Fields v. City of Fairfield Brief for Appellee

    IN THE

tfftmtte Court of fire pmtrb
October Term, 1963

No. 30

EDW ARD R. FIELDS and NATIONAL STATES 

RIGHTS PARTY, and ROBERT LYONS,

Appellants,

against

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

Appellee.

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE

Frank B. Parsons 

4709 Gary Avenue 

Fairfield, Alabama



IN THE

jiupmtxr Court of %  puxtrfr jita te
October Term, 1963

No. 30

Edward R. Fields and N ational States 

R ights Party and Robert Lyons

Appellants,

against

City of Fairfield

Appellee.

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE

ARGUMENT

Appellee passes over Proposition I and Proposition II of 
appellants’ argument because

III

APPELLANTS WERE FORECLOSED FROM TESTING 
THE INJUNCTION’S CONSTITUTIONALITY BY VIOLAT­
ING ITS TERMS.

The basic question presented the Court is, "Does a party 
enjoined by a court have to obey the injunction or restraining 
order?”. This Court has already answered this question logically



2

and rightly in the affirmative. To do otherwise would lead to 
the disrespect of our people for law and the Courts, and to a 
break down of the orderly processes of our Courts and society. 
To do otherwise, would lead ultimately to anarchy.

This Court answered in the affirmative in Howatt vs. State 
of Kansas, 42 S. Ct. 277, 258 U. S. 181, 66 L. Ed. 550 where 
it was said, "An injunction duly issuing out of a Court of general 
jurisdiction with equity powers, upon pleadings properly invoking 
its action, and served upon persons made parties therein and 
within the jurisdiction of the court must be observed by them, 
however erroneous the action of the Court may be, even if the 
error be in the assumption of the validity of a seeming but void 
law, going to the merits of the case. It is for the Court of first 
instance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and 
until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either 
by itself or by a higher Court, its orders based on its decisions 
are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its 
lawful authority to be punished.” citing Gompers vs. Buck Stove 
and Range Company, 221 U. S. 418, 450, 55 L. Ed. 797, 809, 
34 S. C. 422, Toy Toy vs. Hopkins 212 U. S. 542, 548, 53 L. 
Ed. 644, 29 S. C. 416, U. S. vs. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563, 573, 51 
L. Ed. 319, 323, 27 S. C. 165.

Howatt vs. State of Kansas, supra, was in turn cited and 
followed in U. S. vs. United Mine Workers of America, 330 
U. S. 258, 91 L. Ed. 884, 65 S. C. 677, where the Court said, 
"An order issued by a Court with jurisdiction over the subject 
matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is 
reversed by orderly and proper proceedings. This is true without 
regard even for the constitutionality of the act under which the 
order is issued.”

The Court in the case of Worden vs. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 
30 L. Ed. 853, 7 S. C. 814, upheld contempt proceedings in a



3

Federal Circuit Court even though the preliminary injunction 
out of which the contempt arose was unwarranted and set aside, 
saying: "Violations of an order are punishable as criminal con­
tempt even though the order is set aside on appeal” .

In the case of Druggan vs. Anderson, 269 U. S. 40, 70 L. Ed. 
153, 46 S. C. 15, the appellant ignored a preliminary injunction 
enjoining the operation of a public nuisance (involving intox­
icating liquor) and claimed failure to give notice of the pre­
liminary injunction as required by the appropriate Equity Rule. 
The Court said, "Even if there had been a failure to give a 
required notice before the injunction was issued, the injunction 
could not be disregarded as void”.

To have answered otherwise would have, in effect, made 
each person under injunction his own judge as to the interpreta­
tion of the Constitution of the United States and its applications 
to the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Conceivably, 
there could be as many interpretations as there are people. In­
junctions would soon have no meaning. The logical extension 
of the principle would authorize each individual to decide for 
himself whether a law were just or unjust, and then obey or 
disobey as his judgment might direct him. (This principle has 
already been urged upon the public by one figure much in the 
news of late). If this be the law, there is no law.

As this Court said in the case of U.S. vs. Shipp, supra, "Only 
the Court itself could determine the question of law.”

A. THE ALABAMA DECISION IS BASED SOLELY ON 
A PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL LAW.

The principle discussed up to this point is a question of 
general law. The decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama in 
Edward R. Fields, et al. vs. City of Fairfield, 273 Ala. 588, 143



So. 2nd 177, from which this case comes to the Court is not based 
upon an interpretation of Federal Law or Constitution. The 
action of the Alabama Supreme Court should be affirmed on the 
basis of the ruling of this Court in Leathe vs. Thomas, 207 U.S. 
93, 52 L. Ed. 118, 28 S.C. 30, wherein the Court said, "The 
general and well settled rule is that in a case coming from a 
state court the Supreme Court can consider only federal Ques­
tions and it cannot entertain the case unless the decision was 
against the plaintiff in error on these questions” .

