Davis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 229
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | WHITE |
| Citation | 167 U.S. 43,17 S.Ct. 731,42 L.Ed. 71 |
| Decision Date | 10 May 1897 |
| Docket Number | No. 229 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS |
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Page 44
It was charged against the plaintiff in error, in the municipal court of the city of Boston, that 'in and upon certain public grounds of said city, within said district, called the 'Common," he 'did make a public address, the same not being then and there in accordance with a permit from the mayor of said city, against the peace of said commonwealth, the form of the statute of said commonwealth, and the revised ordinance of said city in such cases made and provided.'
The ordinance claimed to be violated was section 66 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Boston (1893), and reads as follows:
'Sec. 66. No person shall, in or upon any of the public grounds, make any public address, discharge any cannon or firearm, expose for sale any goods, wares or merchandise, erect or maintain any booth, stand, tent or apparatus for the purposes of public amusement or show, except in accordance with a permit from the mayor.'
The proceedings were removed to the superior court of the county of Suffolk, where the accused renewed a motion which he had interposed in the municipal court to quash the complaint. The grounds assigned in support of this motion were seven in number, and, among other objections, it was substantially asserted that the ordinance violated rights alleged to be secured to the accused by the constitution of the state, and by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. The motion to quash being overruled, and an exception noted, the accused was tried before the court and a jury.
At the trial the government put in evidence the ordinance heretofore referred to, and called the attention of the court to suctions 35 and 39 of chapter 448 of the acts passed by the legislature of Massachusetts in the year 1854, which sections are as follows:
'Sec. 35. All other powers heretofore by law vested in the town of Boston or in the inhabitants thereof as a municipal corporation, or in the city council of the city of Boston, shall be and hereby are continued to be vested in the mayor, aldermen and common council of the said city, to be exercised by
Page 45
concurrent vote, each board, as hereby constituted, having a negative upon the proceedings of the other, and the mayor having a veto power as hereinafter provided.
'More especially they shall have power to make all such needful and salutary by-laws and ordinances not inconsistent with the laws of this commonwealth as towns by the laws of this commonwealth have power to make and establish, and to annex penalties not exceeding fifty dollars for the breach thereof, which by-laws and ordinances shall take effect and be in force from and after the time therein respectively limited without the sanction or confirmation of any court or other authority whatsoever.
'Sec. 39. The city council shall have the care and superintendence of the public buildings, and the care, custody and management of all the property of the city, with power to lease or sell the same except the common and Faneuil Hall. And the said city council shall have power to purchase property, real or personal, in the name and for the use of the city, whenever its interest or convenience may in their judgment require it.'
In behalf of the accused, 11 instructions were requested to be given to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
News Printing Co. v. Borough of Totowa
...officials enforcing it modified and affirmed) Justice Roberts rejected the contention of the petitioners that Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (1897) should In the instant case the ordinance deals only with the exercise of the right of assembly for the purpose ......
-
Pocatello Educ. Ass'n v. Heideman, No. 06-35004.
...property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."); Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 47, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (1897) (analogizing the government's control over public property to that of "the owner of a private house"). F......
-
Kay, In re, Cr. 13533
...82 L.Ed. 949 (distribution of literature without permission of city manager, $50 fine, conviction reversed); Davis v. Massachusetts (1897) 167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (holding meeting without a permit, fine of unstated amount, conviction 3 Since Congressman Tunney's appearance at......
-
City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc., No. 73005-9.
...Posting on Public Property to Advance Local Aesthetic Concerns, 34 DEPAUL L.REV. 197 (1984). To the contrary, in Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (1897), the Supreme Court emphatically rejected any right of access. The Court equated the state's position to that......
-
News Printing Co. v. Borough of Totowa
...officials enforcing it modified and affirmed) Justice Roberts rejected the contention of the petitioners that Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (1897) should In the instant case the ordinance deals only with the exercise of the right of assembly for the purpose ......
-
Pocatello Educ. Ass'n v. Heideman, No. 06-35004.
...property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."); Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 47, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (1897) (analogizing the government's control over public property to that of "the owner of a private house"). F......
-
Kay, In re, Cr. 13533
...82 L.Ed. 949 (distribution of literature without permission of city manager, $50 fine, conviction reversed); Davis v. Massachusetts (1897) 167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (holding meeting without a permit, fine of unstated amount, conviction 3 Since Congressman Tunney's appearance at......
-
City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc., No. 73005-9.
...Posting on Public Property to Advance Local Aesthetic Concerns, 34 DEPAUL L.REV. 197 (1984). To the contrary, in Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71 (1897), the Supreme Court emphatically rejected any right of access. The Court equated the state's position to that......
-
The Fiction of the First Freedom
...Pictures, 334 U.S. 131 (1948). 14 Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 (1948); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949). 15 Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43 (1879); Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 494 (1939); Snyder v. Milwaukee, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Cox v. New Hampshire, ......