Newspaper Page Text
b v Ho Ii a c e r e e l e y
PRICE 0.\E CENT.
Ii
I!
I dr.irr ? on to un?rr?tnad Ihr irwr principle* of thr (.oTrromrci. I njih ihcm carried oni?I a?k nothius snorr H?rri
>EW-VOKK, SATURDAY, APRIL 10, I84l.
o V TIC e no. 3 0 a \ n * t .
VOL. I. *0. I. j
CASE (>! RECORDER MORRIS.
Opinion of Willi* Hall, Attorney firn?ri?1. on the
''-' V'1- of thr fnoHnri of Kobrrt II. ?lorri?, K<
rorder of the < ity 0f ?w.Vork.
k- ATTr>*vrv Gunexal's<>?, . Ai!.,n.v. Janua.-v ii. 1-41.
!* ? ? I bavr iir honor to acklH>wledge the receipt of voyr Kx
""';'3*-' 1 '"???nmwnM'atH?!. together with a '?>;?? of IB* charge of
K ?W If, .Morr,.. Eaq. Rrrord-r ..f lb* c::v of Ve? i ,.rk lo t?>
??rand Jury of thai County. delivered in Novembet last,
itteation i? particularly directed to th- p<.rti-?u of the ?-h.lr?,
* . - Recorder details the manner ia ?u:fJ- to*- ??-iiav?ny taken
>-? I - the examining mari-trate on a ? bsryc aga u-t James K. Cleat- ?
? >rtB -a made public, u'ml al?. t.. tn?r portion :u which the Rccor l. r
s*=i?e? the manner of hi-seizing certain papers .-. posse?ioa of a
Mi Pierce, belonging to tbe said (?Icntwortb; and my opinion is de
sired, ?.i?-ther tb? procecdinga im tb.?? oc a-ioua are justified 6? the
Saw of tao laud.
There is n.? d..ul?t of the right of th? Recorder a. .r. cxamiaing ?
' ? 'ommutio; raaxfi'trwXek, anv ra..r?- tbtvr. tSo-r.. i- ?f th.- ri^>it ..f ? ,
ju.1?'-.?f the Suprrme (\iurt. althouzn it i- unusual for cither to act
ia ?ii: capacity . ami in ta?r of the Recorder, or <?!" any othei judirn
who to try lite an used in ca ? h- i- iadfi ted it - Dot," perhaps, for
?be advaoc. men! ofjuetice thai bis mind -hoi.l! be pre-eecupicd ?nh '
*ngur and loose statements of a preliminary examination. 1 >ne
U! igistratc Hr-. ?1-?.. by atxtuf a riau- to .??sonnte another with bun
m th? ??> amination? ? privilege ?aieii t ju-tic of the peace, not expc
r need la criminal law, often exercise*. ,o dUSeull and important
- ?Ith advantage to the public.
n 're is, therefore, no ground in tbii rf.;w! for the roarr" wnicb
tar R...irder alleges hu.? been made apaiu-t bim, of n-urpiar an
j ilbority ?hieb doe- unt belong :,. hi- otfiee, nitl<?? tht r ? ,?,iu ? ??
?rso~ .-..BliHWfJ a/l.r tht OMWtd And 6frn r???m,-t,d /or trial. At
<-k.;i a, the magistrate is satisfied that sufficient c?u??i exists for da.
Uiaing the, accused, the .d.j.-rt r.f ih?. etaainalioa in attained, and .11
-t-mor) takrn a/tfr tht commitment. i? t?k>-n without juru.d;ruoo.
aad l ui^nif..,! u?ur;.atu.u of th? pow-r? aud ditties of :h? gmud
in |uM ot the I'mintv.
Tbr charge that th<? exaxnim-.tion ?n- inquiidtorial, i* cjuallr uo
- nded, provided it *?. <-,,M,iUrtp,| in -.'.kmI faith. If the true intent
? k? to ascertain ?bethi r mere w*r? rea.?onable irrouod? to b.-h.'v*
that Glentworth wm. jruilty oft be crime imputed to tum. and uoUe but
. Sitioiony pertinent mid proper for the purport *iw ?llow.-d, the
tn-^ci-tr kte did no marc than hi? dutv.
Bo1 il - jeb a err not ih<- re d intent?if. Under roW of iave.ltigatius
i rearge againet (ileutworth, irrelevant teatimonj ?n? received, und
..;..sr..irv> ?uppoted tobe implicated w'T"- dlli'd upon ?? ttttutusm, in
-? -> i .if being charged u? rrin'aat?. and compelled to te?tif? nu.i r
>*tb t- th<sr o?n <-t>ndurt, riith.<r than to that of (.?lentworth, then
v.u. tn>- invcetigation m < lear violation of the great principle which
d.??unifui?he, ^ court from uu ?a<jui>iliou, that M ao man fboU be hold
tO ITj... h. in ?elf"
It ippeara b) the Recorder'* itatement, that the t>--t.monv u,k>-n
i fore htm, us the examining magi?trate, wn? publinhed a? n ?a.,
tales from day today, in the public journal-, with hi* kn.>?|..d?e und
conacat, and ia ?omc degree, und' r bia auperinteudence.
' b >mmon law. in it* humane and politk wHirhlulii.>?h to ruar.l
th- innoi i ut almoal froiu the poMibiiit> ol tmina eoaruuuuro wit'i
l' j?t v. ci>iy, to every one *? bo it aCCU* d of a crime, th- ad v *uta- f
v*o triali.
The t"ir-t i- before the (irnnd Jury, and i- merely a >4H ret. ti pnrtt
... |uu*itk>a, to a?rertam if there he tutficii-nt evidence to ju-tifv their
?riiMif the churve putdic, and putting the arcum-d upon bia defence
before the country.
The aecoad ia before ibe Petit Jury, wher- the prisoner in called
opoo to deny the charge, aad t- beard in hi- defence Tbe tir?t is
.-.^?r-t . the ^eroml in publn .
Kv t.'cination* liefori" maci"trut>~. ur.' n ?! triali. The evid-uce ia
.1 X gp '-Ii for the purpose of tttahlt.iKing Ihr intuit Or mnoi cncc of the
uaed biit merely to enable the magiivtrate to exercise h proper di?
*i ition . : discharging, commitiinr, or holding L:m to baiL Thi. pre
iry examination t* rendered neeeaaar^ oiilv becuuae the Oraud
iurv :i not al?av? in ????ion. V\'hen in -c-moo. th* proofi and
ch irge> luav be acut directly before it.
But the evidence, <vhen taken Sei".re the <irami Jury, ia required to
?>? kept ?erreU Is it proper, than, that the -arae to^tiuiouv -bould
aaseceasarily be mmle puiilir by tpe ronnnittint; uia^i-imt.' '
Th-crand juror? are ?v?orn to ???crei v. and i.oi allowed tu du-cl..??
the evidence given before theia, except m certain ca?<m ?peeified ia
the ?taute, 2 R. 8.724 ?31.
There ia no positive -tatute requiring tbe exaroiaatton.? before the
ro.urj .tralea to be conducted privately; but their ttroag a.iriloyv to
the inOjUOSt tiiken before the (irund Jurv. indicate, ver) pouitedlv the
srtaat impropriety of any uuuaual and uaaeeeaaary publicitv.
Tbe evil 1? much ne ?ani" in both cn-e~ the publication injurea th"
tanoreat. and enable* the cuilty *o e?r?p?v If th- practice is ullowcd.
the. uaprinciplrd, the rrvrnKcful. the uialicnius will be induced to u?e
the nriciatrate) x- a -;ife aud convenient medium for conveying their
:-r> to tbe i-ublic. It /? matt, r ?'f notoriety that in thi? raae, uu
uauiUly bappeoa, teamnnny wa? siten only <?? one -ide. Tbe >ru<e of
jUfUre mu?t be slinvincnnf indeed, in that max"trate who can wan?
tonly place tho?e loose, une.xpU'"0?', unsifted, ?i iiorlr, and (.for
.v ???it he know*') perjured ptatein? ''efore the world.
Th? Recorder aaya be th->uvb\ dn-corered a conspiracy io
?'^?iii?r many wealthy and powerful men, a eoaopirticy to carrv an
ejection by fraud, a crinie of the deepest offence baown to the laws,
?ff it it iu effect treason agam?t tho sovereignty of tbe people, crime
it requires all the power and ingenuity and energy of the legislature
j.id -Se Courts to check.. Under the-" eirouiustaaee* anil deeply >n?
preasfd (as the Recorder represents himself to have been , with their
uuportince. it win ,m art of unaccnuatuble imprudence to publish the
t-vtimnny in th* newspapers before the conspirators were all di?
?virered und arreated. UiUI giring them nn opportunity to flee from
juvlir?v. to suppress tratlBionv and tamper witS tbe witncae?. It mav
v?-U be that to thi" Very raune it is owinjr that the (iraud Jury were
ua^M? to find an indictment iu torn case for want of evidence. Tb?
Recorder bim*elf declare- that it it * neither tho unuul nor the
n>u< cour?e to make known the evidence whde any of lb? partie.
implicated are ft larpe."
