New-York tribune., 1874-04-01
SEIzURE OF BOOKS AND PAPERS.

Mr. RonEKrs-With reference TO the seizure of books
and papers. If the whole examination be made under
the direction of the court cannot private rights oe Sc
0uredf
Mfr DAvfs-I think that private rights can be made
greatly more secure than they under the present
law. by such amendment as suggest; tnat
ia 20 say by requiring that whom books anu papers
are taken on cause satisfactory to the judge there hah
be immediate notice given to the party interested 10
appear befor, the Judge, and that he he heard Dy Hl
sf nr by coSel the books allowed To 40 INTO
the hands of another officer or to be opened or
ALI Iad after hearing OF that KIM the Jutso n
opinion that there exist clements winch JustayS III o
ana na ] 1rsSs sce " d 9 re Se giving to the pries
whose BOOKS. &C.. taken, the rgnt 10 ne present
Nj R6ngFfS"Yon would have that examination not
ONLY made under direction OF the court, but Limited
IN point OF tnci One OF the great Sompah'' Is '""'
books AT, kept from the control OF the hrmsf ,
srroH one O. course it would be judcious TO have
s0me limitation point OF time and DO not know why
Judge. acting With AL the facts before hn inight not
make hc limitation. A rigid rule 0y statute might not
Mr. E0BIRTs-Witn ail your experience in the ad-
mia,triuOu OF tAe law, would you deem II wise 10
modify IN tnlt manner or to repeal II absolutely
t,a ga suOn puDiic policy and as gentlemen may
va" ucm on stiidponis whether 1t is WISER
t0 nave Ia" exist winch does lead ln many ln'ancss
e. great nia,te' or 10 lose the opportunity Ior tne ue
l. CO. ana "hlth Wonl o'Her"l9e never oa ouhu OUT
70 90. tG.us On tAe question oi good poncy. ,.. ~,
rdl.eEt suggeot would prevent the abuses that
abuses i.It now exist bat II would not prevent the
iuudame:.ia auuse which ia claimed to e istto wit
ins egS5si or iadvIduai frauds r. is an elementary
question uot oovlt'ei 1y any amen .ent. ,.o, .o,,
III. EOBEEI~-l understood you IN Wh&f you said
shout te Fc.Dodgc case to IA ate that the propo-
uons fo. settlement all came from the house OF Phelps
)odse & Co.. or tner repreSeniI'&lyGS & o ., cha ,,or
hous, s tod Oy Mr. Jayne That proposition nad been
Iuae 90 iy sun WHICH, according To my collection
was E,5JJ. After tue conversation there Which mar
rated. IA which suggested as q OASIS OF setueneht
puuC.Tle Whicn the Collector might recommend,
such taxing the value OF t3 articles themselves t1at
were ac'ed hS Tue raul Ohl Wnicn was leaS ,. ,nc
basis out iu The ultimate settlement, ana after
ior Phelps Dodge d Co.. the counsel retired ana mme-
dcy returned a0d made tne oher to pay that sum- or 10
pay 4 10 be asceltaued on that basis. ought 10
cay. however, that the invoices were not all there
Wncn Mr. JAYNE went through those that he had, and
reported the amount. he said that he had taken the
invoices which were actually present and
that assuming that those which were not there would
produce silr results the aggregate result would be
about s.5O0O; understood that it would be
amount OF the items the $4,000 should be in-
creased or diminished as the result shoul turn OUT 10
require That the idea suggosed the s27 900 was as
understand the subsequent accurate ascerainmelt OF
thai result OF course had nothing to do WIN lhat as
Mr. RIBEErs-That increase was based altogether as
You understood, on mat estimate OF inVoieesf
Hir E1BEETs-I; had reference to any increase de-
Nj DAyIs-Nol to my knowledge. understood that
ocse IIs ,e onee 1G Rom s6S 70
NJ ROBERTs-At the interview at the Custom-house
the Slst OF December the officers as understood you
dill not approve of tho proposition 20 settle /!
