Commonwealth v. Abrahams

• Citation: 156 Mass. 57,30 N.E. 79
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. ABRAHAMS.
• Decision Date: 26 February 1892
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

156 Mass. 57

30 N.E. 79

COMMONWEALTH v. ABRAHAMS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 26, 1892

This was a criminal complaint, charging defendant with violating the rules of the board of park commissioners of the city of Boston. Franklin park is a public park purchased under the authority of chapter 185, St.1875, and under said act a board of park commissioners was constituted which, in the due exercise of its authority thereunder forbade all persons "to make orations, harangues, or loud outcries" therein, except with prior consent of the board, under penalty of $20. The total area of said park is about 520 acres. Within its limits are large areas not devoted to any special purpose, and not having any shrubbery that would be injured by the gathering thereon of a large concourse of people. On July 4, 1891, defendant, with some 12 others, without consent of the park commissioners, entered the park, and delivered an oration or harangue of about 10 or 15 minutes in length. It contained nothing inflammatory or seditious, and was delivered in an ordinary, oratorical tone. Some of the listeners applauded by clapping their hands. At the close of the oration the audience quietly dispersed. No injury of any kind was done to the park.

COUNSEL

Geo C. Travis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

G.F. Williams and GW. Anderson, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

The park commissioners had, by the Statutes of 1875, c. 185, § 3 power "to govern and regulate" any of the parks which they might lay out under the statute, "to make rules for the use and government thereof, and for breaches of such rules to affix penalties, not exceeding $20 for one offense, to be imposed by any court of competent jurisdiction." The rules which the defendant violated are similar in form to the city ordinance which was before the court in Com. v. Davis, 140 Mass. 485, 4 N.E. 577, and which was held to be reasonable and valid. Of that ordinance Chief Justice MORTON said: "Its purpose is to preserve the public peace, and to protect the public grounds from injury; and it is calculated to effect these ends without violating the just rights of any citizen." The same language is applicable to the rules before us. See, also, Com. v. Plaisted, 148 Mass. 375, 19 N.E. 224; Quincy v. Kennard, 151 Mass. 563, 24 N.E. 860. We see nothing in these rules inconsistent with article 19 of the bill of rights of this commonwealth, which declares that "the people have a right, in an orderly and...