Tbii Recorder nuv? be thoufht it nrcovwrr to examine the wit
ivva?.'? separate f>om each other. Ho? idle w.u. thi- precaution ?h^c
the testimony of the witncee of to-day ls read by tbo?<. who ar- :?>
b-vorae thi nitnc?Nr? ofto-morrow '
The investigation toil wa- an extraordinary oae. which w..uU
oeeei.s?rily produce excitement and be attributed to party motivet,
au i which, therefore, required extraordinary prudence Had debcacr
u-. conducting it. The Recorder ?tates that be was charged with art
mi; f'om political motives, aud that it ??> -aid that he intended i>
publish the testimony in order to affin t the approaching election,
c.m i! be attributed to u aicre raiatake m judgement, tiiat mith the??
airaiii'i before him h.i proceeded to verif) there charges aud con
vert -uspicion intocertaiuty, by mak.mr the very pubhratiou ?hin
tv> implains hi? political opponents predicted: Nor it wonderful
..fti-r thta that the expressions of contempt and disrespect ??! th?
Court, which the Recur de t complains of, -hould have been beard.
uauiual a course, calculated to injure th.- chaiacter of innocent
persona, Hml prejudice the accused on hia trial, and suspected, per?
haps unjustly, of a political motHtr-, and having apparently a polnirxl
bcarinc, must inevitably deferade the t'i;urt in the estimation of tic
pisjv.le. nud brilif the lu?s into contempt. Kven in trials before tic
Jui) which are b> luw uiiit ,u their nature public, when the ar.'i:??d
u present ?ith hi- counsel and his witiie??,-- m cro-sa-examine anl
, > plain and di-prove. in cvcitint causes, and wheu other trial- for tht
?orae off-are are pending, the testimony t? not allowed to be put
bshed iuci do arninal the direction of the Court, has been h.-ll
a contempt and a misdemeanor. In the trial of Thisttewyod andlng^
for hixli tn-ason, one Clement wa- 6ued i,">k) f^r publishing the pro
reeding* ..f the trial, contrary to the order of in- c.urt. On appli
cation, the Court refused t" rennt th?> fiue. They cay "theneces.
^rv of keeping th.- testimony of witnease* concealed from partie
?xad from e.u-b other is sometimes of the utmost conscience ii
the ndminietration of ju-tice. particularly on -u?. b trial- a- the-,
un u the ?Mine evidence mu?t rieres-arilv be given in such ca.
.,!:n v-t rrrbutim. and r.f which advantage DM} be taken either to :U.
undue favor or prejudice of the prisoner." I B. and A. ^1- Mow
u.u. a more forcible are th. remark* when applied to the informal
and rxvartt examiualions taken before the committing1 magistral) *
Indeed, a publication <>f b testimony huv been .severely amtna.l
vvrted upon by thcCourt: lathees.f K-\ vs. Loa, (3i Esp. Rep.
jv^t ?h'.'h wa? an iadfc uncut for publishing in aflSdavtl taken before
tie r^.n'mittiuc magistratee, the (VarT declare th. ir opinion that "the
publication o!<r yurii! cvi d?t- o U fore a trial wa> of itself highly
j>er>
r/ia:n?l
It tb'- Recorder hao not explained hu motivi ? thi- BOTel pro
?oedmc, shonlil be bound in charity to believe that -ome peculiar
tutd nnprecedenti d but iir.explstneil circumstance ia the ra*e ren
&h ,! the publication aecessara for the protection of the ar.ascd,
am "f himself, or for the du?- administration of the la? ia tbn par
n-W.^c ro?t. and not in any other case to w hit h the accused ?u .1
?Crange 1 . not that unv conceivable ?t?te of fa.-t. would ju-ti/y auch
ties .1 proceeding, but that th*? raight poasibl; mit lead an upright
iu .? as to his duty. Rut the Recorder himself says that:he wu in
S. ? -i do il t>ecau?e he h?.ird of COmplaiats made asa.nst him for
p,_,!?;,? ncrctlv, nod heinu'c the public mind a.-ua excited, and to
, . at misrepresentations, and to give an opportuflity for explana
u ,. iad denials. uExplanations and {icnials," bv whfm1 Cilent.
. _1 ? a accused, wa- before ' in and bad an 01 portunity iecurrj
Li ??? Iis to make ina raj lauatioa* sod denials there. Tbe n
? rew-aoa be? no mear.iog. ualess it be thxt tb- publicatioBj wa- ia
_..ided to rescb other persona .bar. ihr accused ->i:d put them upon
ti 1 trial before the irrest Irthua il t publk opinion; S?d if that ? as
uhi 'in nt. it was uadf'ubiedl> s criminal act, and subjected the
a igistrate to ?n indictment, Another reason u?-tmed 1-, that i.-m
it. ?. re made of his proceedmc ?ecr.il? Has a judge a rtghi
. diviatf fr.'ixi the accustomed and proper (ourse of judicial
ilinUtraxiOB toprot<?i kxmutlf axs.nsl n ?< a-rle-? r|amor ' Tbe
. ? .sr.tier of a judrc." it has been said. " is b-.t al "t?cr i-a-i)e for '?crr
?xi itioa.' Nojudgx v*bo regard- orlv th-t popularity-which f.-l
. . 0"! that ?hieb is run sfter." would trius in?V uith the rights of
1 ? u?d.aadthe ?a< red duties of his hi?h office. None of tbe
.- given by the Recorder will bear examination j all, except the
apii ,r ex'-.iem.nt. easy exi?t ;n cv. rv case that arise-, and a* to ihe
aciiement, the publication could r i r. the nature ofthinge, have
cv ..lh< r effecl than that pr.niuced in lin. i to fan tho Coals into a
ami Tftt 1 ublicatioa of the prelim a'f u^timony by the magie
iti himself, pending the investigatiou, i? sanctioned by oo law or
,? It .a baAioeii to rn- without precedent m the hi-tor) of ju
... ;.i <e..;in7?- and tbe rraaoa? rrv.a for it only aggravate the
Tbl K-eorder a)?o >nfvrRi> tie Crand Jurv thai exceptions have
u tax it to his fii'f 'o the uirnt time, accompanied b_? the M.tvor,
1 the boxaaa of Pserci and pr^sruring from bix- by thruateninf to
-_- b to? fcou??- 'ertaiu papers wUicb bad l<?a U-li by bim for aaf*'
. ; a /
Phi axcoanl which tha Reeorda/ ( of Lhu .. ^.-l. ia as
u I. in eompaay with lastac i. v anan. Mayor of the- eity of Sew
York, *cat to (be a >u-' f vi- Pi. '--. ?? our o^'al characters, and.
dein inded of birr, inc. said paper-. Mr. Piere? informed us that he
h?d a bundle of pap.-r-, rbicfa Gleatwortb informed faira relate,i ;.i
the traD?%etior.s which were. jne)*r im estigatlon before the Recorder,
whi-h were banded to hirn un'i?r a promise upon hi- part, thai be
would retain them for Mr Cj lent worth; aa.l h>- therefore refused to
band there, t.i u? I informed him th-jt a? nagi?trate* ?? were. r<^?
ftrlUd to tak* thrrm. and uule-., they ware pieca to u? wa should pro?
ceed lo -'iiri-a ni? hou-< for them, Mr. Pierce Plated if ire had not a
kftt! r:?ht to laae them, be would unde- 30 rirctimtaacei fire th''ra
t-> u?. I informed hira tbal we not only had th- iegal rieht, but our
official .!j'.> compelled us to malt? ?n .-frort to obtain tneiu. And I
n'.w ?t?te, if Mr. IVrce had persisted in hi- refusal to civh u. toe
p ipera I would have proceeded and -?-arrhad hi- bou-* for :h?rn."
" We wi-u: there in nur njfietal charortrr,;1 \ r3B jjn,l Bo ,t.itu!?
and au priueiplo nf r>'u?r?! law. wh:-h nik>> it th<? duty of the Mayor
and Reorder t? -eirra the houses of citizen-, under any pretem n
whatever. The nrht of -earrh mar ?\wi, it cortainl) doe*. !<r
statute, in (??.??> of -t-.l*n and embezzled good* : but in euch ctfn it
I? mid^ th-duty of the ministerial officers of court?lit* -senrT. tae
m-r-b^i and the uuD\i^i!fv
The magistrate h?- no morn r cht to m.ik'- :n" -?-?r-h. this a con?
stable ha* t<> msk ttie warrant. The law h.-? dreruc.l it ii?;>ortarT tu
the administration of justice, to --para'..- the judicial from tb? mios
tcnsl duties, and 1 ouamit tro-m tu distinct r|*..,f officers. Nor are
these du tie* inter, hangeable, any mir? than are the appropriate dutie*
of the legislative, and of the executive department* <>f government.
\..r tb<- distribution of duties accidental, >>r immaterial, or intended
merely for tb^ tu .r- -<iu\?? ui-ut au>l ..rilrrlv administration of puldir
a flair-.
It hx? it- source m a deeper ind m<>ri- vital piinciple. Mr-. >?t all
th' power? ?>f lh<- mott itivoljtn ???irnnm'.. ?>xist ^nd ar.- exercised
in m republic. Hut their exerciwi k rendered -at".- mh.I cooai-tent with
liberty, by tin- minute and -ur.-ful distribution 1 at<> th?? departments
uud irrndatiani. of office-, ??? ihni the puw.-r eommittedp-to ?uv one man
:?< ?m ill, and ??hi-'-k'-d. and bounded ou ?II xidei b^ t.i?- r.?un?-' led, l>ut
indrpendcut powers' ?birh ar<- derolve?! up?ia oth<-r-.
It :- uiaaif^-t, therefore, thai the preaorvation >>f ths limits ol official
[.i)?rr involvea tb<" -'->-urity of liberty.
