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

munity in his home against the pry- ing eyes of the government. and pro- lection in person, property and papers against even the process of the law, except in few specified cases. The maxim that every mans house is his castle Is made a part of our constitutional law in the clauses prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and has always been looked upon as of high value to the citizen.
 "1f in English history we inquire
 into the original occasion for these constitutional provisions we shall probably find it in the abuse or exec utive authority, and in the unwar- rantable Intrusion of executive agents into the houses and among the private papers of individuals in order to obtain evidence of political offenses either committed or de- signed
 "The history of this controversy should be read in connection with that in America Immediately previ- ous to the American Revolution. in regard to wrlts of assistance issued by the courts to the revenue officers, empowering them, in their discretion, to search suspected places for snug
  ters are now a long way in the past; but 1t has not been deemed un- wise to repeat in the state constitu- tions, as well as in the Constitution of the United States, the principles already settled in the common law upon this vital point in civil liberty"
 The Supreme Court in Weeks V. United States, 2S2 U. S. 3SS, after citing the Boyd case. approved what was there said with the following comment:
 AS was there shown. it took it's origin in the determination of the framers of the amendments to the Federal Constitution to provide for that instrument a Bill of Rights sc curing to the American people, among other things, those safeguards which had grown up in England to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures such as were permitted under the general warrants issued under authority of the goverr- ment by which there had been inva- sfons of the home and privacy of the citizens and the seizure of private papers in support of charges, real or imaginary, made against them. Such practices had also received sanction under warrants and seizures under the SO called writs of assistance, is sued in the American colonies. See 2 Watson on the Constitution, 1414 ct seq. Resistance to these practices had established the principles which was enacted into the fundamental law in the Fourth Amendment, that q mans house was his castle and not to be invaded by any general author ity to search and seize his goods and no ft, tutional Limitations, pp. 425, 426. in treating of this feature of the Consli tuition, said. The maxim that every mans house is his castle,' is made part of our constitutional law in the clauses prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and has always been looked upon as of high value to a citizen"
 Further on in the opinion in the Weeks case it was pointed out that the Fourth Amendment placed the courts of the United States and cer- tain officials in the exercise of their authority, under Limitations and re- straints, as to it's exercise, and that the effect of said amendment was "to forever secure the people their per sons, houses, papers and effects against all reasonable searches and otlLut CS uIuSI Lht $ ulSc Ol ta w. IiAf' protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under Federal system with the enforcement of the laws"
 Commenting on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, the court in the very recent case of Gouled V. United States, L. Ed. Adv. Sheets of April l. 1921 said:
 "It would not be possible to add to the emphasis with which the framers of our constitution and this court Gin Boyd vs. United States, 116 U. $. GIG, 29 l.. ed, TAG, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep 524, in Weeks V. United States, 232 U. $. 3S3, 5S l.. ed. 652, l.. R. A. 19l5B,~S34, 34 Sup. Ct Rep. 341, Ann. Gas. l9l5C, HIT, and in Silverthorne Lumber Co. " United States, 251 U. S. 3S5, 64 l.. ed 319, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep 1S2) have declared the importance to political liberty and to the welfare of our country of the due observance of tho rights guaranteed under the Consti- tuition by these two Amendments. The effect of the decisions cited is: that such rights are declared to be indispensable to the full enjoyment of personal security, personal lib- erty, and private property that they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty; and that the guaranty of them is as im- portant and as imperative as are the of the other fundamental rights to trial by jury, to the writ of habeas corpus, and to due process of law. It has been repeatedly decided that these Amendments should re- ceive liberal construction. so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon or gradual depreciation of the rights secured by them, by imper- ceptible practice of courts, or by we'll intentioned but mistakenly over -zealous executive officers.
 Many authorities are reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminal Ap- peals in EEK parte Gould, l32 S. w. S64, where is found the following language, here applicable: The pro lection of papers is as much se- cured under the provisions of the Bill of Rights as mans house and the same rules that apply to one apply to the other"
 Should any doubt ever have been entertained as to whether or not corporation was entitled to the pro- lection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, such doubt was entirely re moved by what was said in the case of Hale v Henkel. 201 U. $. 43, as follows:
 .Although, for the reasons above stated. we are of the opinion that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of statutt of the State of it's creation. or of an act of Congress passes in the exer- else of its constitutional powers. cannot refuse to produce the books and papers of such corporation. we do not wish to be understood as holding that corporation is not