the police of the city, and pass and enforce all necessary police ordinances. Section 1 of an ordinance of the city passed July 23, 1886, is as follows: ‘Section 1. That no parades or processions shall be allowed upon the streets of the city, nor shall any open-air meeting be held upon any ground abutting upon any street or avenue of the city, until a permit therefor shall first be obtained from the police department, under a penalty of not less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars. Such permits shall be issued, without fee, by the superintendent of police, and shall, in the case of parades and processions, specify the route to be followed upon the streets of the city.’

This suit is a prosecution by the city against John Trotter, the appellee, for a violation of said section of said ordinance. The question at issue is the validity or invalidity of the ordinance. It is to be noted that the several charter powers above enumerated, and which, it is insisted, authorize and sustain the enactment under consideration, are powers that are conferred upon, and are to be exercised by, the city council. Parades and processions...