The Daily Alaska empire., 1931-01-30
The Bill of Rights Wins.
(New York Herald-Trihllna.l )


 The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Go-Bart case will recall to the reader the
 sensation caused when in June, 1929, Federal Pro
 hibition agents raided the offices of this company on Fifth Avenue, arrested it's officers and others alleged connected with it. including Count Maxence 1 de Polignac of France, and seized papers which were supposed to contain a long list of prominent and fashionable customers. It was charged at the time that the Go-Bart Company had sold to these customers varying amounts of imported wines and liquors in violation of the Volstead law, and the threat was made to publish the list and to call those whose appeared it witnesses in the prospective trial
 The Supreme Court has vetoed this design by ordering the Government to return the papers seized and forbidding it to them evidence. The decision unanimous the ground that the warrant on which their seizure based was invalid and therefore that nothing they disclosed, however incrminatory, admissible in Federal tribunal
 Here is defense of the Bill of Rights against the encroachments of Prohibition enforcement that should hearten every friend of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and efects against unreasonable searches and seiz ures, shall not be violated, and warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched. and the persons or things to be seized' The warrant in this instance was procured purely on the allegations of an informer It did
 mot state facts sufficient to constitute an offense and it did not mention the Co-Bart Company much
 less describe the papers to be seized Justice Butler who wrote the Supere Courts decision denounced the methods of the raiders a .1awess invasion Of the premises and general exploratory search in the hope evidence of crime might be found" The Fourth Amendment, he said emphasizes the purpose to protect against all general searches since before the creation of Government such searches have been deemed obnoxious to the funda- liberty is to be literally construed and all owe the duty of vigilance for it's effective enforcement lest there be impairment of the rights for the protection Of which it was adopted"
 This is fortnight language which the Depart ment of Justice and eery of it's enforcement agents would do well to digest. As a matter of
 fact it is strictly in line with rule laid down by the Supreme Court long before the advent of Pro- hibition. To quote Professor McBain Gin his book Prohibition Legal and IllegalD "The Supreme
 tribunal said in effect that the only way the Fourth Amendment could be translated from words into reality was to forbid the introduction of evidence that had been secured by an illegal search made by Government officers"
 Curiously enough this rule is not followed in a majority of State courts. Again to quote Professor McBain: "They take the stand that evidence is evidence, whether secured by Government theft and trepess or by proper process This is notably true Tn this State. Hence the anomaly also supported by the Supreme Court, that evidence stolen by State officers or by private persons is admissible even ln Federal court though if obtained by Federal agents it would be thrown out. However as Professor McBain points out in States without Prohibition laws of their the search and sez- ure requirements the Federal requirements and are uniform for both State and Federal officers a strong argument in addition to that of double jeopardy for the absence of State enforcement act"