This proposition was applied by this court in Howat vs. 
State of Kansas, supra, wherein the Court said, "Where the 
record shows that the case was decided and disposed of by the 
State Court without any consideration of the application of the 
Federal Constitution to the features of the Statute of which com­
plaint is made, even if the complained of features are void, if 
The State Court sustained the contempt proceedings on general 
law, the Supreme Court cannot consider the Federal question 
mooted and assigned for error.” citing Leathe vs. Thomas, supra, 
and also citing Southern Pacific Company vs. Schuyler, 227 
U.S. 601, 27 L. Ed. 662, 668, 23 S. C. 277, and Hopkins vs. 
McLure, 133 U.S. 380, 33 L. Ed. 660, 10 S.C. 559, in which 
the Court said, "Where the Supreme Court of a State decides a 
Federal question in rendering a judgment, and also decides 
against the plaintiff in error on an independent ground, not in­
volving a Federal question, and broad enough to maintain the 
judgment, the writ of error will be dismissed without considering 
the Federal question.” The Court said the same thing in Hale 
vs. Akers, 33 L. Ed. 442, 132 U.S. 556, 10 S.C. 171. A most 
recent application of this proposition by the Court was in Cramp 
vs. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, 368 
U.S. 278, 7 L. Ed. 2nd 285, 82 S.C. 275, as follows: "The 
settled rule (is) that where the judgment of a State Court rests 
upon two grounds, one of which is Federal and the other non- 
Federal in character, our jurisdiction fails if the non-federal



5

ground is independent of the Federal ground and adequate to 
support the judgment.” citing Fox Film Corp. vs. Miller 296 
U.S. 207, 210, 80 L. Ed. 158, 159, 56 S.C. 183.

The Alabama Supreme Court decided this case on the gen­
eral principle that one enjoined should obey the injunction or 
be in contempt and not on any constitutional question. Its 
judgment should not be disturbed.

B. APPELLANTS RIGHTS ARE ADEQUATELY PRO­
TECTED BY ALABAMA STATUTES.

Section 1052, Title 7, 1940 Code of Alabama, as recom­
piled, provides, "A  defendant, may upon ten days’ notice to the 
complainant or his solicitor, move, before the judge of the cir­
cuit in which the bill is filed, to dissolve an injunction for want 
of equity in the bill or on the coming in of the answer, or to 
discharge an injunction, to (be) heard on the original papers or 
certified copies thereof; and motions to discharge and dissolve 
may be made and heard at the same time, without prejudice to 
either.”

Section 757, Title 7, 1940 Code of Alabama, as recom­
piled, provides: "An appeal lies to the Supreme Court on all 
interlocutory orders, sustaining, dissolving, or discharging in­
junctions, which must be heard and determined at the first term 
after the appeal is taken or if the Supreme Court is in session 
when the appeal is or has been taken, then the same shall be 
heard during such session, at least three days’ notice of the 
appeal having first been given to the adverse party.”

There is nothing in the record to suggest that the matters 
appellants proposed to discuss at their meeting and through their 
handbill were of such an urgent nature that a delay of ten days 
would seriously disrupt or harm them. They suggest that they 
are a political party, but they were not engaged in a political



6

campaign at the time of the events out of which this case arose. 
Political campaigns are of such duration that a delay of ten days 
would not seriously affect the outcome for a party or individual 
who sincerely campaigned from the beginning of the campaign 
period. It is extremely doubtful that an experienced politician 
would risk the adverse publicity resulting from invoking the 
injunctive powers of the Court if he could find a Judge who 
would entertain his prayer for such relief.

C. THERE ARE OTHER RIGHTS INVOLVED OF 
EQUAL IMPORTANCE W ITH FIRST AMENDMENT 
RIGHTS.

While the First Amendment rights are of a very high order, 
they should not be so protected as to endanger the basic fabric 
of our Society and government. Without the government to 
protect those rights they will not exist.

In our deliberations on the parts of the Constitution, let us 
not lose sight of the purposes for which the Constitution of the 
United States was established as expressed in the Preamble 
thereto: "We, the people of the United State, in order to form 
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tran­
quility, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
States of America.”

