Hardyman

Dissenting.

I am in general agreement with the opinion of the trial judge, 80 F.Supp. 501 , *315 although possibly I have approached the •case from a different angle.

The statute involved, 8 U.S.C.A. § 47 , had its origin in section 2 of the Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13 , entitled “An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes.” In the Revised Statutes of 1873 1 section 2 of that Act so far as it provides civil rem•edies was extensively rearranged and be•came § 1980. As will later appear, the -penal sanction embodied in section 2 was at that time transferred to the title denominated “Crimes.” For the moment it is enough to say that 8 U.S.C.A. § 47 is identical in wording, arrangement and subdividing with § 1980. Apparently the clause of subdivision (3) thereof, presently of importance, has been construed in but two cases, Love v. Chandler, 8 Cir., 124 F.2d 785 , and Viles v. Symes, 10 Cir., 129 F.2d 828 , in both of which it was regarded as giving federal protection against state action only.

Omitting all matter not material to this case, § 47(3) reads: “If two or more persons in any State or…

The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal of an amended complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action for damages under § 47(3) of Title 8 U.S.C.A. 1 The correctness of that ruling is the subject of this appeal. The *310 amended complaint, in substance, alleged that appellants are citizens of the United States and are members of the CrescentaCanada Democratic Club. Appellant Morse is chairman of the club and appellant Hardyman is chairman of the program and publicity committee.

The Crescenta-Canada Democratic Club, hereinafter called the club, is a voluntary association, duly organized and chartered by the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee and recognized officially as a Democratic club. Its claimed purposes were to participate in the election of officials of the United States, including the President, Vice-President and members of Congress; to petition the National Government for redress of grievances; to engage in public meetings for the discussion of national public issues, including the international and foreign policies of the United States.

Pursuant to a customary practice the club held regular public meetings in the city of La…

183 F.2d 308 HARDYMAN et al. v. COLLINS et al. No. 12120. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 29, 1950. Writ of Certiorari Granted October 9, 1950. See 71 S.Ct. 63 . A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand and Robert R. Rissman, Los Angeles, Cal. (Nanette Dembitz, Arthur Garfield Hays, William Egan Colby and Peter H. Kaskell, New York City, counsel, American Civil Liberties Union, of counsel), for appellants. George Penney, Los Angeles, Cal., Aubrey N. Irwin, Glendale, Cal., Robert M. Newell and Theodore A. Chester, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees. Arthur J. Goldberg, Gen. Counsel, Thomas E. Harris, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C. (Jay A. Darwin, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for Cong. of Ind. Org., as amicus curiae. Loren Miller, Los Angeles, Cal., Thurgood Marshall and Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Nat'l Ass'n for Adv. of Colored People, as amicus curiae. Will Maslow, New York City (Shad Polier, Joseph B. Robison and Howard M. Squadron, New York City, of counsel) for American Jewish Cong., as amicus curiae. Before HEALY, McALLISTER, * and ORR, Circuit Judges. ORR, Circuit Judge. 1 The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal of an amended complaint on the ground…