New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-01


cred In the books themselvesi
Mr.. Divrs-As TO- ultimate results You mean whether
| 'h ne, case was compromised or prosecutedf
Mr.. DAvIs-I cannot answer the question definitely I
recoect that In cases the further proceedings were
1 % AS understood, on the development by the
frands not known at the time OF the seizure think
recolect two cases in which that occurred
Mr.. DAwEs-In which the allegations which the
papers were based not found to be true but others
were round to be true aud were made the basis Of the
Mr. DAvrs-I think can say that one case was of
certain class OF importaons, and the subsequent pro
csedings were based the discovery Of frauds
anectlng another class OF importatons. / would
| IKE 10 say IN that connection that whenever
the question was suggested to TO the extent OF
lhe rlent 10 investigate books and papers, invariably
tou These gentlemen that they had no business TO 20
further ha1 to examine In relation TO the parteu-
selves liable to action II They'll dId because II they
purpose without authority, It operated to deprive them
Oh the protection OF the law, and to make them tres
passers 40 tniti0
HOW SHALL THE LAW BE MODIFIED
Mr. DAwEs-Do any amendments to the law OF seizure
suggest themselves to your mind from your experienced
Mr. DAyIs-Do you mean amendments to the existing
lawi
Mr. DAwEs-Yes; can You suggest any amendments
that ought to be in the existing law touching the
seizure OF books and papers for violation of the revenue
Mr. DAWSON that subject it is extremely difficult to
suggest amendments to system which Is so liable to
abuse. that cannot help feeling 1t ought not to exist at
all Nowit true that the tendency OF the courts has
been in all the decisions although think the question
has never reached the ultimate tribunal herc to uphold
the constitutionaity OF the law The Committee, OF
to Which the law or the seizure of books and papers m
claimed TO be Obnoxious 1t Is the provision that all
persons shall be against unreasonable searches
| and seizures. The courts have generally viewed
this sort of seizures as analogous to proceedings to
old fashioned warrant to enter house in which
the stolen property Is supposed to be conceaed and to
Struggled Now those eases stand upon principle that
Is not applicable my Judgment to the seizure OF books
his own property, which has been feloniously taken
away from him. and in the case OF snugged goods the
property smuggled has become by the ofense against
the law the property OF the Government and the Gov
which II Is authorized by law through ITS oihcers TO
take as Its own property subject OF course to establish
| by SUIT the facts upon which its right depends But
when you enforcing this seizure law TO reach books
and papers you not taking something that has become
in any sense. the property OF the Government at
ALL These books and papers are private properly at al
times both before and alter seizure. They are never
any act OF their owner The seizures are therefore,
simply seizures OF evidence against suspected party
man shall be compelled to be witness against him.
self" That provision may be strictly construed to mean
that he shall not be put upon the stand In court as
| witness and compelled TO swear against himself But
where you seize mans private papers and books to be
used evidence against him. make him surrender
his confessions OF what he has done or said ana
which contained in his books or letters to be used
| question whether this statute IL not obnoxious to
the provision OF the constitution last referred to- be-
| cause it substantially makes man furnish evidence
| against himself from his own private writings. or
fTnnd in the amendments to the Constitution were sub
santialy taken from Magma Charta, ana were originally
intended to prevent those (Which formerly
perpetrated in England, aud under which some Of the
best of age lost their lives for treason In which
private papers that were contained in private houses
and desks of gentlemen were forciby taken and made
the basis for indictments for treason Men we're con
msnascripts Of their own found in and forcby taken
possession and considered to be REASONABLE
These provisions were made against all that sort or
thing and II there anything III the constitutional op
lection il Is because this proceeding Is at war with the
principles involved and when were intended 70 protec
| men from being compelled either by searches and
seizures any other FORM to furnish evidence against
themselves Now, know that IL is said tdnd IL is said
the opinions OF the cOurts that these laws are yaid
provided the searches are not ana tne
courts sometimes uphold the law by Simply constituting
il to apply where the act or manner or making
think the term unreasonable'' was intended apply
to the purpose aud object and not TO the manner OF
quite reasonable that man should nave warrant To
nd his stolen goods it would be unreasonable to allow
him TO search for and hlS neighbors books and
letters on suspicion tnat they will be found TO contain
admissions of his guilt And repeat these laws are
| on very Insufficient evidence, and then abuse the
| authority gwen very grossly.
Mr. DIwfsCin Vi, " OF this consideration would you
| recommend repeal Of the law
| Mr. DAvIs-I would. Ny own Judgment Is decidedly
Mr. DAwEs-Would subpoena duees heuD answer all
MI DAyIs-No Sir it vould not. The subpoena duces
tec is generally ineffective to reach tue contents Oh
10 produce or which he destroys order to prevent
| their being evidence.
MT DLwEs-In your opinion as prosecuting officer.
could the Government ever enforce its revenue laws
without the aid OF this law Of sezuref .
be permitted to say that Of course many frauds would
not detected without this law; but then IL becomes
question Of public policy whether 1t Is not better That
oenses which cannot detected without such an inya-
sion OF private rights shoui 20 pnpansnea rather IMAM
sIch laws should remain upon the statute DOCKS =,
Mr.. DAwEs-Does not the satsae remark apply TO all
Mr. DAWSON course it applies extent to all
ofsnses. But suppose that no Government IN inns
country any power, If man be charged with felony
ian the idea that PROOF OF crime be made out
from his private correspondence to break open MS
house and aud take ont his letters think that no
court would tolerate such procedure to reach evidence
Mr. DAwEs-Is there any difference in principle III the
| MI DAyIs-That submit to YOU find it difficult to
see any. And now should like 70 say since you nave
should suggest that IL these laws are to remain in torce
the first thing to be done when books and papers are
seized (lnd that substantially the present proVls0h
should be they shall be brought into court sec
ond that before anything further done Ttn te ooUS
allowed to appear by attorney ana counsel anu De eaId
Examined Aud then if the Court, such hearing,
shall is best under the circumstances
that the books and papers be examined the party snail
have the right to be present in person, or by attorney
during the entire examination, and That the examna-
ZION be strictly limited charges first made That
amendment ought to be made II the law stands, with
some limitation the length or time the DOCKS may
! be withheld.
THE QUESTION OF FEES AGAIN.
Mr. DAwEs-I trust you will make nothing personal OF
what may inquire Of you hereafter. desire to know
how much In fees you have received Distrct-Attor
ney-I mean fees arising the enforcement OF the
| revenue lawsi
Mr.. DAyIs-I cannot give you any approximate sum
without reference data but you refer to this par
cuar class OF fees the percentage allowed in those
| matters +. =,
Mr. DAWES You are entitled to two per cent in all
cases, whether they pass judgment Ut are compro
| missed $780,
Mr. DAvIs-The language OF the statute Is that there
shall be taxed paid to the District Attorneys TWO
per all moneys collected or realized 10 any SUIT