?objection lo th?- lr-ality of tb" ~-ur<-b iu th- relebrated cii?^ of
F.uti^k v-. Carrington (hereafter referred to.^ wa? that th?* warrs.nl
? 01 ?-x?-utrd by th^ Srcn tary .,/" f*tat?, thrmiffb hi- pru atx -.-r\ ?nt?.
ami uot b> th'- m.ni?tt-rial officers provided l>\ law for -urh duti--..?
19 Howell's Stale Trial-. IS, :i7.
Th^ cotuequenceN flow me from th' doctrine that the ?ci of th>'
Krrordor wa, an anthorized 'official nci, will l?- (bund intolerable.
Tb<-> nr' that every hou?i? iu th>' ity m-t\ h.- rnt**rcd bv this magis?
trate, (and of course l>v auj othrr committing iiiasn^trati-.'- by dnv or
b} niirbt. and searched without - arrant und with impunity, und
whether tnrr- |?<- or be :i?t rau-'. t'ir> injured parly 1- without redrea?.
Thi? rnn?r<|upn<-i> ari<?-? not from tli<> existeucr of the nirbt. (which
for th<- pre?eni may r>f admitted, but from , it mnitsc m which. 111
this cave, It has l?-<-u a?rrri<;-d.
Iu all '-a-.'-i of senri h ;i itr;iri/cii by Ib?? -t.itu ?i the party on a hose
complaint it is made, does it at hia peril. SB.roo-aarraat? for st?i?n
cood? are provided h> -talut" : y>-t in B<?stock vs. Saundcrs, n Wil,
*,'It. thw Court a-.1 -In r;,?, of ?aar r b-? ar r auli for -lolrn rissl.
,1,.. lurorrurr makes ontb that a frlouy ha- tinn committed and ma
r>-ii.-^>n" h<- ha- to cuspect mo foods concealed in ?u> h -i place. Tiio
execution of warrants depends upon ib>- event?lawful if th' eood?
ar>- tb<r.'. unlawful il th^r uro not"
Th>- caee frmn w birh this citation i- made, was an action of tre-pas*
a|raio>t <-artatu cuatom-bouse oflirfrs. for enterinfj and searchinr
tbe plaintifTs houee for uncustomed fooils, b> ?irtu? of un Knirlish
stHtuta. 10 tiro. I. c. 1". 'j 13. No roods were found, and it w,,?
h?-ld that ta.i officer ?ho u?s u!-o tb.- informer was liable for
dumaynn. That the v?ur.-ant was a rair- permisriou : thai tha otfii-or
was a volunteer, s.nd qcted at hi- peril.
A i-imilar rast- undai th<- ?am? statute, 1- reported, 3 Wil. 61, (lrji-?
ts. Rawlin, ?t a!, in whi--h me jury pave .CI"*-1 damages, ajtbough no
damage* in fart ?it? proved, und a motion was nud' to -,-t a-id.- the
verdict t'hlef Ju<t,r.- Wilmot -*.??>. "Thi- i- an unlawful entry into
11 man's hou-e, which l? 1 1? c-ist! : an invasiou .ipon tin w if- and
family, at pcara am) o,ui.-tn''-a thcr->in, frijfhl.- ? i and surprised hr
th?-s?> drp<-nili-nt-.' 'They continue to p<> on a i act af ain-t the *ub
ject iu thu ilb jral '.iianu'-r. and then coma to ihis court and sav. The
dumaiti-s am too larp.-, w,- pray you n-.tu'c thi ru.'
'? For my own pur:, I am vary < l-arly of opinion '.hat this 1- 00a of
tho??' r?ss iu whw-li th-- i iurt will not interfere."
Munv -imilar caaas mivlit be cit.-d. aherejuriei hava given rx?,m- ?
"plary diitu nr.-s again*! the nformor. or iienjnst the oifir, r, ?;,"n ib'->
acti-d u)>on their own information; an! tho-c verdicts wcra ooi oulv '
ejatajneil, but warmiv approved b? the court. Th- ?uprrrr.o court of
this Stato is unwilling to go a- far a- thr-e. KnrUah c:i-r-. hut declare*
that an action on the c:u-e w lU lie by the injured [mm . if bo can -how
a wunt ofprobAblc r?u-a B Wend. 263, Rail t-. Claee.
This ca-a ei Hires that tbecourts recognize no authority by the com?
mon law .to enttjr and -can h the hon*e of a rim?n, and that in the
onlv rases, (thisi-e of-tolcn anil uncustomed cood-.. where authority
it given b> the statute, tbey do not consider it a* the 'official duty' of
any officer or magistrate, but mere statutory permission tobeexer
Cised at thr peril of the flirty sunl^ OU! the sr.onaC
Now, to apply this doctrine to the present ra->. The ?asareb and
! -enure wer-? made without an informer, without oalh. without war?
rant, and the Recorder protect* himself under tn? 'official i-haracter." ;
so that bowe/ar groundlee? tho suspicion, and how mu' h soever Mr.
Pierce may ha>.- be..: outraged, he 1? utterly without redre?. if the
principle* aaeuued by .he Recorder aie Inn-.
Thu objection to the maauer of the -earch nud aeixure 11 placed to j
a strong light b> the bill of rights of the State of M*s?aohu<eit? ; Re
viard Statute*, p, 16, art. 14 ' Kvery ?ubjrct baa .1 right 10 be e-curn 1
from all unreasonable searches and eeixurc* of hi- person, hi? houso-.
his papers, anil all bi- j'osse?^jon-. all w urrnuts thrrefor?. are contni-v
to this right, if the ttm^t or fuuntialwn uf ibetn hi m.1 prcent>fiy *<ip
pprttd by out* Of ofinntttivn.' 1
This is declaratory of whnt wac i|?s.mad aa Important ngSt of ororv
eitixen under the common In?.
It does not absolutely prohibit searches), but darlare* that it 1????n
tie] to th? protection of priv ate right*, that the, rhould id all ,-a-e- '
?be by warrant supported h> i?oih or affirmation.' and that \1 not so |
supported, they are/t>- rA.ii fjtui unreasonable.
So in Burton's eaeei, 3 Graach 44W, derided under tbn Constitution .
of the United States, it wa* declared that every wMrr?ut issued wa*
illegal uule^ it state some ifo?ai cause, certain and supported by oath.
There is another fact in tbe manner of this proceeding, which de?
serves noun??the invasion of tae bouw of AJr. Pierce w a.- mad>? in
the mxht tune.
Hale doubt* the let tlity of sraniins a -e.i:rh warrant to be exec t hI
in the night. C Hale, p, f. 150.
Hv tb- l!nffli?h authorities penerally, sueb an execution ii juatitled
onlv iu extreme case-; such n? when there is positiv* pro->fof 3 fel?
ony, and danger that the ^,-jds will b-- removed. 4 Hum, 131
The ordin?r) forai of a -ear-li warrant C>, presses on the far,-, of it.
that it is to be executed in tbo day tinv-.
Tbe on!) cane in which our statute authoi\rr* a ?e.orch au.I setxoro ,
of papers, is when an officer refuses to deliver to his su.-ceaaor tbe
books ami paper* of hi* office , and iu that rase, .t expre**l) restrains
the exeeutiou of the warrant to the day time. 1 K. S. 115, \ 39.
So in rase of.stolen c<s?ds which i* the onl) other one allowed, the
statute restricts a nigbl search to tbe aingle ease in which tnere is po
?itivc proof that propi rty ha- b: eu stolen or embezzled ind ronreul- ?
cd tn the particular bouse or place rr(|uired to be -ear--hed. S K. s.
These venerable antboritic*, the form of the warrant, und th.- care?
ful provisions of the ^laiut.?. all show bow important thi? restriction
hn? alwuv,. been held.
Thev -how also that if this ?ci had be.-n done in th.> ?um.- manner
under a warrant, it would not hr.re tx-en protected. l>ut tru- officer a*
weil as the arruser would have !>.-. n it m. re tr?- paa-er. And is it
po-sit-le that an act done tntk.mt tro*-rant is entitled tn more privilege
than the ?.:tue let dorn- ander aud fjy virtue uf a wi.-arut dul, i-sued
and supported 1>> ifw oath of tlr* accuser?
Admitting then that the right of search and *eixure <*t:^t* m this
ca?e. I am compelled to the coo< lusiau mat the essnrr of it* exercise
in the acvcral particular* referred to, i* uot authorised by anv la?.
That "it exhibit* a dangerou* usurpation of power, of evil example,
and that if sanctioned a.? a precedent it ojsj lead to a bousdle** op- .
prea?ion.
But it i* denied that any law exists iu this State autboruia: the
-ear' h for, aa.l the reizure of.prtraitpaptrt.
