Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-20

| be obtained in the various Circuit Ct
brought to the Supreme Court of the
much less important than clarifying t
With the able assistance of Mahlon
D. Kiefer, who has headed the appeals
section in my ONCE, and Sewall Key,
rendered yeoman service on many
briefs, I have submitted 278 cases on
certiorari briefs to the Supreme Court
of the United States, and have helped
to settle finally disputed interpretations
| in nearly two scores OF cases argued
and briefed on the merits. Every one
| Of these decisions brought certainty
! where legal confusion had been before.
Have you not often been in doubt
to stop cars on the road? So had we
until the law was settled about three
years ago. The case Of United States
VS.. Carroll. 267 U. S., 1872. was briefed
and argued twice in an effort to decide
| whether q car can be stopped on the
highway without agents first getting q
search warrant. The Supreme Court
itself deliberated over the matter for
many months. The Chief Justice final
ly handed down an opinion in 20 pages,
which reviewed the law from ancient
times and decided that although agents
cannot stop just any car they please,
! they may, without search warrant,
| stop one the movements Of which they
have observed enough to be reasonably
certain Of its violation OF law.
A Blow at Rum Runners.
This decision has proved to be bull
wark of strength in dealing with rum
runners along the border. The court
made it plain that every case must rest
on its own. facts. But the facts which
they held sufficient to stop and search
the Carroll car were, first. the agents
knowledge that it had previously been
used to carry liquor: second, the fact
that 1t was proceeding from the Cana
dian border, and, third, that its springs
were very heavily weighted down with
liable to break into criticism without
waiting to know the facts when prohibit
ton agents stop cars. It is well to re-
member that the Supreme Court OF the
| United States has spoken afhrmatively
/ in unfolding their right to do so under
some circumstances.
Another recent victory in inter-
preting and strengthening the prohibit
| ton law is the case Of United States
keep their books just like business men.
They record the amount Of liquor
handled and the payments OF graft to
the police officers and others on whose
protection they depend. Because OF the
| constitutional guarantee to protect q
defendant from having to testify against
| himself and to protect his books and
papers from seizure without a search
warrant. most courts at first refused to
allow bootleggers' and other law
record their illegal business. to be used
against them. Government agents In
the Marion case went into q blind
pig in San Francisco. They arrested
| the proprietors and seized the books.
There was much difference of opinion
between Government lawyers as to
whether such evidence could be used.
With deep conviction briefed and
argued the view that the Constitution
never intended to throw mantle OF
protection around records of crime
found incident to the arrest Of law.
breaker. The Supreme Court upheld
this view.
Learns Respect for the Law.
Settling the law in this respect has
proved Of great value in the offensive
against big liquor violators. They
recognize it. too. Recently I listened
to testimony in Mcneil Island Peni-
Tertiary of q bootlegger, who described
how. after the Marion case. the ring
Of which he was a member constructed
a room under their garage. It opened
by trap door in the garage moor
which reSponed to an electric switch
In this vault all books and papers were
kept and all records Of graft payments
and accountings between the partners
in crime. He said:
1--WE weren't going to argue with the
Supreme Court after that Marion case
and run the risk Of our books reveal
ing all the inner workings Of our buSi-
ness I am here taking my jolt, but
there are lot of our crowd still out
because you didn't get our books when
you arrested me-"
have always felt that the worst
prohibition offender is the agent or ON
cial who shuts his eyes to some ia
vored" violator's acts. It used to be
generally believed, however, that there
was no way to punish such an agent
other than by reprimanding or firing
him. This gave him, merely because
he wore a badge, a kind Of santimonious
immunity that always ranked me. A
case entitled United States VS.. Donnelly,
276 u. s., sos, arose involving the very
question. The prohibition director OF
a Western State was convicted OF re-
fusing to prosecute rum runner when
he had plain evidence Of his violation
Of law. The prohibition director de-
|
prohibition act punished only commits
sions of crime, not omissions on the
part Of agents who failed 10 report
crime It was a nice legal point. Law
yers here were split over tt and the
Supreme Court itself was even finally
divided. But insisted that Congress
intended to catch defaulting agents just
as much as bootleggers. Mr.. Mitchell,
Attorney General (then Solicitor Gen.
k.,~~ Axvryv hPiAf
wrote one himself on the other side OF
the question. When the case was set
down for argument again I persisted
in my view, and Attorney General
Mitchell, like the fair minded lawyer
that he is, said: go ahead. File the
brief according to your own views, but
I can't sign 1t with you" We had
much friendly rivalry in the depart
ment over the fact that I went before
the court to argue 9 view OF the law a
with my superior officer's brief on ME
presenting the other side. The OUT
come, however, left the smile with me.
for, although two justices dissented. the
Supreme Courts majority opinion
adopted my Interpretation of the law,
| and the opinion was written by Justice
| Butler, Attorney General Mitchell's for
mer law partner and close friend! He
said (page STD:
Diligence and good faith on the
part Of enforcement officers are essen
tial. The infection Of punish
ment for their intentional violations is
an appropriate means to hold them to
| the performance of their duties"
This opinion has had q noticeably
| wholesome and cleansing effect on
agents and United States attorneys
alike.
When Foreign Nations Object.
Not only has It been necessary to
| strengthen the law at home by securing