The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-09-29

States Justice Bradley, in an opinion which
Will forever remain as monument of con-
stitutional liberty. declared. first. that there
wasno difference In law or principle between
the physical seizure of a mans books and
papers and compulsory production; sec
Ond, that the trainers of the Constitution
meant by unreasonable search and seizure
that such warrants as those of Lord Hail.
fax. in England. and those of the Crown
officers. In Boston, were unreasonable.
Justice Bradley said: ANY compulsory DIS
covery by extorting the party's oath or
compelling the production of his private
books and papers Is contrary to the princi-
pies of free country. 1t Is abhorrent TO
the instincts of an Englishman; 1t is abhor-
rent to the instincts of an American. 1t
may suit the purposes of despotic power.
but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of
political liberty and personal freedom"
Shortly after this Congress created the
Pacific railway commission. and sent
committee to San Francisco to investigate
the affairs of the Pacific railroad with au-
thority TO send for persons. books and
papers. The committee. being organized.
summoned Mr.. Leland Stanford. the pres-
dent, as q witness. After answering very
many questions he was shown q voucher.
and asked by the chairman, in substance,
whether the money had not been used for
the purpose Of controlling legislation in
declared he would not proceed
further. Thereupon the commission
asked him other questions. which he
refused to answer and he was cited, under
the terms of the statute, to appear in the
federal court in San Francisco aud to show
cause why he should not be punished for
contempt Mr.. Justice Field. being on the
circuit, heard the case. Sawyer, circuit
judge. and Sabln. district judge, sitting
length. Justice Field declared that the
commission had no authority to compel
Mr.. Stanford TO exhibit the books and
papers of the railway, saying that the
government in It's inquiries is con-
trolled by the same guards against the
invasion of private rights which limit in
vestigatiOns of private parties in similar
matters. In the pursit of knowledge 1T can
not compel the production of the private
books and papers of the citizen for its IN; /;
spection except In the progress of judicial
proceedings or in suits instituted for that
purpose. and in both cases only upon aver
ments that Its rights are In some way de-
pendent for enforcement upon the evidence
these books and papers contained"
THE ORDER TO PRODUCE.
Now in view of these decisions let us
turn to the Board of Tax Commissioners.
On the 10th of August Mr.. Henderson pre-
sented a resolution, which was adopted,
directing O general writ to be issued
against all the banking houses of the State
commanding them to produce their books
and papers before the board, showing the
names of their depositOrs and amount
standing to their credits on April J..
Also. what property other than money, If
any, was on deposit IN the banks. When
Mfr. Decker appeared before the board he
answered as to the amount of money depOs-
tied, and then inquired whether there was
any proceeding of any kind pending be-
fore the State board against him or the
German Bank of Evansville, or any officer
or depositor in his bank" The board an
swered mo-" that they were simply exer-
cising the power OF discovery. Feeling
that his duty as n banker required him to
preserve inviolate the business affairs and
secrets of his customers he refused to an
swer. and thereupon the board fined him
$500 and committed hmm to Jail. Bearing
! in mind that papers cannot be seized ex-
cept in judicial proceeding, where there
is court and parties plaintiff and de-
| PENDANT. although one Of the parties may
be the State or government, it follows that
| that this board had no right of it's own mo-
ton to require him to produce his papers,
much less to fine him or put him in prison.
This is no fight between the State and
bankers. 1t is not claimed that any bank
in the State has not made proper returns.
1t is not claimed that the board knows that
any citizen of the State has not made prop
er returns. If the Legislature can invest
this board. which the Attorney general
deems is not court but Is an admlnlstra-
tive board. with power to interrogate one
citizen as to the private affairs of another
citizen and make him disclose such private
affairs, then the same power can
be conferred upon every township as
officer, including county clerks, auditors,
sheritfs, Constables and the like, and
these can be authorized to visit our houses.
| seize our papers and pry into our business
| affairs. This is the state of affairs which
the Constitution provides shall not occur.
| 1t is because private papers are, in the
| language of Justice Bradley. "a persons
dearest property" that they are protected
| with jealous care; or using the words of
| Justice Field, lit is the forcible intrusion
into a compulsory exposure of ones private
| affairs and papers without judicial process
| or in the course of judicial proceedings,
which is contrary to the principles of 3
| free government"
claim that taxing officer may not be au-
| thOriZed to administer oath to each person
when he assesses him, and to require him to
show his handbook or other papersneces-
| sary to ascertain the amount of money notes
and the like he had on hand on the 1st OF
ever. claim that after the taxing officers
have made the assessment and the county
boards of review have fulfilled their duties
that the State board of taxation
ones taxes unless the matter is brought be.
| fore them by appeal or other proper pro-
| cedure; and the bankers declare, by reso-
luton, that when there is any proceeding
before any board or court involving the
amount of property held by any person
] subject to taxation on April ]. and such per.
I son was summoned or notified of the in
| quiry. then TREY would produce the books
Mr.. Harris will continue his argument
| this morning and discuss further the ques
| tion as to what is due process of law, and
will argue the writ of discovery issued by
| the board js not due process of law but Is
unconstitutional by the fifth amendment
| and that the statute authorizing the
writ is unconstitutional under the
| fourteenth amendment. Encouragement
| Smith will speak for the defense. and Mr.
| Ketcham will close for the plaintiff.
Both Anxious for Divorce.
| Nav i. Burns md Charles Burns an