New-York tribune., 1919-07-25
Another Sore Spot Is Due
to the Questions Raised
by the Search of Private
Houses on Warrant t
Vets Make Losing Fight
Fine for Contempt May Be
Imposed Without Action
in Court to Fix Guilt
Nc1o York Tribune
Washington Bureau

on Judiciary, concern the right to trial
by jury of any person who violated an
injunction issued against him to dis
continue an alleged nuisance, and the
matter Of mans house being searched
for liquor and the liquor seized being
destroyed.
In both the wartime and constitu
tional prohibition enforcement titles
of the bill the vets made losing
fight to allow trial by jury in cases
whero injunctions against places where
liquor was sold were violated. The
section finally adopted in Title 2, deal
ing with constitutional prohibition,
reads as follows:
"Section 90. That any person vio-
lating the terms Of the injunction as
provided for in this title shall be
punished for contempt by fine of
not more than ST 900 and by imprs-
onment Of not less than thirty days
nor more than one year; and the
court shall have the power to enforce
such injunction"
The fight to allow jury trial in this
case was led by Representative Gard,
of Ohio. He introduced an amendment
to strike out the words following the
word "court" and would have inserted
the following language: may try the
accused or, upon demand OF the ac-
cused, the trial may be by jury, in
which latter event the court may en-
panel jury from the jurors then in
attendance on the court, or a Judge
thereof in chambers may cause a suf-
ficicnt number of jurors to be selected
AID summoned, as provided by law, to
attend at the time and place of trial,
at which time a jury shall be selected
and mpancled as upon trial for
misdemeanor, and such trial shall con
form as near as may be to the practice
in criminal cases prosecuted by indict-
mcnt or upon information"
Volstcad Objects
Representative Nolstcad, leader of
the drys, objected to trial by jury in
this case upon the ground that the
ncction was designed not to deal with
the trial OF a person. but simply to
execute the penalty imposed on man
already convicted, presumably under
the terms of q section just preceding
in which the usual right OF trial by
Jury was allowed The chair sustained
Mr.. Nolstcad.
The vets, however, presented strong
arguments for urging trial by jury in
that lack iof trial by jury meant that
rights of the individual The court
would become both judge and jury.
prccedcnts were cited in labor cases
and trials under antitrust legislation,
whore there was an intimaton that
courts were extending their powers be-
yond the extent of the law. 1t was
the judgment of Congress in these
cases, declared Mr.. Gard, that the
powers of the court should be stayed
and that man charged with contempt
should be entitled upon his demand to
a trial by jury.
Arbitraries Penalties Opposed
Arbitrary imposition of penalties by
the court, the vets held, is not Justice.
1t is an abuse of power, and it led the
Democratic party, they declared, to go
on record in favor Of trial by Jury in
contempt cases growing out of labor
difficulties. there is punishment
for contempt, they asked, why should
there not be a trial first to determine
II the man is guilty of contempt
The section Immediately following
the one referring to penalties for vio-
lations OF lnjunctions was also bone
OF contention. 1t raised the question
OF the lnvloability of the home AS
finally passed the section provided
"Section 26 That it shall be unlaw-
full to have or possess any liquor or
property designed for the manufac-
turo OF liquor intonded for use in
violating this title or which has been
so used, and no property rights shall
exist IN any such liquor or property.
a search warrant may issue as pro
Vidcd IN title AI Of public law num-
bcrcd n OF the SiXty-fifth CONGRESS-.
approved June IS, 1917. and such
hquor, the containers thereof. and
other property seized shall be sub
ject to such disposition as the court
may make thereof. If it is found
that such liquor or property was so
unlawfully held or possessed, or had
been so unlawfuly used, the liquor
ana all property designed for the
unlaWtul manufacture of liquor shall
De destroyed. No rearch warrant
Shaii issue to search any private
o"cIIing occupied as such unless it
IS beng used for c..e un.awful sale
oi i"toNisallng liquor, or unless it
IS IN part used for some business
purpose such as store shon 50.
loon, restaurant, hotel or boarding
house. The property seized on anv
warrant shall not be taken from the
OFFICER selling the same on any writ
Oh roplevln or other like process"
Persecution Prohibited
One very drastic amendment 10 tbis
section was passed by tho drvs when
d smail membership was present but
was later cut out by the house. This
was provision that even a iustico of
the peace might issue q search warrant
to search dwellings, where ljouor was
sold. ''1N0' was
Tho contention Of the vets that this
meant persecution by jealous neigh
DORIS. without sufficient evidence. was
admitted by even the majority Of .ho
drys. The inviolability of the home
against search. upon suspicion or hear
pay cVldcncc, was therefore maintained
by hotn sides. The drys in particular
ompAaslzcd tho point that whereas. in
many states justice of the peace NAV
!asuo search warrant, this bill makes
III necessary for the complainant TO
appear In court OF record.
Another fight on this section grow
ont OF tho question Of dctermininr
"hcther a private dwelling was being
used for sale of liquor. The section
as ir5 it stands 10 slightly strengthened.
The drys were not content to take
ch"nccN on having Il private dwelling.
somewhat isolated, used AZ n "spcnk
easy They not only provided Thai
any private dwelling adjacent TO
store, saloon, etc, might bc searched.