The exereir ? of such a ruht is utterlv inconsistent with two of the '
universal ard too?t cherished principle* of the common law. The
t'. ret i* 'that the house of the peaceable uaorfrodiur citizen i- inviola
| ble." t;at otfence had Mr. Pierce committed ! lie wu, n- ither ac
rj >ed r.o- ?r-pi rted. A uxau's hou?e- :s hi- caitle,' no >ue i an p iss its
thr sbold without b:- b ase. He may defend it rveo to the takmc of
In".. ? (he poorest man,^say* Lord-Chatham. * n?y in hi* cottage bid .
defiance to all the force- of the crown?it iuav be frail?the roof may
i'ba?'? the wind mav hlo-a- throush it?the ?tonn ma.v enter?the rain
ma> enter?but the King of England cannot enter?all bis fo.ces da.'?
not crory Uie threshold of the ruiued tenemenL' Is this personal in?
dependence lev* dear to an Animcac citizen than to aHnusn ?ut>j.-ct*
ArehurigbU lev* protected or his bom* lee* sarred' .No matter
?hclhei I'ieir.- .-mplains of the outraye. or humbly acquiesce* in
[thi* midnight invasion of his aojaehoid. the assumption and ?\cr
c,,e of such n powct by * high oiditiaJ officer and tit? ?ubsequeut pub
(llc vindication of tbe right is a precedent fatal la the security of th*
domestic altar of every eiti^-o, unl-?* ? mark of pul'Tie reprobation is
?i; ujM.n it a* signal and n< - t mousa* th* offer, c. Tha principle .s ? r.k
< ut an exception. If ? n-.ia makes fc.s bou?< au a-vluta for felons, or
a receptacle for the goods of felons, ii i* outlawed, but ?urb * cuss u
not on exception lo the rule, thai the house of a re?pectable citizen ,
?under the protection of tbe law> cannot be ectsred w Ithout his consent.
Tbe other great principle, of the conamoa law which is violated by
[exercite of ih?i power, i* 'hat -no man ran be compelled to testify
tagains! himself.' If a min'? private paper* can be frirced from bis
j osses* oo. oo matter'wh'th*r w ith or wit hi at a warract. :f a*s boose
caa be searched, his trucks and hia dra? er? broken open, lo furLi-k
c-videnee against himself, on ? cntaioal accusation. ?b.i not apply
force I bi* per*on1 Why not rack hi* frame, and tear hia Uaab with
pincers to extort confessioa* of hi* arts, ?cd h.s motives, aud tb*
th.iucht- of his heart' 'I'be principle is the iara-. It 1? a i-ota raau,
/ustias- thr urrui.d lo pita evidence r<am?t h mseif. It is the apj'li
jcatioa of the torture. A few cases-will rbow how ca.-rfwUy court
have gua-ded against e? alenca of this kin t.
lo tbe ease of Rci >? l a. 1 \\ :1 :'.(? in.- . ..urt say, th-i rul*
h. rctofore granted in thi* cas? to inspect th.- parish hooks our,ht n--t
to have b.ei. made t" C.-.u?e tt was obli.-iuif the defcndanu to produce
evidence again*t to?m-.!ve?. aud tb- maxim that 'no m-in shall bo
boand to accuse hims?!:','has always been reiiciou-ly adhered to,
that la the cavse of a witness if ,ns ei.-e be put to bin* * fir b ruav
niTect himself, he shall not answer thereto .diaoueb pos-it.iv hu =n
>w or ought do complete justice between the partle*, so that the law
?sill rather luffer n particular inja-tica. than break, through tha* aiui- I ?
La ? hiah ?'uoid be g*uav*J ? ? ? ueaX,
In the Ttv "i'R?x r%. Dr. I'jr-ci'. I Wil. 33 >, the -ourt refuse a
rule requirm- the 1><h>V- of the corporation of Oxford, tu b* op?n for
the inspection of the xttoraey drneral ?n au information afaixut Or.
I'urrr?, the vir,..,-h:,:irel|or. for a rui-demcanor. Thev ?av. 'if thi*
court should er?,it thi' rule, it will, instead of doing justice-, bit a
foundation for something like an inquisition of State; for thi* court
-Its to h?ar evebinr... not tO furui-h ic*
In the cav? ofRex v< Dixon/decided 3 Rurn. lt>T. a -uhpcrna d??
rr, trriirn was issued to give evideu.-r beforea grand jury* and topro
. dure ?hr?- vouch*'-. ?hi'-h had Ih?u produces] 3n,i insisted upon by
, one .Mr. !V:,?;h. th- defendant's rii-m. before a ma-t.-r in rhaacerv, and
this subptrna with tbe ducea leeum. ?a- :u order to found a pr?-e,-u
tion by a jy of indictment agninvt Peach, wa,, had prodjrrd thrs*
Toueher. before the na-ter. for forgery, Mr. Dixon refuses! to ip~
1 pear. On motion for an attachment. Lord Msn-fi-ld was clearly of
opinion that ' Mr. Dixon ?a- not compellable to deliver up ih?r pu
j per? again-t hi- client, aud mat instead of producing them sjaio-l 3i
elient. he ought, immediately upon receiving the subpoena duce-rte
eiim, to hare delivered the-a up to hi- rli?.-;t.'
So ia the ras.-of Holden and Ray rs. Harvej-, 4 Rur. 24^9. Lord
Mansfield says, ? that in i:?il cases, th.- rourt will force parti.-- to pro?
duce evidence t*h.<-ri mas prove again-l themselves, or leave the refu?
sal lo do i; a- a -trorc presumption :?> thr jury : l.ut in a criminal or
peaal case, the defendant is never forced to prodjr* any evidence,
though he should hold it in nis han>ls in rourt.
So vttallv importaut t< tai- protectioB deemed that the declaration
'no man -hail b? compelled ia any criminal ca-e to be i witness
again-t himself.' is inserted iu tbe Coa-titutioo of the l.:uited Stated,
repealed ia the < .a-i luli ?n ?<( this Stut... und reiterated in our own
Bill of Right.
Tbe Recorder admits, or rather justiiW himself, on ground, - that
ihere is no warrant Uoowa to the law to search for testimony ' He
1 pWcr- tne runt upon what he r ills ' the fir-t and rootrolling principle
of common iaw.' which he asserts to bia "th" right 'of the magistrate)
to do ??v.-r> thing necessary to prt;trrt the community at large again*!
? the depredation of felons, a-itb the lensi ;kis.i!)I? i ijur;. to the rights,
privileges und property of individuals.'
This i- but a translation of the language of the r.-nimi?ion which
constituted a Roman Dictator, ?' quid tirrrmcii typublito rupiul.'
. which conferred upon bim the power to do all things which in hi
judgement th- g.md of the Republic might require; aud it ne-ii not be
? added that it wj? thi- dictatorial power ar?umed uude- tbe form ofre
: publican liberty, that n- the m/iii instrument in .-.labli-h.ng impe?
rial and tyrannic power. It i? certainly extraordinary thut the a>.(
and controlling principle of our free common law, mi careful of private
rich's and individual independence, ro jealous of discretionary power
even in the l-.i-hr-t judge*, should confer upon an inferior magistrate,
a justli ?? of the pen... .ir a police officer, a power the sinn?, in it- nature
: a- that sr.:c(i the Romans, in their extreme emergencies, rroated for
' the purpose of suspending ?II law The proposition i- a ?tartling one,
wh-n it is asserted by one of the judges of tne land. It ha? 1.u
thought that a multitude of laws, defining minutely the rittht- und du
ite? of citizen-, and le i. irfg n< thmg to the discretion of judge-, is the
br-t evidence of a fr--r people.
It ha- passed iuto j ;r. ixuu that 1 that people is in a miserable aervi
j tude whose, law- ar? vanu* and unr.-rtaui und ?hat more v igue tbau
the di?'retion of courts whose mcinbnr- are -jj---' - " J ... ? .
I ... ... ,...?? public: The on donuition oi a
. -Ia?r. i- uiir whose rights aud duties are prescribed by the discretion
of another.
There is nr> such principle kaoxn to the common H?. It is tbe
I doctrine of usurper*; two of the best lawyer- and ablest men in Eng
I laud, iq the lime of Mansfield and of Chatham, declare 'tbe chapter
, of expediency ?h- rery won: -..u.c* .if adjudication; in -?> much as
' it tend- to th" settin- afloat by degrees, the whole law of tbe realm.
. ind the law ofdiscretion is the Ian of tyrants!
?? in our law the judges are hound by a sucred oita. to determine
according to the known laws and ancient customs of the realm, set
down in judicial deciaioni nud resolutions of learned, wi- and up?
right judges upon u rariety of particular fact-, and i a-e-. ?bich ? heu
they have been thus in u-e an.! practised lime out of mind, are a par;
' of the common la* >>f the kingdom ' (See letter na libels, ?arruat..
the seizure of paper-, &r by CamdeB aud DuBaing, p. KM.)
1 ?? V,^-??itv _S|.,tr, necessity thn protection of the people.' ha- been
t the never failing plea for nerv assumption of power: nvery m>a?iou
of private riirht- which b.l- Vevr.J and opprenaed lu.iiik.nJ iu all pa-t
; hl-tory.
The judges ofKaglaad wore once impeached by the lion-.- oi Com?
mons, for asserting tht- very doctrine, which tV Recorder say- i- the
controlling principle of common Uw. They were judges who in th
reinjn of I'hurle-. I. in lb" ca-e of ' -hip money.- decided that 'State
Bocessity' would ju-tifv the rru-iu^ money without ih- eoBseat of
1'arh.xnicnt. and that the Kmc us.- the judge of that necessity.' This
? almost ideutiral ?itb the proposition of the Recorder, :hut tbe u.-.
eeseity ol protecting the public ca ill justify the searching a niau'
hou-e Und 'V/ .ns his pajier-. wulbouf sny e xpre? "authority of law ;
and that the m..~i-tra:r ia '.nej^.l-.- of tb-t n-ve-aii? it.,i llampdeu
and his illustrious associates tr-.u^m otherwise; and they thought
moreover tnat it ?as matter of imptockmepl for the jud^.-., who are
swurn to administer the law a- it -. to attempt to e-taldi-h a principle
!?.? utt'-rl v -ubrersire of the r:n hi? ? f the ritiy.en.
