Constitutional law — Freedom of speech — Freedom of religion — Street processions — Municipal corporations — Control of highways — Permits.
1. An ordinance of a borough, which provides that all street parades, processions and assemblages or meetings upon any highway, to the interference or exclusion of other citizens in their legal rights in the use thereof, are forbidden unless twenty-four hours notice of the character, time, place and route of the procession or parade, or the object, time and place of the assemblage, is given to the burgess, that the burgess shall have the power to designate by permit the time and place of such assemblage or meeting and as to such procession or parade how much of the streets it will occupy, the time of starting and the length of time of the parade or procession, and that the proper officers of such parade or procession shall be held responsible for the violation of any designation or limitation in the permit, is not invalid, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, on the ground that it is vague and indefinite in failing to define what might constitute "interference or exclusion" of other citizens in their legal rights in the use of streets or that it grants to the burgess an uncontrolled discretion in determining whether or not a given procession comes within the terms of the ordinance.
2. A municipality has the right to keep its streets open and available for the movement of people and property, and to maintain good order, and so long as legislation to this end does not abridge the constitutional liberty of one rightfully upon the street to impart information through speech or the distribution of literature, it may lawfully regulate the conduct of those using the streets.
3. On appeal by defendant from the judgment of the county court, following an appeal, duly allowed, from the judgment of the burgess of a borough on a summary conviction for violation of the provisions of an ordinance, which prohibited parades or processions within the borough without a permit, the judgment was affirmed, where it appeared that numerous members of a sectarian order, bearing signs and placards, crowded along the sidewalks of a borough, that the procession was a disturbance to and an interference with the normal evening shopping and pleasure-bound public, that no permit for the procession was issued in accordance with the ordinance, and that defendant at the hearing before the burgess assumed the responsibility for the procession.
Submitted April 22, 1940.
OPINION BY KELLER, P.J., October 2, 1940:
This is an appeal by Charles R. Hessler from the judgment of the County Court of Allegheny County, following an appeal, duly allowed, from the judgment of the Burgess of the Borough of Homestead on a summary conviction for violation of the provisions of ordinance No. 532 of said borough, approved July 7, 1919, which prohibits parades or processions within the borough without a permit.
The opinion of Judge SOFFEL, speaking for the Court below, states the legal issues so clearly, and so completely justifies the judgment appealed from that we affirm the judgment upon that opinion. We feel, however, that it should be added that in the Stipulation on Evidence, which was printed in lieu of the evidence, it was agreed by the parties that at the hearing before the Burgess, this appellant "assumed the responsibility for the procession".
There is nothing in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington) 308 U.S. 147, 157; Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (ROBERTS, J., May 20, 1940); Carlson v. People (California) 310 U.S. 106 (MURPHY, J., April 22, 1940); Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (MURPHY, J., April 22, 1940), which rules the present case in favor of the appellant or is not distinguishable from this case on the facts.
See also, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, (FRANKFURTER, J., June 3, 1940) and Com. v. Palms, 141 Pa. Super. 430, 15 A.2d 481, decided this day.
Judgment affirmed.