The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-06-18

ducted; and another that 1t should recommend additional legislation, and for either Of these general ob- i jects it may call on the courts to re- quire any one whom it may point out to attend and testify If he would avoid the penalties for contempt. speaking to this instance the court said:
 We are of opinion on the con- | trary that the purposes of the act for which the commission may exact evidence embrace only complaints for violation of the act, and lnvestiga- tions by the commission upon mat ters that might have been made the object of complaint. As We already have implied the main purpose of the act was to regulate the interstate business of the carriers. and the sec ondary purpose that for which the commission was established, was to enforce the regulations created. Tfese in our opinion are the pur- poses referred to in other words the power to require testimony is linn 1 ited as 1t usually is in English speaking countries at least, to the only cases where the sacrifice of privacy Is necessary--those where the investigations concern specific ! breach of the law. V
 If we did not think, as we do, that the act clearly showed that the pow CT to compel the attendance of wit nosses was to be exercised only in | connection with the quasi Judicial duties of the commission, we still should be unable to suppose that such an unprecedented grant was to i be drawn from the counsels of per lection that have been quoted from sections 12 to 21. We could not believe on the strength of other thae explicit and unmistakable words thae such autocratic power was given for any less specific object of inquiry than a breach of existing law, in which, and in which alone, as we have said there Is any need that personal matters should be re- vealed"
 We think reading of the opinion discloses the court was of the view that to have construed the Act oth- crwise, and as giving this broad sweep of authority, would have ne- cessitated holding that 1t was vio- lative of the Constitution; for the ] opinion concludes If we felt more hesitation than We do, we still should feel bound to construe \he statute not merely so as to sustain it's con- stitutlonality but so as to avoid a succession of constitutional doubts, so far as candor permits"
 It thus appears that the authority claimed for the State Tax Commis- sion in the demand of the inspection of the private books and documents and papers, in the absence of any pending matter or controversy, is far greater than any power assumed or exercised heretofore by the courts. Indeed, we are not aware that so unlimited a command over the pri-. vate affairs of citizens has hereto fore been given to any commission or to any court
 The authorities emphasize the fact that privacy as to ones papers and documents, is as much under tie protection of the Constitution as his home, the same rule applying to the one as applies to the other. This right of privacy must yield when the administration of justice and the public good demand, and we fully realize that the matter of assessment and taxation of property for the purpose of government revenue, is an instance when this right of priva- cy is held to yield for the public good, and much is left to legislative discretion. Nevertheless, even as to these matters. the Constitution has made no exception, and a search and seizure of ones private papers, even Tor such purpose may be "unreason- able' within the meaning of these constitutional provisions. As pointed out In the foregoing authorities, the practice of the issuance of warrants in aid of the revenue officers in early history of this country, should be considered as playing a part in the history of the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
 To hold that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to the revenue laws, would be for the court to write into the Constitute n an exception entirely unwarranted by any language there found. These constitutional provisions serve equally as restrictions upon the courts as upon every ministerial of- ficer, demanding the same obedience from the one as the other. It is only left for the courts to determine what is ''unrcasonable.' within their meaning. When that is done, the ju- dicial function ceases.
 An analysis of the power here as- serted in the instant case shows that its exercise would subject the tax payer to disclosure of his private affairs to the Tax Commission at any time demanded. although he has met all requirements of the law and there exists no controversy, and thls for the purpose of a mere fishing expedition; a power not even pos sessec or attempted to be exercised by the courts of the land. True. the power may not be employed by those in authority to the vexation or an noyance Of the citizens. but we are now considering the extent of the power and not it's mere exercise by those who so happen at the time to possess 1t. When viewed in this light 1t must be conceded that such d power would be of more or less autocratic nature. and out of har- mony with the form of government here enjoyed. Not only so, but such authority would lead away from that stability as to taxation referred ro as so desirable In State V. Doster- Northington Drug Co., 19G Ala. 447 for at no period during the tax year could the taxpayer feel secure as to settlement of the question of his taxation.
 In State V Doster- -Northingtcn Drug Co. supra, this Court had under review the power of the State Tax Commission to set aside an as sessment of a taxpayer and to re- value and reassess the property and it was held that such review must be sought within the period of the tax year, and that matured assess ments were binding alike on the tax payer and taxing authorities. The Court saying: "The reasonable con struction of the power of assess ment of taxes and the review thereof should be to the end that a stable and uniform system prevail in tile State" and. again, in the same au-