The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-08-05
'ANTISAL0OA LEAGUE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE

SEARCH AND SEIZURE
General Counsel Wheeler States Or.
ganixation Has Never Asked for
Warrants to Search Bonafde
Residences.
Washington. d. c.. Aug. Wayne
counsel of the Anti-Saloon league Of
America, has issued the following
statement relativs to search and
seizure warrants:
The Anti-Saloon league has never
asked for enactments OF law to issue
search warrants for liquor In a bona
dde private residence. In many of
the states we have asked for a search
and seizure law authorizing the seiz-
r OF liquors in alleged homes which
had become places Of public resort
or for the Illicit distribution Of
liquor. When the Federal Code was
introduced this provision was further
safe-guarded to prevent its abuse by
the enemies of the homes measure.
1t provided that a search warrant
could only be issued in such cases
when two creditable witnesses filed
afidavits setting forth the above
facts. Because of the misrep-
resentation Of this section. the
house judiciary committee struck
! out this clause and il left the bill so
that every home could beeome an
open speak-easy where liquor was
sold daily and the supply could not
be seized. This was so manifestiy un-
reasonable that the house promptly
amended 1t SO that liquor may be
seized in a home where the liquor is
actually sold in the residence.
, The provisions relating to posses
sion of liquor in the home and the
right to seize such liquor are as fol-
lows. Section "a says:
Every person legally permitted
under this title to have liquor shall
report to the commissioner within ten
days after January l6. 1920, the kind
and amount OF intoxicating liquors in
his possession. But II shall not be
unlawful to possess liquors in ones
private dwelling while the same Is oc-
cupied and used by hin as his dwell
ing only and such liquor need not be
reported; but such liquors must be
used for the personal consumption OF
the owner thereof and his family re-
siding in such dwelling and his bona
hde guests when entertained by him
therein; and the burden Of proof
shall be upon the possessor to prove
that such liquor was lawfully &C
quired, possessed. and used"
Section IS of the code says:
NO search warrant shall issue to
search any private dwelling occupied
as such unless 1t is being used for the
unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor.
or unless 1t Is in part used for some
business purpose such as a store
shop, saloon. restaurant, hotel. OF
boarding house"
The above provisions are not as
strong as those found in state pro-
hibition laws. The provision In the
law providing for the manufacture Of
non-beverage alcoholic preparations
are liberal and in harmony with the
policy adopted DIV the friends Of pro
hibition in the states. Blend. medi'
cine, 1avoring extracts and other al
coholic preparations, may be manu-
featured and sold for legitimate pur'
poses. II they are sold for beverage
purposes some regulations are pro
vided which viii partially preven'
this. A tribunal is established to de
terrntne whether or not the extrac
alcoholic preparations conform to thu
law. If they do not. the manufac
turer must come under the regulation
or the preparation is put under th'
ban. The manufacturer Is given Al
opportunity to review the action o
the commissioner IL he is not satisfied
with the decision on II. More ma
chinery has been provided TO give tn
manufacturers and dealers in thes
alcoholic preparations a fair chanc
to sell legitimately. than in alnos
any prohibition law heretofore en-
acted. Practically all of the manu-
- -. sANn~afA1 ADM
this. a provision is made to reach tn
retail dealer also who sells for bever
age purposes. He Is given q hearing
and ii the evidence IL clear he cal
only sell thereafter by securing
permit, giving bond and keeping
record 81 the sales. and this recor'
shall be open for inspection.
The provisions Of the code are no
drastic, unreasonable or unprece
dented. The Anti-Saloon league ha
not asked for my provisions they di'
not have a strong reason for 1t ant
that was not backed up by preceden
in the states. II some Of these pro
visions do seem strong, 1t Is becaus
of the fact that we deal with tn
most lawless traffic in existence. tn
supreme court once made this ON
ment in sustaining the validity Of tn
prohibition law-245 U. s. 500:
Anu COllS4ACEiA6 tAC h0AOA
=, difficulties always attendant upon tn
efforts to suppress traffic in liquors
we are unable to say that the chal
lenged inhibition OF their possession
was arbitrary and unreasonable o
without proper relation to h legitl
mate legislative purpose"
The courts and most legislativ
bodies nave ceased to treat the liquo
traffic with the courtesy OF IN invite
guest. but rather Is a trespasser. ]
is in a class by itself to the treatmen
? Of which there is no analogy in tn
law. The reason for IL is NANTES
because the supreme court has char
acterized the beverage liquor tram
(137 L. S. 36). as "a source Of Grim
and misery to society,"-a tramc tina
has no inherent right to exist in tn
states or in the United States.
The friends OF prohibition realiz
that a reasonable code must b
adopted. II the purpose, however. Q
the eighteenth amendment Is to b
carried out, there should be no loo
hole left In the Law by which the II
licit liquor traffic may be carried or
Those who are now asking for weak
ening amendments. will within tw'
years, be demanding stronger provis
ions because experience will prove
40. H.