Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-29
Member Of The Associated Press.
Section Ten of the Howell Bill.

Section Ten of the Howell Bill.
While there are other sections of
Senator Howell's prohibition enforce
ment bill for the District sure to be
controverted, that part of section ten
which broadens the premises of prob
able cause for the issue of search war
rants contains enough fuel to feed the
flames Of debate in and out of Congress
for many long day to come.
The Volstead law confines the issue
OF search warrants of private dwellings
to cases where evidence of sale exists.
Senator Howell's bill adds these words /:
"or still or distilling apparatus is I'M
lawfully set up or being used therein.
or intoxicating liquor is unlawfully de-
livered thereto or removed therefrom. -
When Senator Howell's bill was for
warded to the Attorney General for
comment he opposed this addition on
three grounds. He felt that it would
result in the search of many homes of
persons not commercially engaged in
liquor traffic, that 1t would apply more
stringent regulations to the District of
Columbia than exist anywhere else in
the United States, and that it would
breed Ill feeling and antagonism to the
law.
Opposed to the Attorney Generals
sentiment in this regard is the philoso-
ply OF such determined drys as DR..
Clarence True Wilson, who recent
1y wrote magazine article on en-
forcement in the District and who
expressed the thought that the tradi-
ton that a mans home is his castle
covers entirely too much moonshining
IN Washington.
The practical difficulties of enforce
ment which led Senator Howell to pro-
pose his radical measure consist in
the fact that Illicit liquor manufacture
ers do, for a fact, set up stills and
other such paraphernalia in homes that
are protected from search because there
exists no evidence of sale within the
premises, and that while known boot
logger may be seen entering q private
dwelling with package under his arm
that resembles quart Of liquor wrap
ped IN brown paper, the mere fact that
he Is thus seen does not constitute
probable cause upon which to base a
search warrant or to modest the boot
logger on the spot.
No one will debate the fact that the
fourth amendment does protect MOON
sinners and bootleggers who, under the
eighteenth amendment, should be nut
behind the bars.
But the question is whether, in de-
vising ways and means legally to get
at these malefactors, there viii not
result more harm than good. It is
not the language Of Senator HowelIs
bill that lights a firebrand. It is the
danger of abuse. It is possible that
the old Writs OF Assistance were de-
vised for good reasons. But never
theleSs the fear and hatred of the writs
grew because in time every man
prompted by revenge, Ill humor, or
wantonness to inspect the inside of his
neighbours house" could get q Writ
OF Assistance, and when the Bill Of
Rights was written the fourth amend
ment was included.
Provided Senator Hcwell's section ten
becomes law, its effectiveness will. of
course, depend In large measure upon
the view taken by Police Court judges
and United States commissioners as to
what constitutes probable cause for sus-
pecting that q still is operating in a
private dwelling and that it is liquor,
and not ginger ale or soda water, that
is being "unlawfully delivered thereto
or removed therefrom." For the issue
of the search warrant will not be left
wholly to the suspicious policeman
The courts have invariably held that
no vague or general warrant is SUM-
Gent, and that the letter of the Con-
stitution must be closely followed,
placing the burden of proof upon the
claimant seeking to make seizure.
If Senator Howell's bill could be APP
piled only against professional boot
leggers, the ends might justify the
means. But 1t will not and it cannot.
There will be abuse and innocent per-
sons will be deprived of their rights
Other provisions of Senator Howelrs
bill are drastic enough without section
ten. That section should not remain
as it is written.