Evening star., 1936-03-06
SEIZURE Of WIRES
!. IS BROAD ISSUE
May Open Door to Practice
of Inspecting All Com
muniCations.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

a right to tap citizens telephone
wires or to open letters passing to and
from a given post Office or to obtain
copies of all telegraph messages sent
by the citizen, if the purpose OF the
search is to secure information on
which to base new legislation?
This is the broad issue raised in the
District Supreme Court, for if the Sen
ate has a right to a blanket demand
for all telegraph messages 1t would by
inference have the same right to all
other forms of spoken or written COM
munications.
a. For many years the powers of in
vestigating committees have been the
subject of discussion, but 1t appears
that never before have exactly the
. same questions been raised as now are
about to be threshed out in the courts
by those individuals who are objecting
to what they term unconstitutional
search and seizure of their private
papers.
= There would seem to be no doubt
from an examination of the legal
precedents that the Senate Lobby
Committee or its agents have right
to demand information, not only rec
ords IN citizens files, but kilograms,
copies of which are on file in telegraph
Offices, provided the information sought
can be shown to be relevant to the in
uulry and provided also that Congress
has the constitutional right to legislate
on the subject or subjects of the lnves-
tigation.
Ruling in Point.
The demand for blanket submis-
sion of all kilograms passing to and
from certain city within given
period without specifying what mes
sages and what papers are desired and
their specific relation to the subject
matter has been passed upon once by
the Supreme Court of the United
States in unanimous opinion written
by that great liberal justice. Oliver
Wendell Holmes The circumstances
were about as follows:
In 1921 the Senate passed a resolu-
ton authorizing the Federal Trade
Commission to investigate the tobacco
trade, both domestic and export, with
particular reference to market prices
to producers. Under the law. the COM
mission already had right to have
access to documents and books Of COM
panies and by subpoena to require the
books and papers to be submitted to
it for examination. So the commits
sion called on the American Tobacco
Co. to produce "all letters and tele-
grams received by the company from,
or sent by it to all of its jobber CUSTOM
ers, between January l, 1921 to De-
cember 81, 1921"
This demand is similar to the one
made on the law firm of Silas Strawn
in Chicago and several other firms and
companies, the period being between
February /, 1885, to December /, 1885,
and all messages being asked for.
whether sent or received. The Amer
lean Tobacco Co. refused and the COM
mission asked the court to force COM
pliance, whereupon when the case
reached the Supreme Court of the
United States, the opinion handed
down stated that the fourth amend
ment to the Constitution governing
search and seizure had been violated
Unanimous View.
Justice Holmes said:
THE mere facts of carrying on a
commerce not confined within State
lines and of being organized as a cor
poration do not make mems affairs
public" And he added:
ANY one who respects the spirit as
well as the letter of the fourth amend
rnent would be loath to believe that
Congress intended to authorize one of
its subordinate agencies to sweep all
our traditions into the fire and to
direct fishing expeditions into private
papers on the possibility that they may
disclose evidence of crime"
Justice Holmes declared that the
interruption of business, the revela-
tion of trade secrets, the expense of
complying with wholesale demands for
books and papers, while of Importance,
really constituted the least considera-
tion In such a case The vital thing,
he pointed out, was that 1T is con-
trary to the first principles of justice
to allow search through all" of an
individuals or corporations records.
relevant or irrelevant, in the hope
that something will turn up
Lobbyists Control.
Congress does have right, however,
to make rules governing the activities
of persons who are in direct contact
with them as a business or profession,
but such rules can only be to the
extent of requiring visitors to register
and to state whether they are en-
ployed as matter of business to speak
for the interests of groups claimed to
be represented. The paid lobbyist
might be prevented from coming into
the halls of Congress unless he regis
tered or conformed to the requirements
set forth by the Senate or House, but
1t Is doubtful whether either house
could forbid citizen from sending let
ters or kilograms to members of Con-
gress whether he was registered or
unregistered lobbyist. In other words
the freedom Of speech clause of the
Constitution cannot be in any way cir
cun1scribed by act of Congress, and the
Federal courts decisions indicate that
while the use of the mails may be
regulated as to classihcations, there
can be no constitutional regulation OF
the activities of the user himself. The
mails can be closed to fraudulent mat
ter. but the punishment of the indi-
vidual rests on other statutes and
other police power.
Law Muzzles Employees.
The law says:
mo member. officer or employe of
the commission shall divulge any fact
or information which may come to his