The proposition i- uot a new one. It baa been resorted to before to
rov-r lb- - uii" right of search lor .i;,.l seizure of pap- rs. And Lord
Camden answers it by ?ayiue. after ilc-cribin; th- power claimed,
"Such i- the power, a'id therefore one should aatnrally ?xpeel that
the Inw tn warrant it, -b .uld be clear in proportion iu tbe po??r is
exorbitant,
" //it ?- Isiic. it ici.'i bf found ?? our 6oei* . ?/ il is u?'f la be/immd
? An?, il \j> n.ii iutr " "To -enrch. sei/..? aud carry a?ay all thi pa
per? of the subject upon tbe fir-t warrant. That -ucb a right -nould
have, existed from th.- time * b.>f the memory of uiaa ru.xueth not
to the contrary, and ne?er ret tut- found i place in any book of law,
ia incredible,."
Again the -sme grei.t judge :u 'omracutirir jpon a resolution -?id
to liars !iecU mads bv the twelve judge- of England in the time of
itic mfinioi.j < 'ln >f Ja-tice gcroggs, i" '.bat all persons that do write or
print, or -ell anv p?ira|ih|el that either -eandalou- to puldli or pri?
vate persons, au< a books may h- -.>i/..vi and the perron- punished by
law," s?vs. "'"an the twelve judge- extra judicially make a thing
law, to Sind t*ie kingdom bv ? declaration that ?u.-h i- th.-ir opinion ?
I ?ay uo. It u matter of xtapi litkmenl lor any judge to affirm it."
Rutii'thia 'controlling principle of the common law' exist, ?h;ch
gives thera the rufht to do what they judge neces-ary for ihe protec- (
tion of the public. thr\ mu-t certainly haven right, and it i- thi ir
duty, to declare that judgtrntnl by resolution or otherwise, a-rn-ca :
a- it ia th- duty of the Legislature l ? ;ia? a law.
In thn formation of governments and tb? establishment of laws, tne
state.man and legislator are bound ' lo provide for the protection of
the community at Urge, with the least possible eajory to the rights, .
privileges anil property of individual-.' The error of the Recorder .
rouai-ts in transferring t!u- principle from the Legislature to tuo
courts?from ih ? rt>,;cr-?irst oj to ihi ir administration.
The extraordinary dorirtue of ttie Recorder, that some portion- of I
the common luw have never been reduced to writing, and are not to
be found in any book, i- equally novel und untenable. Lord Camden
saya, ?? The naaii i und right- if public magistrates, their power and
formv of pr.x-e-itini:. .? they ure -ettlci! by ia?. nave been Imia sine" ?
written, aud are to be f und :n books and ri?-ord-."
The Recorder, therefore, ? bo ha- ex-rci-i-.i this pourr of -'?irch
and seizure of private paper-, and declared his intention to cOBtiaue
to exercise it. i- bound to sh '? ?..rae precedoat or authority in la? for
ao doiag . und this h.- baa attempted tu do.
He cites -ev ral cases, as '.'Stark. Rep. ??>!. I Leach 235; Warson**
? i-e. -.' Stark. I 10. I.'t7 . Rollinson's ra.se for murder of lleleB Jew It :
Toansead's ru*- of maiming with vitriol. I.a-ra-u-' .-a-.- for forgery :
Phebe Inn-Floor for murder; aud he munt have cited many more.
v? here paper- *r other article* found oh the persons or :n the possession
of ihe accused, have be. n u -ed on their trial n< ev eteure again?! them,
without objection. If objection bad been made the authority of the
cases would have been the stronger, But why ha- uot objection been
made- Sot tserau-e no !,.n!v ever doubted rn-ht to search for aud
seize private papers, but because no body evei doubted that if the
evidence was pertinent and legal the court ??uld not and could ..>t
form a rollatvral issue io i>c?rta:n bo* it was obtained. \ad evi n if
th- illegal maoiier of obtxiuiuj it ?i re admitted, t! would form no le?
gal objection to lie. testimony . and the court could not, on that a. -
coi.nt. reject rt. 'J'ni- principle was fully recognized in.tbe Cases ??(
Jordan v-. Levis, N East.35st, note,) an-! Legget ?-. Tollervey where
the papers wrr.> n.-t only illegally obtained, but against the express
order of the court, aud were objected 10 on that account: yet tbe
court received lh< m. declaring that "thev could not lake notice .a
what manner they were obtained.' Preei- iy the ...ui" kind of prece?
dents were resorted to by the advocates of xrt..trarv power, in ih.-ir
vindication of g< :i ral warrants; but Camden and Dunning reply the
maxim of law, irwu.aVn no* t.i >?<: /urtnia tatet?' an unlawful manner
of comm.. !>v paj.er-. will uot prevent. th-:r being evidem e ?h-u jiro
duced.' .Sen a letter concrniug libel-, warrants, the -? izurc .?t pa- ;
pen, Ac. ?nttrn by I'amden and Dunning. 1771. 7th edit, p. ISS.)
Again, in Fntirk and Carringt >o "And if it should I? ad led that
thr,r ?:i".i2t- to seize paper- "uzkt to arnuire -. m.< -treugtb bv
the -ilenc' of tbo e rojrt. ?* hica hav r heard them read so often. u;~'n
retura-. ?itkout c.-nsuru or auimadu r-t"a. '. am able tu borrow niv
ans?er to that prefea ? from ibe I'ourt of Kmt'i Bench ?bich lately
declared with gr-at unanimity, in '.u. i-i-.- of general ? arrant-, ta .t
a- no objection ??> taken to t*Vtu -;.on th" return., and the r-?t:. r
pa?vcd rai ssirativ. the i.r. r. .:--jta ?e " of BO Weight, The rias- of
ra-u?, therefore, r.-f.-rrei ;., by the Recorder, does cot. directly or indi?
rectly, involve the principle, and \ rove- nothing.
Scvr-alcx-cs are referred to on the law of arrest. Holley vs. Mix,
3 Wend. ;C?>. Foster, 3?; 1 H?l?. 430; 2 Hawk. ch. 14, ',7. which
prove that * private pertos may arrest a feloa wttbo-.t ?arrsat. and
mat where a felony ha- t" en committad, the felon taav be pur?ue,j
lat i a j.-rivale bouse, and the door, mav be broken open mak-- the
arre-t if admittance u. refuied. The la* of th*?e ca-. v aud aiixhorities
ia cot doubted . but ?hat analogy or application base they to tbe ca?e
ofa -cizut of p'-irzu payt't ? Tbe arrest of fi ?::b or ??.:?. i
? irran;. i? ? ipresssly authorized by common aim by ?tat?tr 14? hut
what i- re.paired iDtSLica.-e is a -imiiar ttprttt anlKori:?,1 leri > ??<]
fiotu eitbrr. autboi ixia,' the seizure of papers. None ha* been or ...
duccd. accl si ce which would not di??-?<!it bn cm^. ha* been found.
If he ha-?arch's) the recorxla ..l'tbe sta/chara&e.'. be ha- fouud pr-r
dents of warrants far .ca'c-' for paper- :n case of libels, but tbey
oritinated. and ?er? supposed to have died. ?Ith that .Jirga) and ua
quuitorial trib?a iL
Rut the argux- .".: of-.-. ?. :v 10 .rri, r to rooviet ta* f'.rfsr. the
r..tit.or. trie bur^'i 1* a;. : i-r raurii. "'. i- rrH.'t- J It would be easy
lo -h..n mat the seizures to m -t of the (Ve* of ihu- kind, are justi?
fied by pnociples ?h.ch have no application to this ca?r. The
rum of fe.-. j not.--, a." ' *lso tie flates for eusrav.aj them. 1? mid*
ca o:r-ccs hi -Uta'", "wr.-l 'ii-^-tosref.irc. -ubji- t to ,ruur?. So
ut common law the aniiur V?f tio-i>onablr raaller was itself an r-rert
act of trea-un. Th? fatal weapc?~of tbe murderer ?a? forf-ite.1 lo ?
the King, and caused to b< pi sate property, and was, therefore, proper?
ly seized So >a a larg< elusi fcaai when the irticles seized formed
a part of what tbe lawy er- call tht 'corpus delicti,' lb" bodv of tba
?fTenae, ruatt-irs ? ah '.. let f< in ib-. t^r'ajjeiu. or ? ba?.h a.a .m
m.-diate!v and necei*sarU] connected with the ? - chnrffcvl. har.
b-en supposed by some U> be i*eizabM by lue Ohl crs for that rcawn
But II lue iirruni^ut of osveuiouce or oeeesa - tob*1 aliow.il. irt
it at leset be restricted to tb.- ra?r in rpae-tion. the ^.e of ? seizure of
papor?. Th<- law h? very core full) provided au.I prescribed the man?
ner /bringing petpers wbifb ar.- evidence in any civil or erlaaiual
rs-r>, before tb* court.
If nd> part* de-irce to Bee a- evidence, paper- the po?oeaicm of
:?<* other party, bc.must a-i?e notice t--> produrr rh< ->. and if not pro?
duced, be may rive parol evidence of their ate.
-j-ij.. u'f Ki-x T?. \\'jt?oo and al. - T. k '. tj. in application
' fur a criminal information for a libel consisting a j certain rxraolntioa.
uud order entered iu corporation book*.
Buller J. said, "It ha, been eolemnlv determined thatin a criminal
prosecution you ma* (rive notice to a defendant i i produce * pa pee/ in
bj- possession, and if bo refuses you mo civ. evidence of it."
