San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-09-01
WHEN A 81. p" RULES

A few days ago a citizen OF San An
tonic was arrested, his home searched
and property belonging to him seized
on warrant issued by district Judge.
Subsequently a justice of the peace, be-
fore whom preliminary hearing was
held, ordered that the warrant be
quashed, the man released and his prop
erty returned to him.
AS an abstract proposition it might
seem out of keeping with the fitness of
things governmental that Justice of
the peace should Undo what district
judge had caused to be done. But when
the facts are stated in their natural and
logical order, it cannot but be seen that
i'll this case the justice of the peace rep
resented the kind OF government which
distinguishes America from the old
countries-and they have since re-
formed-from which fled the founders
of this republic. This is the kind OF
government which guarantees to all Cit
zens the observance Of certain prin-
ciples designed to protect them against
despotic exercise of executive power.
The justice of the peace qaashed the
warrant issued by the higher court be-
cause it was defective on at least four
counts. The fact that the man arrested
was charged with violation of the liquor
law did not give the executive authori-
ties, or anybody else, license to violate
that or other statutes in the process of
bringing him to account. II the execu-
tive authorities are not to be restricted
by certain provisions of the very law
which they undertake to enforce. then
why should they bother to procure a
search warrant at all?
This question suggests the vital ser
vice performed by the justice of the
peace in the case referred to. II ex-
cessively jealous executive authorities |
were permitted 10 make arrests. searches |
and seizures without complying with
certain requirements of the law, what |
would there be to prevent them from
making arrests, searches and seizures
without procuring any warrant at all:
And if they were permitted to violate
the law in prosecuting citizens for al |
legged acts of one description, what !
would there be to prevent them from
the law in prosecuting citizens
for alleged acts of all descriptions? The
logical conclusion would be to make all |
citizens subject to the sheer will OF cx-
ecutive officials condition which used
to be described as despotism. 1t were
better that few possibly guilty per-
sons escape punishment than that the
tights OF all citizens be taken away.
If the proper procedure had been taken
to begin with, there would have been
10 occasion for a justice of the peace
to reverse" district court. The man
lcr of issuing search warrants is clearly
defined by law. Not only are there GER
ain representations to be sworn to. but
such oath must be made by certain per-
sons. If the representations made in
he case under discussion had been
placed before the justice of the peace,
IS would have been proper, then that
official would have refused to issue the
warrant APPLIED for; the application would
nave had to conform to legal require
nents before being honored. But the
applicants went elsewhere, got their war
ant without complying with the law,
and then had to undo what they had
lone.
Then they were told by higher Judi
;ial authority that hereafter" they, too.
would have to observe the law. Isn't
that fine tale to tell the world?