New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-20
JUDGE BLATCHFoRDS DECISION


The decision of Judge BlatchfOrd in the
Platt g. Boyd case is substantially what might
have been expected. The books and papers
of the firm were seized under a warrant from
Judge Blatchford in June and July, 1873. and
have been retained by the Custom-house
authorities ever since. Suit having been
brought to compel their restoration, Judge
Blatchford sustains the constitutionality of
the law under which his warrants were
issued, but decides that the detention
has been unreasonably long, and accord
ingly orders that the books and papers
be Immediately given up to their owners. Of
course we have no desire to question the judg-
ment of the United States District Court ;
but the point involved in this case is so
important that we hope it may soon be passed
upon by higher tribunal Judge Blatchford's
views of the operations of the seizure
laws and the privileges of the Col
lector, Special Agent, and other reve-
nue. officers under them have been well
known all along. He has given much wider
latitude to the selling officer than Judge Low
ell has felt authorized to give in Boston, and
some of the worst abuses of the Jayne system
have been facilitated by the warrants and or
ders which he has honestly felt it his duty to
issue. The decision of Saturday is practically
an approval of his previous practice.
Judge Batchford reviews the question
whether the seizure of books and papers is in
conflict with that provision of the Constitution
which prohibits unreasonable searches and
"seizures," or the clause declaring that no
"person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law" He
concludes that warrants to search for and seize
goods imported in fraud of the revenue are
clearly reasonable and lawful, and if
seizure of the goods is by due
process of law, he sees no reason why
the papers relating to the goods should not
be seized also. The objection made to this
reasoning by the opponents of the present
practice does not seem to be fully noticed.
The goods may be seized because they are
forfeited to the United States. The possessor
has no right to them. They are in the same
category as stolen goods, or counterfeit money,
or the tools of cOunterfeiters. But the books
and papers are not forfeited. Whatever
fraud may be written in them,
they are the rightful property of
the possessor, and the Government
takes them only for the purpose of reading
what they contain. But that, say the reform
ers. is in violation of the familiar maxim OF
law that a man shall not be compelled to tes-
tify against himself; and it cannot be denied
that numerous rulings of the Courts, without
directly passing upon this point, tend strongly
to sustain it. 1t seems to us very desirable
that it should be more fully argued
But admitting the cOnstitutiOnality of the
law, the arguments for It's repeal are never
theless unanswerable. 1t is a law which can
not be executed without int0lerable abuses.
However just it may be in the abstract, it is
the instrument of gross injustice in practice.
The seizure never is and never can be restricted
to the books and papers which contain evidence
Of the suspected fraud, and it would hardly
be too much to say that in this
city the officer invariably exceeds the
instructions of his warrant. Nor can
the uses made of the books after
they have been taken DO regulated by the law.