The case of tbe State. v-. K inhbourh. id Devereaux, PTo Cor. R?-p.
t il, waa a case of murder, jud notice ?a? sir.-n the prisOOOr to pro
dt.uudr . pap.-r-. and on refusal, parol evidence of their contents
w *s admitted. But so far wa- th-' nrht of m'v b and seizure of pa?
per-, in thi? i-i.r from being admitted, mat counsel for the prisouer '
strenuously objected, even to tb.? admission of any evidence of the
ec.nt.-nt-.
The court-or. --Thi* ss-eorsdarj ev ,.|enc.. w? properly* receis'ed.
bee iu-e it teas the best evidence tn th-- p.ion ..f the prosecution.
It - the -sine thins: (i e, th? poes esaion of the papers by the accused )
.f tho prtmary tttdemct teat artimiiy Urci-,The principle if
tbo common law that no man -hall !?? compelled to five Evidence
a;,?m-t himself sanctioned by tbe bdl of rights, protects tbe defendant
in the p.,-? -.,on of the primary evidenc? Tbe object of the notice
1? not tO rontf). ,' the production of tbe p iper far ruck p.'Vrr if ?J
rttnttit. rtt'nrr directly iw tndtr retla. I bv plae-nx him under a di-advau
tagc if be doe- not pr.aiu. e it."
Tae ease of ibe United States t>. Bntton, .' Mason, 4?"4.i ?i< a case
of !ora??..l not."., remaining m th-? posec-sion th" forcer. The dis?
trict uttornev did not a?k Justice Si-.rv for a warrant t.arch and
-ei/s them, nor did he a-W the venerable Judge i0 descend from the
ht-iicb and go and set/a them himself. Ifc simpl) desired to describe
j th? notes generally in tin- indictment.and be permitted.after notice io
th-? pr.-oner. to produce the originals, to give paxol evidence of their
conleufY which the court permitted nun to do.
ThcAr-cnses. and hundreds of others that might be adduced, -how
i most clearly what i- the established practice wa.-u the pap.-r- are lo
th-- actual |.?-i"u of the accused.
But sup|.V as in till- ease, the paper- are in the hands of ? third
person, the practice is equally w.? established, that the court will
is-uc a suhpu oh ducc '.icum to such person, ordering him to come in
l to court nn? bring the papers with him: and su.-h per-on will, then
and there, in open rourt, give bis reasons for not producing the pu
p.ir-, that they are the private p ipers of the accused, sealed up bv Htm.
i and delivered to witness for sufe keeping; aud the court wilt in pub
' lie. aud on solemn argument, deciile whether the) can legall) break
? that <i il aud use -u- h papers of the a. cu-.-d in evidence ngaillst hin
; ,-lf.
In the ease of the I'nited Sl its- Vs. Aaron Rurr. indicted for hii;b
treason. Ch. J Marshujl. granted i -uim.rna dtues ic. am t>> the I re
slUeul oi Iii? I iiile.l >lat'--. to pr,o?luee a private letter, which sn,
. averred by the defendant tobe mi '.erial to biedcfeoce. Indeed it <-no
not be pretended that th.-r- an dilerence in the manner r?f
brinx'-iis" evidence, parol .r written, before the court, in civil and in
criminal tri ds. "j Burr'- trial, ?li.
The Roaorder, therefore, in leuung the ordinary, established and
legal course which has I.n ?utficient for all the ends of justice, and
re.ortm? to one uot saui tinned bv usage, in.I cundooiuod bv everj
principle of iuw. can neither be justified uor ea< used.
Tbe Recorder says, that there is no worranl known to the law to
ar. o for testimony " I- it not extraordinary that it had uol occurred
to him thai writ- and warmntsnnH entries are the bet and -ure-i evi
dencee of ib.- Inw ' and that the non-existence of such a warrant w.u
[ conclusive evidence of the non-existence of such a right; * If a
search is legal," my- I.on) Catnden, "a warrant to authorize that
search i- al-o legaL" The terms sru'cA trjr'-ont nnil iig^t nf 'ciscci,
, mean the -.<i.i- thing. The warrant is nothing iu itself. It is merely
evidence of the ri-.'rit.
Hut a> be I- prohibited by law from l--u^nr tho Warrant, the Recor?
der inf.-r- that ho niav make rh>- search and seizure by bis ? mhere.it :
, authority* as a magistrate. It'tin) such powei as this exist, how ridicu?
lous was the celebrated discus-ion iu \Vilkes'ca?e on the legality of
general warrants, which agitated England nod Ameriea iu 17".".' Mow i
?am the tri-iuiph of the friends of civil liberty hen- ?? well a? in Kng
I iud at in.-ir condemnation ' It was about -vi.-tnuiiui: u justice of the i
peace for a constable. The m i^-i-ir.it-- in hia " otli. lal character" w as
' t!.e most rsneral warrant of nil. He mu-nt do in hi- own per-ou m?-re
tbau tbo staunchn.rt royalist ever contended htt was uutborizcsl by his
.' warrant to command.
' The warrant iswued by the Secretary of St-.te. under winch Wilkes'
. pnpi r- were seized, and out of which grew the discussion ils to the le
g dit) of general warrants, directed the persons to whom it wu, ad
dressed M to make 'tnct and diligent search for ihe author-, |>riuters '
anil publishers of a sedition- and treason idle paper entitled 1 The .
North Briton. Vo. 45, Ac' and to apprehend and -cue ibem und their
papeas. Jtr." This warrant wa- decided bv Lord "ilunsneld and all
1 the juils-.-. to be illegal and void for uncertainty in the designation of
the i erson to be arrested. I.eaeh ??. Money et ul. 19 Mowcii'? State
Tnul-. p. Iir.f). The -aim- point was also decided by Chief Ju?l:c
Pratt, iu W ilk.-, vs. Wood. p. Ilfsfl; and the Chief Justice, d-clare- in
that cas... speaking of tbe (>u*.>r to ^?r.-ri for papssrs, - If such u
power is trul) invested in a Secretary of Stale, and lo- . au delegate
tins power, it certain!) may itlect the person and properly of evere
man in the Kmrdom. and i? totally subver-ive of the liberty of the
subject."
?I'he fr;en<t? of liberty every where celebrated tue triumph msr ii/
bitrsrv p.i*.-r w ith loud rejoii inga, and the House of Commons di .-ins,)
it of so nincli importance that they passed a resolution on the '.Mil -
April, ITCti, declaring general warrants tobe illegal and void. And j
yet according to the Recorder's doctrine, the power remained undis?
turbed at this van time in every ju?tic- of th*- p.-ai ? m England, t.. j
go pet sonally w ithout a w itue-- or an oath, or an accusation or a speci- ,
llcation of place or a de-ittuation of person, or description of papers 1
in the darkness of midnight, and -earcb any place or -erne any papers
or a""ods which be in bis discretion unplit t'uuk " tb.- protection OI tbe
community" required! Vo warrant ever issued from the Star Chain
ber or from a Secretary of State, eiviug so general and roviog a power
us thi-. Tho distinction, therefore, which the Recorder nttcmpls to
make between a -earcb made I?) virtue of a sviirej icoj ' and lb
one woiic by u mo/fiatrntt without warrant i- ah-urd.
Ab the decisions wboh ha?>- been made respecting the illegality i-f
teurrontt, to authorize the ,earcb for and -' izur.- ,.f private paper-, are
at lea.-t equally dammttor) of ,i!l magisterial searches and -i i/.ure, in ,
similar < u,e.>. Tbe objei lion i- to th'- poirf n >t tn the ti n'tnrr of the
power. We may, therefore, without the !>-i-i dnngei of error. e?n- -
sidcr the authorities- which we now proceed to examine, ou the sub?
ject of such warrants. ,i- applicable :n dl their f ree t,. ;>t.- present .
case.
Lord Coke *ays, (4 In?t 177. " For ju-iicc? to make warrants upon ,
>urmt?es for hr'-akinir in the houses of any subjects to search fsr felons
or stolen goSts, is azninst Magna Charta Kor though commonly ihe
house, and colla^.-s of poor aud bare people (??? bv such warrants
searched, yet if it be lawful, the hou-e, of nuv subject, be he u?-.>-r
/reat, mav be searched upon a warrant upon hun- -urnu-.-s."
Lord Camden says, 19 State Trial-, I0t!7.) - The case of searching
for stolen soini.? crept iut?. ih-- Ian bv imperceptible practice. It ia the
only c.\,e of the kiwi that is lo be met with."
M--re i, tb.- authority of two mighty names, that the righi of i-.-arcU
wa- unknowu to th. ? ? piinon law in any Case whatever.
The fir-l record of search warrants for nr. Ihtlig but stolen goods,
orixiuated m the Court'of Star Chamber ia ihe time of Klizabeth. It I
was then first u.wtd to' search for libels and unlicensed books, and con- .
tinued to be so used until the abolition of ih-t tyrannical and uppres
siv.urt. l?State Trials, 1 ??****.?