Appellants in their zeal to implement parts of the Consti­
tution would have the Court overlook the purpose of the whole 
and thereby dangerously weaken it. While the Preamble is no 
source of authority in itself, it does express an overall intent and 
purpose to be advanced in the interpretation of the various pro­
visions thereof. "The great and leading intent of the Consti­
tution and the law must be kept constantly in view upon the 
examination of every question of construction.” Ex parte Yeager,



7

8 W all 101, 19 L. Ed. 332. The argument of appellants over­
looked the responsibility of the government in all its branches 
to provide for the safety of the life, health and property of its 
citizens. This responsibility and the right of the people to ex­
pect the absolute fulfillment of this responsibility by their 
government requires this Court to hold that appellants and ail 
others must obey the injunctions of the Courts of this land until 
they have been set aside through the orderly procedures of the 
law. This responsibility is met in small cities by small bodies 
of law enforcement officers designed to meet the needs of ordi­
nary events. They are not prepared to fend off mobs enflamed 
by irresponsible people who would subvert the law and the 
Constitution for their own personal gain. The only way they 
can handle such a situation is to head it off before it happens. 
That is what was done in this case by public officials earnestly 
endeavoring to fulfill their responsibility for the life, health, and 
property of the citizens of the community.

The domestic tranquility and general welfare of the com­
munity should not be sacrificed to protect a privilege that will 
have no meaning if there is no domestic tranquility.

IV

THERE WAS EVIDENCE TEN DING TO PROVE THE 
OFFENSE CHARGED.

Dr. Edward R. Fields, and the National States Rights Party, 
their servants, agents, and employees (R .5) were enjoined from 
holding a public meeting at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 
1961, at 5329 Valley Road, Fairfield, Alabama, as announced, 
and from distributing further in the city of Fairfield, handbills 
announcing such meeting such as were distributed in the City of 
Fairfield, Alabama, on October 10, 1961, until further orders 
from this Court; (R .6) by a Judge of the Circuit Court, Besse­
mer Division, Jefferson County, Alabama, on October 11, 1961.



8

The handbill that precipitated this action (R. 3 and 42) had 
been distributed in the City of Fairfield over a wide area prior 
to the injunction (R ,47). The only purpose of a handbill of 
this nature and the only effect thereof is to create disorder and 
disturbances between the races, and to so disrupt the inhabitants 
thereof. This handbill promised a meeting dedicated to the 
same purpose and having the same results. The handbills indi­
cated the type of subject to be discussed at the meeting according 
to Dr. Fields (R .54 ), the tone of the meeting (R .54 ), and the 
approach to be taken to the subject at the meeting.

A short time before the meeting time, Fields (R .54) and 
Lyons (R .22) came to a point across the street from the meeting 
place, spoke to people gathered there and passed out the The 
Thunderbolt (Compl. Ex. 1; R. 21, 20) the organization’s 
newspaper. This issue of The Thunderbolt featured a suggestion 
that the purpose of the "Freedom Riders” was to enslave white 
people, that the Attorney General of the United States endorsed, 
favored, and supported the "Freedom Riders” and planned 
through them to "cow down white men with brute force”, that 
"they would push the White South into the cesspool of complete 
integration”. This issue also included on page 3 thereof a story 
of a negro sexually molesting two 12 year old white girls. It 
included on page 5 a suggestion that a named newspaper owner 
would take away the rights of white people and give their 
daughters to Negroes. On the same page 5 is a story of Negro 
policemen mistreating a white person. There is an attempt on 
pages 4 and 5 to resurrect and stir up the people with old stories 
of reconstruction days of one hundred years ago. All of this 
was printed and delivered to people, gathered across the street 
from the meeting place in response to the invitation of the hand­
bill, only to create ill will between the races in furtherance of 
the obvious purpose of the handbills and the meeting so as to 
create disorder and endanger the lives and property of the people 
of the City of Fairfield, Alabama. They were as effectively hav­



9

ing their meeting and spreading their doctrine of hate as if the 
injunction had never been issued and would have continued had 
not officers intervened (R.19 and R.22) Appellants, in their 
contention that the meeting was not held, overlook the content 
of The Thunderbolt. The learned Trial Judge said of this, "I am 
impressed by the tone and the context of the paper that was 
admittedly distributed”. The Supreme Court of Alabama said of 
this in Fields vs. City of Fairfield, supra, at page 179, "In the 
face of this, petitioners, without moving to dissolve the tempo­
rary injunction, seeking a hearing, or in any way contesting the 
writ, proceeded to meet a crowd gathered across the street from 
the advertised place of meeting and distributed inflammatory 
literature”.

A meeting is defined in Webster’s Universal Unabridged 
Dictionary as 1. the act of coming together, and 3. an assembly; 
a number of persons met together.

The appellants did have their meeting in contemptuous 
disregard of the restraining order of the Court and there is ample 
evidence of it. The convictions are not so totally devoid of 
evidentiary support as to render them unconstitutional under the 
due process clauses of the Fourteenth amendment.

CONCLUSION

Appellee earnestly submits that the judgment of the Supreme 
Court of Alabama is due to be affirmed.

Respectfully,

Frank B. Parsons,
4709 Gary Avenue,
Fairfield, Alabama

Attorney for Appellee