The Washington herald., 1921-09-08
Defending the Law.

ciation, Attorney General Daugherty did not
zA-hcdge or compromise in discussing the
Eighteenth amendment. He declared that he would
enforce the law with all the power possessed by
the government which l am at liberty to call to my
command" AS to the law itself and its purposes,
lrc-was equally clear and uncompromising.
The question of the limitations of personal
liberty is, in the first instance, question OF po-
htical philosophy and not OF law. do not
to impute moral turpitude to him who is
opposed to the Eighteenth amendment or simi-
lar amendments in our State constitutions,
- who is opposed to the VolStead act or similar
legislation in States. All mean to say is
that the argument OF undue abridgment of per-
sonal liberty advanced today has in the past
been advanced by every champion Of lawlcssness
who has sought to hnd an excuse for unlawful
conduct. And. in passing, let me repeat that
stitutional system. In fact it constitutes one OF
the fundamental points OF observation in the
history OF civilization. and has been one Of the
principal elements in the cycle theory OF civ
ilization.
This is decidedly refreshing in contrast to the
efforts to defeat enforcement of the Eighteenth
amendment by grace OF the Fourth. The Stanley
amendment to the amended Volstead act proposes
10 give the Fourth amendment meaning which the
courts do not hold it covers. 1t forbds the search
OF property or premises" without warrant. The
word property" has very inclusive meaning. 1t
IS not used in the Fourth amendment which re-
quires only warrant designating the place to be
searched.
The pending substitute for Senator Staney's
provision forbids the search without warrant OF
any dwelling used as dwelling and of any other
building property" "maliciously and without
reasonable cause" II this is sufficient cover
the Fourth amendment, the courts will hold 1t
could not do less than the amendment provides and
stand in court. The Constitution is superior to any
statute and Congress hardly needs to direct the
courts to uphold it. Moreover il the Stanley pro-
vision does not exceed the rights secured in the
Fourth amendment it is wholly unnecessary and
yslueess.
Senator Nelson chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and there is no sounder or abler lawyer
the Senate, is of the conference committee who
framed the substitute for the Stanley provision. In
upholdng it, he cited after case in which both
arrest and search and seizure permitted with
out warrant. Also, Senator Stanley then admitted
that the words "or any other law of the United
States IN his provision were a mistake and should
be omitted. Why? If arrest or search and seizure
is violation OF the Fourth amendment, when with
warrant, to booteggers and all vioators Of
the Volstead act why not much so where the
ofense is against the revenue or customs law, or
countcrfeiting, gambling, or thieving en-
bcZziement any other law? 1t is possible that
passion must be to tatters in defense of the
Constitution only to protect the bootleggcrs, and
not these other Yioators OF other laws?
Hhy has the sacredness Of the Fourth amend
!acnt lain dormant long, while those probably
guilty of offenses against all these other laws have
been arrested, searched and any evidence OF law
lcssncss seized? Why has this constitutional provi-
sion only been discovered and its only insisted
>upon TO nullify another and recent constitu-
tional provision? Is it, in fact the Constitution or
the bootlegger who is sacred?