Instances ire found of the exercise of this power in the court of Ring's
Bench, iu trials for ni?a treason, in the time of tha Stuarts. Indeed,
most of the judicial murders perpetrated bv Jeffries and bv Scroggs,
were efTected by mean- of private papers, found on breaking open
?ti -> . - r- >nd trunks in possessio l of the * irtnns. Such was the case of
%|s>ernon Sidney, whom History^ recording the verdict of Time, b.-v>
pronounced 'apatrio?.a philosopher, and a Christian.' He was tried |
bj the execrable Jeffrie*, ind condemned and executed for high trea?
son; and: the principal evidence against him were certain private pa?
pers found in hu- closet, aud ?< ;/cd bj a w ,r- int fr^-m th-- Sccretar) of
Stale, 10 which he as-e.-t- the IrritmnahU doctrine that the power of
the Km? i? derived from the p< ople See trial of Algernon Sidney, 'j j
Slat.- Tri .la.
Such was also the case of Ed ward Coleman. a Catholic prie-u His
bome was searched, hi- boxe? nnd eseritoirs ??rc broken open, and
his papers seized, b) virtue ofa -.-arrh w arr ml fnlm the Kini's council.
He was tried before t n.-f Justice Scroggi f>r hi^b treason, and ?en- i
t. ne.-d ? to he han^'-d by the neck, and be cut down alive, hi- >a>w-l,
tjurtu before bis face, and his i,'iartc-r? severed, and hu body disposed
of as the Kmc thinks fit.
Th' evidence on which thi* barbarous seetenee wa.. founded, roa- i
kuted (except that of the notoriously perjured TituaOatea,) in certain
ol ! letters' bearing dat?- icveral vcur- before, violently taken from hi
possession, and which related es.closiv.-l-. (?? the advancement -if tha
Catholic r< i:?ion in England trial of I'd* arii CulrmiD, 7 State Trials.,
Soon arte.-. William Ireland, Thomas Pickering and Jorui lirove, Ca- |
thotk iriests, wtried at the <'Id Bailee, hsrfore the aume judiC|.U
Honater, Chief Justice S.-rorrs. and convicted and e?scut'<l on ihe1
same kind of evidence, obtained in ta-- a.ime violent and i? a u,. man?
ner. I
Man) ?imilar cases might bcreferred loin the reifnvr.fi uarlev and
J*nin. and raHiiv in Utter tune- j hnt in ao one of thetu s>ua tbe ques- ' '
tlou of the laf ,;.tv of the "isure nf the papers made or -li-cusaej. ot ? I
can anv su< a case fouud nntil the steal case of Enuek vs. t'arn"*' , '
luu. decided iu the Kmr'? B.-nrh in 1765, it which the seizure et yf\- i |
vale paper, ?aa declared by all ihe Judces lo b>- illegal. i .'
It is if. r.-njlv fiip;^se.( thaflhe celebrated Joha Wilk'? n>at etTee. i
tnall) re ist? I and defeated arbitrary power, ia the eie..--? U'urped , t
nrnt to is-,u?. these opp-e-si?e warrants. ?** I I
But to the honor of the country bctt iaid, 4bi> great abtue, to faul i
lo penonal liberty, w-aa first attacked aa l rU*ton.lY dereattd ia war I
own free Und. It was the spark whicn k.ufti"" o^r Rsi.j|?tioa.
In 1761.one of tbe Custom-bouse orBeers at Bostou petitioned ihe t
<aprem" I'-ejrt of Judicature to grant ^-<? *fT*'* ?f***ft?*t, to aid
ihem intbc exec.:, d .f ihcir duty, - corJiug to th? usage of tfia^ i
Court of E tcherjuer m jrreat Britaia . j I
The caecta of these -*nts of as???tance was tn authorize a custom- \
boose officer t" sea/, h an* r>eu<c or place for uticu-lomcsil goods. 1 '
and to cmruand tb-- assist usce of -nv of His Majesty's <ifhc.-rs. micas- i
t.-rs or subject. 12 Car -''n- ' ? an-.) it- C?- V. eh. II, y B *i .
Thi- citi/.ans of Bo?t?e prolestcsl agaiusl the legaLty of tie courl's i
u^uiiig such a writ sc was prav ed for. I
It was not deni* l on the arrnmeut, that the court mirht tss-ja ?0
oath nnd p.-^t'-4'1''-' ?uspi. i.^o. ,pecial w nu dirocted to v ?> ..-u ,.*"i-.-<
and to ?aur-li '? s".*ai buuaCi s^asudl) Mt tOTth Lb tb* writ, fot so w M
Iba) .-a-.i
tVit lite writ usual;. |uurJ m such ,-a?e?.. and then p for. wa
general and p-TpetueJ ? ? : it <ra? directed to 81) >oe ia partirussr.
and de*. r;S-ed .??> parti . .??? ,,. place to b en lied, .-.ad it wa*
aol required V r-tu": It wa. more !:ke the oinrn.ssion of the
Recorder thanlike a vni ...rraet. It e?i tbe source of a t naif nit
(Mwrr. which wa? Rot exhausted hv riemr r vc uted ia oave or I?j
or any number . i - .se. l"he osriy ibnVrence i.*, th ?t th* Reeorder ?
commission, to take hl? ><m rettstruet >o gisea hina. the power .>i
search only by imptieetioi whereas this writ of ??ist* new or com
mi*s)toa of the custom-Sou-- otfierr g ?es lb* ...m* powec by expre?
words.
The rxusv-iritrd intense iat???--t. .n.l sa. argueal in preswoe* i*f
the whole people, tirall-v lh? Ittoeoey-tJeaeral, ??oJkated the?e
legality. "? It Is true," snl 1 he. - the iMnmoa ;>ri? ilece* .?f Knelishtiaee
are taken away ia thi* ease but even their privileges are not ?weh ia
< sses of erirae and Due It I? '.he ne.-i-ssir. of the c i.e. and tfl- b*oeBt
of thn revenue, tint ju-tirs-t tais ?m "
The Reeorder will here ?s?i:i reeoco.xe hi* principal of ?'ntsMkC.
a,sce??ltv "
"dr Thatcher, a \erv rmiis-n lawver. ?s... wa. r.si !.* ihe -oire
tosear- h fee precedent*, rep med that be f..aud no -j. a *r,t :c ta*
ancient Ko-'ks.
James Otis, who-e nim? fr >en it. identification with ihi? cause b ? -
rsr.-o-ne n part ..|'uur history, wa- railed upon as a.:..--ale feoersl. t-s
argu- the Cause on tho aide ? ?! tb- K>og. Nut h- r-fu-s.t to .as.... re?
signed hi. office, and appeared at th- trial in behalf oi the . itir.-u. oa"
Boston. S.nne imps-rfe.-i i -fier.ts of hi* speech oa this occasion,
whi. b has left behind >t > tiaxdinonary fame of being no of th- high
eat achievement* of legal and patriotic eloquence, ,re reported in
Minor* hi-ton. ot the province of H issaehiisetls. -M ?ol .'I V fee
eltract- will -now the ipii I wl icr provajk-d It this day.
He says;*-I will to rovdsing a?j oppose with all the fa* ll
Which ?..st has given me. ill ?UCn in-lrumeat? id" slavery on tee ou
baud, and villainy on thi ' "*this writ of assistance i?; il .?
pears to me tho wor-t instru-ueut of arbitrary power, tli- in-i.t de
-tructue of liberty, and > o fundamental principle- oi law. that ever
wa* found inan Enirlish law booh r.rery one w.tii im? writ mas be
atvrant; if this eoUMllSsloo legal, a tyrant, in a legal manner,
mav sls.i outrol. imprison >r murder anv one in the realm. Ii i-per
; p. tual. th-re is no return. * man i? accountable to no person f3C
; hi* doing-. Every man ms> .r,-n secure ia bit petty tyranny, and
apre id terror and desolat lot. around bim. uatilthe trump of the areb
I -uii-l .hall excite different .-motions in his soul. A |**r*oo wnfe thi*
writ in the day time mav col. r all houses, shop-, jtc. at ?ill. smt
' command all to assist bim."
?? \ min', house ia his castle . aud whilst he quiet, he is as wet!
guarded a- a prince in hi. ensile. This writ, if it should be d.vlar.sj
legal, would totallv aUttihilati this privilege. Custom house omerr-,
. mav CUtei our bouse* when llirv ple.se; we are commanded lo per
\ nut their cntrv. Their mrai.il --rvur.a may euter; an.l break be k-,
; burs, and ever") Hung in their ?a> . and whether they break thron-:?
; malice or revenge, no man. no court, can inquire. /.?-r saapiciea
i ?itl..?: o-ith i-? .u.f5?-iref."
The elder John Adams, then l vnuug Vlian. was pr.lit at this nw?
: inor.abledeb.it.-. an.l long after the Storm of the revolution had *ut?
-id.-.!, he declared ! do nay that Mr. Otia's oration again*! writ- ol
! a?i.un.'r ssreaihral Into thi- nation '.he Itreath of life. American lu
d-pendence wa- then and there tmrn. Kverv man of an imm-are
crowded uudience appeansd to me lo go away aa I did, ready lo tak.i
up arm- again*! ?rit. of assistance. Then and Iheie wu? ihe firss
act Cd"opposition to tbe arbitrary ? laims of lirea! Britain."
Such was the cutset of the indignation of tho people of Boston ar
this palpable attempt upon their ri/hts. that even tiuV. Hutrblii-oii.
then the Chief Justice, (the chosen instrument of a tyraut.) ??< i .im?
pelled at thai time to abandon the plan. At th-. close of the t?rw be
i delivered hi- opinion as follows
" Tne court has considered th* subj'vt of win. of asMsiaaco. sod
eon ?ee no foundation for such a w rit. But a* the practice in Kng! m J
i-not known, it ha- been thought beat to.ontinue the question to the
ne\t term, that ip the meau lime opportunity may be given to know
the result."
