THE « NE W@u
« ITNTERPRETEI
An Uminous Decision
NR Juni SN the Supreme Court by a
¥; od five-to-four vote upheld the right of
WH three towns in Al: ih ame, Arkansas,
and Arizona to mmpose license fees and
special taxes on venders of religious books
and pamphlets. Concerning this, Tome tor
June 22 <avs that the decision “directly
affected only a small, freakish religious sect,
but indirectly affected nothing less than
freedom of conscience.
“The court ruled that religious freedom,
along with free speech and a free press, can
be limited, despite the Bill of Rights, "to
times, places and methods ©. 0 not at
odds with the preservation of peace and
good order.” In the three cases up for de-
cision, the Court ruled that Jehovah's
Witnesses (a band of religious zealots who
do most of their proselyting by peddling
or handing out pamphlets from door to
door) can be forced by any town they visit
to pay a prohibitively high peddler’s tax for
the right to distribute their pamphlets.
“Turthermore, town officials can revoke
the right to distribute literature at any
time-—even after Witnesses have paid the
tax—" without cause, notice, or hearing.’
“Like the Stamp Tax? This means, de-
clared Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone in
a trenchant minority opinion, that ‘a way
has been found for the effective suppression
of speech and press and religion despite con-
stitutional guarantees. The very taxes now
before us are better adapted to that end
than were the stamp taxes which so success-
fully curtailed the dissemination of ideas by
eighteenth-century newspapers and pam-
phleteers, and which were a moving cause
of the American Revolution.’
“Two years ago Justice Stone was the
lone dissenter 1mm another far-reaching Su-
preme Court decision agaist the Wit-
nesses. Then the eight other Justices ruled
that Witness children could be required by
local law to salute the flag, even though the
salute violated their religious freedom.
Last week three of the eight Hugo L.
Black, William O. Douglas, and Irank
Murphy---=sided with Stone, publicly ac-
knowledged that they had “wrongly de-
cided” the 19140 case, and declared that both
it and last week's ruling suppress “the free
exercise of a religion practiced by a mi-
nority.’
“Justice Murphy, a devout Roman
Catholic (a church the Witnesses bitterly
attack) was even more explicit than the
Chief Justice in pointing out the majority
decision’s threat to religious freedom.
Wrote he: "The taxes are mm reality taxes
upon the diszemination of religious
literature for religious reasons alone and not
for personal profit. If this Court 1s to
err 1m evaluating claims that freedom of
speech; freedom of the press, and freedom
of religion have been invaded, far better
Page EIGHT
that it err in being over-protective of these
precious rights.”
Concerning this decision the Christian
Century editorially says: “This case will
become historic for two tacts. First, in his
dissent Chief Justice Stone pointed out
that “a way hax been found for the effective
suppression of speech and religion despite
constitutional guarantees.” Such licensing
provisions as the court has approved, the
Chief Justice declared, are “better adapted”
to choke off liberty of expression than were
the stamp taxes which plaved so large a
part in precipitating the American Revo-
lution. Second, this case will be memorable
for the speed with which three other mem-
bers of the court-— Justices Black, Douglas,
and Murphv-—who had upheld the verdict
against Jehovah's Witnesses in the Pennsyl-
vania flag salute case of two vears ago,
acknowledged that they had been wrong in
that instance and charged that the court 1s
now following a course which undermines
the guarantees of religious liberty mm the
Bill of Rights. Taken together, the stirring
dissenting opinions entered by the Chief
Justice and his colleagues in this case show
how precarious 1s the basis for all our free-
domes, and how grave 1s the danger that in
the very hour when the President pro-
claims a crusade for the four freedoms
throughout the earth, they may be de-
stroved at home.”
NAN
In its issue of June 10, speaking ot the
o-to-4 decision, the New York Times
editorially said: ©The Supreme Court de-
clared that ‘courts are competent to ad-
judge the acts men do under color of a
constitutional right, <uch as that of tree-
dom of =peech or of the press or the free
exercise of rehgion, and to determine
whether the claimed right i= lnted by
other recognized powers, equally precious
to mankind.” As the summaries of the case
<how, the other recognized powers, equally
precious to mankind, melude the power of
local authorities to impose prohibitive
taxation upon members of religious sects
distributing Literature and soliciting con-
tributions. The =ect in question 1s the one
called Jehovah's Witnesses, whose activities
have been of a nature to streteh the prin-
ciple of religious toleration to the utmost.
There can be little doubt that the local
authorities in Opelika, Ala., Fort Smith,
Ark., and Casa Gor ande, Ariz., meant to
impose taxes which would make it difhicult
or impossible for this sect to carry on its
propug: nda.
“We can see this case in its right hght
only if we try to imagine one of our estab-
lished religious groups penalized in the
same way. We know it could not be <o
penalized, because its methods of appeal
would not offend people, and because it
would have a following capable of effective
(3
ZL.
hres
NNN"
X¥ One of the big transports of a convoy which recently arrived at an Australian port from the United
States 1s shown docking, with cheering doughboys lining the rails, while lashed to the deck behind
them is a Unated States war plane.
The WATCHMAN MAGA