New-York tribune., 1874-03-30
THE COURTS.
THE LAW OF SEIZURE.

ALITY OF THE SEIZURE LAW. .. ...-..
About nine months ago Detective Jayne
made under the Seizure" Act OF March q 1867, com
plants and a6davts, merely upon "information and
belief" to the effect that the was being de-
frauded by Platt Boyd, importers OF glass at Nos 70
and 81 Murrayst. Upon those complaints and adayits
Judge Batchord OF the United States District Court
granted three warrants by virtue OF which the United
States Marshal entered the Office OF Piatt Boyd and
seized their books and papers They were subsequently
taken 10 Jaynes oce, and application was made to
him for their redevery their Jayne referred
Platt Boyd TO the Marshal and the Marshal re-
ferred them 70 United States District Attorney Bliss
from whom they obtained satisfaction Being
tired Of applying for their books and papers to Off
cal after another, and finding that their business was
suffering very seriously account Of their detention,
they finally decided to apply to Judge Batchord for an
order requiring Jayne, the Marshal or Mr.. Bliss to
restore TO them their seized property and petition for
such order therefore filed In the United States
District Court week ago last Saturday. On account
Of the absence from the city of Mr. Bliss argument on
adjourned till that day, when Mr. Stanley OF the firm
OF Stanley, Brown Clark, attorneys for Platt Boyd,
obtained hearing and in his opening remarks spoke
substantially as follows:
The petition vacate three warrants for the seizure
and papers seized under those not men
without any Instructions from the Court An applica-
ton made to Jayne for them and Jayne sent us to
and the Marshal told United States District
Bliss We Tea Meat % g d M Bss & and n got 6e. nc :a o
another and suffering seri0us loss on account OF the
detention OF their books the injured importers decided
granted the warrants for the seizure OF their DOCKS ana
papers.
Mr.. Stanley here read letter from Platt Boyd to
Mr. Bliss stating that he had retained their books out
seven months and that they could no longer properly
carry on their business without them.
AS reply that letter. Mr. Bliss read JayDes aida-
Wit TO the effect the books and papers had not been
seized for the purpose OF oppression nor to force Patt
Boyd to compromise, and that he held them subject to
the order OF the Court Mr. Bliss then said that Platt
& Boyd had entered into conspiracy to defraud the
Government by smuggling by means OF false invoices,
and that they had "made nothing-no, not even what
they had eaten and worn-except by smuggling"
Mr. Stanley-We not here to try the question OF
smuggling but the question whether the books and pa
pers legally seized -
Mr. Bliss then read another OF Jayne's adayits set
ting forth that Plat Boyd had derauded the Govern
they had by letters their agents In Europe
to make false invoices and to send goods merely as saul
M stanley objected to the reading of aidavs OF that
character, the ground that the letters mentioned IN
them having been obtained III the manner IN which they
were, could not be legally put IN evidence. 49,,
Judge Batcbford overruled the objection saying that
IL was necessary for the Court to obtain all the niorma
ton possible about the case and Mr. Bliss stated that
for the purpose OF USING hem as eyidehGe aeas' % ~
Boyd the Government desired to retain possession OF
the following books Two cash-6ooks one import order
book foreign letter copy-books, one sneetgi
stock RI gsIer and ye domestic order books He also
said that the Government wanted the custody OF all the
other books papers which had been seized, unless
Platt s. Boyd woud stpulato TO produce them Oh The
Mr. stanley-The petitioners rely upon their legal
rights In this They have not aired their great
wrongs IN the papers neither have they appealed to
popular sympathy They think that the officer exceeded
hs authority when he arbitrarily seized ther DOCKS
and papers, and they have begun SUIT against nin
and they do not obtain possession OF Their books a.u
ina Snprsme Court OF the United states for writ OF
mandamus compelling their restoration.
MR. sTASLEY's ARGUMENT.
Mr. Stanley then entered upon his argument on tho
legal questions involved and In the course OF IT, he spoke
substantially as follows The act under which the
seizure Of the books and papers of Platt Boyd was
made is in conflict with the Fifth Amendment 10 the
Constitution because IL authorizes the officer 70 deprive
person Of he M Tnou! GSe of one pe
upon charge OF fraud AGAINST an1tner pe,s%Jn, %
1t also permits an indefinite detention OF them ana docs
neither does it specify the object FOR which
as asG punishment Ter an alleged cSnse be used in
evidence, whether IN criminal or cvil SUIT Ine aes
The possession 9i ne xbo "n M suDnosed TO have
committed some offcnse, the name Of the person
whose property to be seized 10 be stated III the war
rant II authorizes the entry Vi u"elnng-nouse w'n
out a. 10 time that IT may Oe entered az
ny honr of the day or night aud provides no appe",
IRON the decision Of the judge who grants i warrant
The Fifth Amendment TO the (tcSslltution provides
that person shall he of property without
due prcses OF Law lat no person shall be compelled
=. oe witness against himself, ana ,nat ane & Ls' "
yolyed exceeds SO Now. II must be apparent TO any
m proceedings in direct violation of the rights
Guaranteed by the Fifth Amendnen. to the constitution
Books and papers are property. and that act allows
the to he seized without due process Of law, for the
nocrss under which they are seized IS not due process
OF law In support OF that proposition Mr. staniey
i,nd the following authoriles Kent's Conn., GA; Tay
lor agt Porter, Hill, li7 Green agt Briggs curtis
sii; Fisher agt Mcclure, Gray !; hD0ard ast Inc
Gdnnuine his argument Mr. Stanley said Chancellor
Kent ssys understood and acknowledged throughout
the country, that no person can be deprived OF me-
s Tp M OF his peers Now the words "by the
law of the land mean due process of law, and due
nrocess OF law law in the regular course OF lis
tmiu stration through courts OF Justice Judge Brnn
SON in Taylor ag Porter q Hull l47, says that " tine
Prosecution or suit instituted and conducted according
10 the prescribed forms and soemnltles 10, asceranng
ouilt or determining the title To prOperty." -
The sole question: heu for consideration nnder this
whether or not such process or nd AZ
nzed legal under tne common law at the Tune OF ihe
adoption Of e ION aah saas TSss ss
sSaTts ;Sos.a Gf ~ 1nss@@ Hs be contrary
warrants complaiued OF not due processes of law.
tEntick agt. CarriDgton, Wilson, Mr Stanley then
sta red that there never was law Of England which
authorized such arbitrary proceedings as are au-
thorzed by the act Of 1867; that consequently the
and that therefore they could not De fee9gnlze;a
by the courts Of tins country because tose
arbitrary seizures concerned as II existed prior TO
the adoption OF the Constitution " BY the true con
structionr said he, of the Fifth Amendment to the
Cons,ituton Congress intended to absolutely prohibit
h search for and seizure OF books and papers, which
are the most private, aud eften mo most precious
rronerty: and any act which authorizes an officer to
nysde The pryacy OF a mans house and take from him
inch nr.perty Is direct cOfct with that amendment
The act 1867 is further uaeonsttuona because the
search and authorized by II forces person 10
furnish evidence against himself
that branch Of the case Mr.. Stanley attacked
tho papcrs upon which the warrants were issued, and
sad i'm substance The act authorizes such warrants to
be j.sued oLly for N fraud committed upon the rev
enne and such fraud must be made 10 appear 20 the
saisiactlon Of the Judge by complaint and andavit.
Nov The papers upon whch those warrants were issued
are deficient In the following PARTICULARS lHS: They
.tair M arlduyiI PROPERLY so clled nothing but q