The luht whieo was thus kindled hure wa* seen ai r?wa tiu> Atlan
lie. The nnvt v-ar b.the second year of tbe reign oftteorge III,
the minister* of that king tir.t .-inibitisl their diapoaition In exer i?i
arbitrary power by iaauing a warrant to seine John Enlkk witk hss
paper*, n- th- author of a paper railed ? The Monitor, or British
Freeholder.' S....n alter. Dryden l.each wa. seised xs thn publisher,
and ulsiiit the -amo lime John Wilkea, a.- tn- iuth.>r ?>( So 15, of a
paper called 'The North Briton.' The-r two last person, were ar
re-t.-d. uu.l tneir paper- aeixcd under a general warrant, dtrecthag
th-am--( of the author-, printers and puldiahers of No. 45, of thn
North Briton, together with their puper?. Ac. Leach brought an ac?
tion of f?l-e imprisonroenl, and Wilke- au action of lre*|?aas again*t
the persons making the arrest. The same objection. w.?re mads Is*
thee general warrants, authot lAing the urrest of persona not named,
and the seizure of their paper*, aa wore before maile u> tho ?rit- of
assistance in lloston.
The principal point di-cu->rd und decided whi the illegality of
g.-nrral warrant-, ia which the whole court, including Lord Maua*
?eld, in spite of hi- loaning toward- arbitrary power, were unani?
mous. The seizure ?f paper- wasonly brought collaterally into >.
and though condemned in?lrotig term? by caunsel, was not passed up?
on by the court. (.?*??? I.'a. b Money. Watson and lliaekmaa I'J
State Trials. IIJOl. \\ ilkea v.. Wood. bl. p. 11 ?d. I
But in (hfl ras.? ofKutirk the warrant was spiscial, duaviiug the ar
reot of JollB Kutiek. nod the ?ritwre of hi* books auil paprr* . aud he
brought bis action of trc*paaa aganut Carriagton the otBcer inukiag
the seizure ns|iecially on 'hat ground. Aud tb? io.ua and iui|Surtan'
point diis-u-s.^l and d.led in that ease, was the very one involved!
iu thi- inquiry?Ihe legality of th- ?eiJiure of privat? papors uudar
any pretence whale.er.
Th- ra?e wa, twirn argued bv the abbist counsel in Kugland, and
decided by Lord Ghief Justice Cuuideo
So Ainbricau exists, (amiliar with th.> struggle of our fsthers ftrr
the liberty the) ham bequeathed to us, whose heart d.sva aot revsr
renre the name of Camden, the ereat ehampiouof rivilliberty?(Jam
den, the friend of America. He wa* indeed as Juotu* teatiCe* ol"
bim, 'a charaoter fertile ;u every great and good qualification.' The
opinion delivered by bun on that oecu-ion U a masterly and irreaisti
ble argument, rich in legal lore?searching out principle- to tbsy
constitutional foundations?breathing thn verv spirit of the common
luw?and glowing a ith an houe-t, intrepid und ardent love of libwrtv.
Frcnueut reference ha- already been had to th- doctrine* u..a?-rieJ
m that opinion, but the .uiije.-t may still lie illustrati-d l-y additional
? itract-irom that neb mine of authority. "The messenger," beany*,
" is cummnndiid to seine th- person described ami lo bring bim witJi
hi. papers to be examined before tho Secretary of State. The power
so assumed s. the Secretary of State i- aa execution u|?on all the
party'* papers in th- tirst lustanc*. II,. house ia tilled; bis ru'-l
valuable secret* are taken out of his possesaioa, bi fore ihe i;np?r far
?Inch be is i barged is found to be criminal by any eompetenl jun.*
di< lion, and before he i- cnovictcd either of writing, publi-buuf ?r
being concerned in the paper.
"This power v> claim'-! by Ihn Secretary of State, is not support?
ed by one single citation fi -m aoy law tasik eztaul, It is slatmed by
noother magistrate in this kingdom but biijaelf. i he greatexecu
live hand o|* criminal justice, th- lord chief justice of the court isf
King's Bench, chief justice .-.cro^gii exceptasd, never baviug aaaumed
thi- authority.
" By Ihe law- oi*England, every invasion of |>riv.i?r property, be il
ever so minute, is a trevpna*. No man c in s-.t hi- loot up?in aiy
ground witboat my license, but he is liable u> an as lion, though iho
dmuage be nothing , whi' b is proved by every declaration In irns
pa*s, where ths defendant i- called upon In answer for bruising the
grass, aud even treading upon tbe soil. If be admit, the fict, be W
bound to -how. by way of justification, that some po-mvn law hast
empowered or exensed lum.
"Papers are the owner's goode and chattel*; ttiry ire Si? d.are.t
property, aud are -i far from Riiduringa seixure that they ?il| hardly
bear in in-|sectioti ; and though the eie e innnl, by t.:-- law? of Kng
-land, be guilts of a trespass, yet where privat- paper* are remove.!
and carried away, the seen-l nature of those goods will lea an aggra?
vation of the trespass, und demand more roetfderable dsuaugea ia
that respect. Where i- the wnttro law th.t give, my magistrate auch
a power! I cau safely say there is aonr ; jnd thenrelbra it is t..?
much for us, without auch authority, to prooounce a practice legal
wlurh would be subversive of all th- comforts of society."
" I-astir, it i- urg< I n i in argument of utility, that auch a aear. b ut
ii means of detecting otbaders fiv disa-ovrring evidence, I wi?h ...toe
r.-i?es had I*- a shown, ?bere the law foro-ia thn evidence out off tho
owner's custody by pnseess. There ia ao proceiu, agaiast papers .a
en il cause,. It ha. be. n often tri. d but uevor prevailed. Nar
where the adversary has by force or fraud, got poasewkm of i,,ur'
own proper evidenee, ih.-r- i- r-i aav to gel it b.iek but by nc-.
"In the criminal Ijw ,Urh a procesaling ??*? unser heard of. ?ntl
v.-t th.-re are some crimes, *u? h tor lu-t-ucs a. murder, rape, robbery
and bouse-breakiag, to -ny no thing "( forgery and perjury, that are
uiors atrocious than hl? I,ng. Bui our law has provided DO proiser
???urch ia tb?s?>; ca>.-? to help forward the COnvictiun.
VS nether tn.- precadeth from tar gs?tiruc?, ,,{ t]ie jjjw towarde
criminal*, ur fr.?u a consideration tnat such ? js,*-..r would be m<+i\
pemicioui to the innocent t?'*a u-efui to tbe public, I will 0..t ?,
It is verv c.ri da th it the Law uhlig-th no m in t?,
a. ru,e -
because th- aec***?r* "leans of compelling -eii accusetiona f?j .
upon the inn ?rcni i? ?eil as the guilty, would b- h-.th rru. i
unjust; and it'houtd *eem that search foi e??i.,nr? ,, disallowed
upou ib.- ...01. prim iple. There. in- innocent wVi' ; b? . 1
founded with the gnilty."
Aft- this decision, the principle of iae inviolability of pr??vr.
m ? uiok deep root in the benru of the fr..-?d. ?f r,v,| Iftirtj ,
> rland and in Amen, a. H bile thu cu*i ?ii ??der ,wu..,.,u ,
,a.: court, the fraeod* of the CoeatiluUon in ihn II??*, of Commas
0?^ il ''ul^ Of private p,p*r.t, I,
Msg 1. r ol- ,wo .... cewsive ve,.K.n, noblv d.d ,h.y rtUf ? , rt*
rthla etaential bulwark of personal a-cumy s but tho vm,wrtr UsoXxw
>rivate papera waa considered as a jewrl of the Troa n. and ?on-le,
ally .lid th., Kin, struggle for ,u 'preservation. k ,
neuere more s..?|..aI,r oj.,...s..j, ,? mnA out r?lMm?^ T, i
or^m^bcrs were carried1 f-om ibeir rick beds a,,d Z* , hlZ
torn ...rei-n parts to vote against thi, resolution. It ?., *?.
huticl > . .truggl. hetweeo-lhe People aud the Crown-Ut*o?.,
'ersonal Lib, ind RoyaJ Deapotj^n. vroan-tset*.*?,,
rhc excitement on tbsdi.cuxs.oa of.au rs^ution was ?nPreee
lented. On one of the cessions, , contemporary thu, dnseribV. ,t
? i a- po.it a;,..o great, that never were ta- eyna ?f asnk.ud
twra fixed upoa Ihetr r.prs-*0uti?e,. Udeed, i ??? H. ???
,Ur ,0,J:,: 11t-eif every bo.ly presring hn ,,,-n(j lo,u.^ !
rote, Th- ta. v of the Truaa.r, ..ad othrr men ot c.vote.fu "t
aero remarkably active, and ever, thing worn ,ha faro of rj^,.,,.,
-lay. Man. member* who had not attended th? ?hol- ^,oq k_ru,,
cam, doa a -ome fiom .,ek bed., other, from for.-.*.? o?ru fcaJ ?
after all, although the IL,u^ sat iw0 daya ta th* matter, ihe fir.t d,a*
from ihm in thi vfb rnoon, through the ?hole ,?gilt] mi 0^,r M '
the next mo mine, and the other .lav till half au La? after five in tkT
morning, tho deciding reasoiu against coming to the ra*oluljajl
vailed only i majorit) ..t' '. a-twan, *^
"TU cro-i and lofiutsou v*f Uw tsaepio aisout thg 11?,^
