[Translator's note: This is one of a series of articles on this subject.]

Judge McAllister gave the following decision in the case of Harmonia vs. Hickey et al.:

"The plaintiff in this case is an incorporated society of workers and brings suit against several persons because of a raid on the hall of the plaintiff and enforced dispersion and interruption of the meeting assembled at said hall.

"It was agreed that all legal means of defense would be admissible, and the 2case was given to the judge without inclusion of a jury. The facts, as shown by a large number of witnesses and which are not disproved in any manner whatsoever, are as follows:

"The plaintiff had rented the Turnhalle for July 26, 1877, on West Twelfth Street, in which to hold a meeting on the morning of the aforesaid day, and two hundred to three hundred persons were present, mostly carpenters, apprentices, and cabinet makers; and also several manufacturers or representatives of manufacturers. The purpose of the meeting was to consult with the manufacturers or their representatives on matters appertaining to wage increases or reduction in working hours. All participants were unarmed and the meeting proceeded quietly and peaceably. The audience did not face the entrance to the hall; only a few people were on the stage opposite, and all these were wholly concerned with the business at hand. Suddenly fifteen to twenty-five policemen rushed into the hall. Many of them, if not all, held a club in one hand, and a gun in the other. They did not wait to ascertain the 3character of the meeting but at once started waving their clubs, shouting: 'Get out of here, you damned sons of bitches!' [Translator's note: the judge's words are given in English.] Several policemen actually fired into the crowd, and a young man was shot in the back of the head and died. To augment this brutality the police stationed themselves on both sides of the stairway leading to the hall, and apparently wielded their clubs with full force as they belabored the men who fled from the assembly hall.

"These facts in general have been established by overwhelming evidence given by many witnesses. In regard to the legal questions involved it is not necessary to go into further detail.

"As a means of bringing the affair to the attention of the court, the defendants were permitted to offer testimony of witnesses showing that at about the time of the aforesaid incident there was a riot in the city in connection with 4which a man was killed. It was not established who committed the manslaughter.

"At the close of the testimony the attorney for the plaintiff stated that the sole object of the litigation was to obtain a decision whether the people present at the meeting had a constitutional right to assemble peaceably for the purpose herein stated, and whether the police of the city, or anyone else, had any right to raid the hall and break up the meeting. He asserted that, in order to emphasize this point, the plaintiff was willing to forego all claims for damages with the exception of a nominal amount.

"The greatest political privilege of our citizens is the right to vote, whereby the people exercise their will; but they have two other rights of almost equal importance:

The right of free speech and a free press.

5

The right of peaceful assembly for the purpose of peaceably conferring on matters affecting the welfare of the community.

"These rights are fundamental in so far as our institutions are concerned and are definitely protected by the Constitution.

"Paragraph 17, Article 2, of the Bill of Rights proclaims [Translator's note: The quotation is from the Second Amendment to the Constitution.] 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

"Jurists do not regard this paragraph of the Bill of Rights as something on which laws are to be based, but they consider it an assurance against any 6curtailment of aforesaid rights by any branch of the government. These rights in themselves are regarded as natural and undeniable, applicable to every individual; and, also, as political rights arising naturally out of the system on which a free government is founded. The assurance given by the Constitution is a bulwark against any legislative or other attack on the part of the government. If an individual's rights are impaired, regardless of whether these rights are of a natural or political order, he may apply to the courts for protection.

"The principle, 'Ubi jus, ibi remedium,' also applies here. If anyone is within his right, then, according to Chief Justice Holt in Ashby vs. White 2. Lord Raym. 953, there must be means available to enforce the law guaranteeing this right; and there must also be a remedy if his rights are infringed upon. It would be absolutely foolish to speak of rights, if no means existed to guarantee them, since a denial of rights and a denial of legal enforcement amount to the same thing.

7

"Since the right of the people to assemble peaceably in order to confer on matters appertaining to their welfare is guaranteed by the Constitution, one may apply this principle in general without considering the power of the state in its various phases. One cannot assert that the interests of the labor class do not affect the common weal. Our own state, even, passed laws covering the very question which brought about the aforesaid meeting. These laws are considered state laws, because they affect the welfare of the state.

"Since the right to assemble peaceably is established, and, as it is proved that the meeting was a peaceable affair which was broken up by brutal force, we must now consider whether the persons can be sued who participated in, ordered, or encouraged, directly or indirectly, the perpetration of this outrage.

"Judge Cooley in his new, excellent work on Torts mentions legal means 8against disturbances of political meetings and expresses himself as follows: 'If anyone intentionally disturbs a lawful meeting for the purpose of disrupting and breaking up such an assemblage, then he violates the rights of those who are in temporary possession of the meeting place. If several persons are associated in such an endeavor, then it may terminate in a riot, according to the Criminal Code.'

"This explanation of the law appears so correct that it would be a waste of time to quote further proof.

"That everyone who participated in the violent disruption of the meeting, whether ordering, abetting or in any other manner associating himself there-with, transgressed against the rights of the plaintiff cannot be denied, and the procedure was obviously riotous and criminal, because no information was sought regarding the character of the assemblage before deadly weapons were 9used in attacking the people present.

"The only remaining question, therefore, is: 'Who among the defendants actually perpetrated the deeds enumerated in the plaintiff's petition, or who ordered, encouraged, or took part in the aforesaid actions?'

"In my opinion the evidence failed to show who of the defendants were responsible for the occurrences with the exception of Brennan and Householder.

"In regard to the latter it was shown that he was in the hall and participated in the violence. Brennan was the police sergeant and commanded the police who were in the place at the time in question. Householder testified that the sergeant gave orders to clear the hall. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that the large force of policemen who raided the 10hall acted without orders from a superior. Obviously the police were intent upon breaking up the assemblage without regard to its character.

"Brennan stayed on the street in front of the hall. Witnesses declared that he fired at people who had committed no unlawful acts. Jacob Beiersdorff, a furniture manufacturer employing more than two hundred people, was invited to the meeting and came to the hall. As he entered a harmless old man, who apparently had not done anything, was struck in a most brutal manner by a policeman and fell to the floor. Following a humanitarian impulse, Beiersdorff forgot everything else and took care of the injured man. This occurred in the presence of Brennan, who also witnessed other acts of violence perpetrated by the men under his command. Had he done his duty, he would have noted and restrained the transgressions and brutality of his subordinates. He was present and encouraged the men who committed these despicable felonies. He and Householder are liable in a civil suit for the breaking up of the afore-mentioned meeting, because Brennan was the leader during the transgressions11 and Householder took part in them. The other defendants are discharged. Damages awarded, six cents."