The Mormon Church cases were decided prior to the emergence of the clear and present danger doctrine dealt with below. In its consideration of cases stemming from State and local legislation the Court has endeavored at times to take account of this doctrine, with the result that its decisions have followed a somewhat erratic course. The leading case is Cantwell v. Connecticut.[49] Here three members of the sect calling itself Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds on the representation that they were for religious or charitable purposes, and also on a general charge of breach of the peace by accosting in a strongly Catholic neighborhood two communicants of that faith and playing to them a phonograph record which grossly insulted the Christian religion in general and the Catholic church in particular. Both convictions were held to violate the constitutional guarantees of speech and religion, the clear and present danger rule being invoked in partial justification of the holding, although it is reasonably inferable from the Court's own recital of the facts that the listeners to the phonograph record exhibited a degree of self-restraint rather unusual under the circumstances. Two weeks later the Court, as if to "compensate" for its zeal in the Cantwell Case, went to the other extreme, and urging the maxim that legislative acts must be presumed to be constitutional, sustained the State of Pennsylvania in excluding from its schools children of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who in the name of their beliefs refused to salute the flag.[50] The subsequent record of the Court's holdings in this field is somewhat variable. A decision in June, 1942, sustaining the application to vendors of religious books and pamphlets of a nondiscriminatory license fee[51] was eleven months later vacated and formally reversed;[52] shortly thereafter a like fate overtook the decision in the "Flag Salute" Case.[53] In May, 1943, the Court found that an ordinance of the city of Struthers, Ohio, which made it unlawful for anyone distributing literature to ring a doorbell or otherwise summon the dwellers of a residence to the door to receive such literature, was violative of the Constitution when applied to distributors of leaflets advertising a religious meeting.[54] But eight months later it sustained the application of Massachusetts' child labor laws in the case of a nine year old girl who was permitted by her legal custodian to engage in "preaching work" and the sale of religious publications after hours.[55] However, in Saia v. New York[56] decided in 1948, the Court held, by a vote of five Justices to four, that an ordinance of the city of Lockport, New York, which forbade the use of sound amplification devices except with the permission of the Chief of Police was unconstitutional as applied in the case of a Jehovah's Witness who used sound equipment to amplify lectures in a public park on Sunday, on religious subjects. But a few months later the same Court, again dividing five-to-four, sustained a Trenton, New Jersey ordinance which banned from that city's streets all loud speakers and other devices which emit "loud and raucous noises."[57] The latest state of the doctrine on this particular topic is represented by three cases, all decided the same day. In one the conviction of a Baptist minister for conducting religious services in the streets of New York City without first obtaining a permit from the city police commissioner was overturned,[58] a permit having been refused him on the ground that he had in the past ridiculed other religious beliefs thereby stirring strife and threatening violence. Justice Jackson dissented, quoting Mr. Bertrand Russell to prove that "too little liberty brings stagnation, and too much brings chaos. The fever of our times," he suggested, "inclines the Court today to favor chaos."[59] In the second, the Court upset the conviction of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses in Maryland for using a public park without first obtaining a permit.[60] The third case,[61] which had nothing to do with religion, affords an interesting foil to the other two. It is dealt with in another connection.[62]
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENSHIP
In 1918 the Court rejected as too unsound to require more than a mere statement the argument that the Selective Service Act was repugnant to the First Amendment as establishing or interfering with religion, by reason of the exemptions granted ministers of religion, theological students and members of sects whose tenets exclude the moral right to engage in war.[63] The opposite aspect of this problem was presented in Hamilton v. Regents.[64] There a California statute requiring all male students at the State university to take a course in military science and tactics was assailed by students who claimed that military training was contrary to the precepts of their religion. This act did not require military service, nor did it peremptorily command submission to military training. The obligation to take such training was imposed only as a condition of attendance at the university. In these circumstances, all members of the Court concurred in the judgment sustaining the statute. No such unanimity of opinion prevailed in In re Summers,[65] where the Court upheld the action of a State Supreme Court in denying a license to practice law to an applicant who entertained conscientious scruples against participation in war. The license was withheld on the premise that a conscientious belief in nonviolence to the extent that the believer would not use force to prevent wrong, no matter how aggravated, made it impossible for him to swear in good faith to support the State Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the State's insistence that an officer charged with the administration of justice take such an oath and its interpretation of that oath to require a willingness to perform military service, did not abridge religious freedom. In a dissenting opinion in which Justices Douglas, Murphy and Rutledge concurred, Justice Black said, "I cannot agree that a State can lawfully bar from a semipublic position a well-qualified man of good character solely because he entertains a religious belief which might prompt him at some time in the future to violate a law which has not yet been and may never be enacted."[66]
THE BLACKSTONIAN BACKGROUND
"The liberty of the press," says Blackstone, "is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure from criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish (as the law does at present) any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry: liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects."[67]
EFFECT OF AMENDMENT I ON THE COMMON LAW
Blackstone was declaring the Common Law of his day, and it was no intention of the framers of Amendment I to change that law. "The historic antecedents of the First Amendment preclude the notion that its purpose was to give unqualified immunity to every expression that touched on matters within the range of political interest. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 guaranteed free speech; yet there are records of at least three convictions for political libels obtained between 1799 and 1803. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 and the Delaware Constitution of 1792 expressly imposed liability for abuse of the right of free speech. Madison's own State put on its books in 1792 a statute confining the abusive exercise of the right of utterance. And it deserves to be noted that in writing to John Adams' wife, Jefferson did not rest his condemnation of the Sedition Act of 1798 on his belief in unrestrained utterance as to political matter. The First Amendment, he argued, reflected a limitation upon Federal power, leaving the right to enforce restrictions on speech to the States.[68] * * * 'The law is perfectly well settled,' this Court said over fifty years ago, 'that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had from time immemorial been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.'[69] That this represents the authentic view of the Bill of Rights and the spirit in which it must be construed has been recognized again and again in cases that have come here within the last fifty years."[70]
Nor was the adoption of Amendment XIV thought to alter the above described situation until a comparatively recent date. Said Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court in 1907: "We leave undecided the question whether there is to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment a prohibition similar to that in the First. But even if we were to assume that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were protected from abridgment on the part not only of the United States but also of the States, still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,' and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare. Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304, 313, 314; Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dallas 319, 325. The preliminary freedom extends as well to the false as to the true; the subsequent punishment may extend as well to the true as to the false. This was the law of criminal libel apart from statute in most cases, if not in all. Commonwealth v. Blanding, ubi sup.; 4 Bl. Comm. 150."[71] This appears to be an unqualified endorsement of Blackstone. But, as Justice Holmes remarks in the same opinion, "There is no constitutional right to have all general propositions of law once adopted remain unchanged."[72] As late as 1922 Justice Pitney, speaking for the Court, said: "Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the States any restriction about 'freedom of speech' or the 'liberty of silence' * * *"[73]