Mr.. DAyIs-NO SIR; did not mean to be so under
Mr. EoBEETs-What was the determination Of the Off
GERS ~ regard TO the Settiementi
MI DAyIs-The consideration OF the officers, as un
derstood propcty of directing suit for the
gross sum. be clused up in the manner as had been
suggested at the Asor House tnat Is whether TO direct
tho DisjricAtoney TO sue for thai cum instead OF sue
Secretary of the Treasury consent tnat that sum De
Mr RonERTs-Do understand you that that suit was
To bo commenced simply as means of settlement OF
with view 10 actual prOsecuiont
LAgls-llUlY i d
Mr. RoBEHrs-rhat is what want to get at--whether
the result o tha meeting was that there should be set
t3menf and that the discussion turned simply on the
s.cps V which the settlement should be reached
AR DAvIs-Iue result OF the meeting at the
A.tOr House that there should be a settle
dirtc, the suit TO lie brought IN the form suG,
gcsted. That the result. 1t was no cOnsummated
thing because. understood that 1t was
all within Collectors CONTROL whether TO direct the
that form in the form IN which he did direct it,
Mr RoBEETs-I am speaking OF the interview on the
Mr DAyIs-There was nothing said of the procee ings
there except suggestions as 20 the doubt OF the proper
construction of tue statute IN
GERS on the 3ls OF December IN regard TO the
Udsis winch had been talked ab0utf
Mr DAvIs-I SO understood II, and the only question
tSmen was to bc carried out according that arrange
mcnt but the form of proceeding was question OF
doubt IN the Collectors mind.
Mr. ROBERTs-A good deal has been said about the In
fuenco employed bring about the settlement State
whether or not knew of. anything like ter
further than what might be inferred Irom the
MI DAvIs-l must in all frankness say that DID not
did not understand anything OF tnat kind. Nothing
threats, and certainly would not have permitted it.
something has been said in this case in reference TO
some OtHor matteT-an alusion TO some private, per
sona matter. heard OF it at the time, nor knew
that such thing existed. II there was anything OF
that which lad operation upon the proposition to
settle It without my knowledge.
MIR KAssON-You have spoken OF doubt arising on
the Constitution respect 10 the seizure OF books and
tuition provides right Of the people TO be
their houses papers, and effects against un
and tbat no warrant shall issue but probable cause
supported by oath or airmation and particularly
describing the place 70 be searched MY inquiry Is
whether YOU wish be understood as saying that In
your opinion article is intended TO prohibit In all
cases OF cvn proceedings Tue seNure VI papeIS anu
efectsl .-, A.. -.
Mr.. DAvIs-No. l have not given the opinion that it
is intended 20 prohibit IL in all cases.
Mr. KAssoN-Then 1t is a question. IL understand
Won whether the mode provided by the revenue laws
Tor sscertainins the probable cause " reasonable wnh
Mr. DAvIs-The courts give 1t that construction sub
that fnfy a 'Ds does not nSb
searches or seizures that may be regarded as whh the
term rca sOnable"
MIR KAssoY-so that you do not want be understood
as stating that the seizure OF books ana papers in
Is violation of that clause OF the Constr
MT DAvIs-I said that always seemed to me rather
violation OF the prohibition against making a
ways complicated with criminal charges The same act
that makes the forfeiture Is punishable by indictment
and convictions aud the same evidence that proves the
one tends 10 prove the other.
Mr. KAssoN-But 1t cannot be used in the other
Mr. DAvIs-lt can be- OF course II the papers are
Mr KAssoSI spoke of IT, however, with reference to
the civil side OF the proceedings.
Mr. DAyIs-Altbough the law has never been settled
by the Supreme Court of the United states to my ec1
lection yet the decisions tend to uphold the existing
statute
tMOIETIEs TO INFORMERS.
OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE NO INTEREST IN SEIZURES