and that these purchases were made by him as stated. He said that when he was let out of the grand jury room, after testifying, he was called back in, and the majority of questions asked him were not pertaining to the cases but if he had talked with officers while out of the grand jury room. Mr. Harris told me this in confidence, as he realizes he is under oath not to disclose any information give by him in the grand jury room, except when called upon by the court to do so. I am attaching herewith a letter under date of October 10, 1929, from Narcotic Inspector L. P. Jackson; October 23, 1929, from Narcotic Agent J. P. Boatright; and under date of November 5, 1929, from R. A. Richards, narcotic inspector. With further reference to your letter of October 18, 1929, regarding the situation in the northern district of Texas, I am giving you the above facts and referring you to the cases, so that you may take into consideration what action you wish this office to take in the future regarding similar cases as presented above. This office has tried to cooperate with the district attorney, and this is the only place in Texas where we have had any difficulty in getting convictions in cases of this kind. I am of the opinion that if we can not get convictions we are wasting our time in having narcotic agents stationed at that point. If you are of the opinion that these cases quoted to you above are those that should be presented to the court, and the court at least given an opportunity to dismiss them, please advise. I further wish your advice as to what action you wish taken on these cases that were not presented to the grand jury and if you want this office to notify them that they would be allowed to submit an offer in compromise in lieu of liabilities incurred. Room No. 220, P. O. Box 884, San Antonio, Tex. SIR: The following is a list of no bills in narcotic cases returned by the United States grand jury at Wichita Falls, Tex., during the November term of United States district court, and the reasons therefor, as near as possible. United States v. Billie Appell, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Reason. Clifford Barrett, informer, who made the purchase of morphine from Billie Appell at the time of defendant's arrest, testified before the United States grand jury that he did not purchase morphine from Billie Appell. Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, pronounced Clifford Barrett an unwilling witness and a no-bill was returned. Facts. On or about May 4, 1929, Clifford Barrett, who is a drug addict, informed Frank Burns, chief of police, Wichita Falls, Tex., that he could purchase morphine from Billie Appell, at the Palace Rooms, 700 block on Ohio Avenue. Mr. Burns then took Clifford Barrett into his office at police headquarters and, in the presence of F. E. Summers and Fred Fountain, city detectives, gave Clifford Barrett five $1 bills, of which they kept the serial numbers, and instructed Informer Barrett to purchase morphine from Billie Appell. The above officers searched Clifford Barrett before he left police headquarters, to see that he had no morphine on his person. The officers then followed informer Barrett to rear stairway leading up to Palace Rooms, then waited at bottom of stairway for a period of about 5 minutes, when Clifford Bårrett came down and handed the morphine to Fred Fountain, city detective, and informed Fred Fountain that he had just purchased same from Billie Appell. The officers Chief Burns, Fred Fountain, and F. E. Summers, city detectives-immediately proceeded upstairs and placed Billie Appell under arrest and searched him, and in his hip pocket was found the five $1 bills that Chief Burns had given Clifford Barrett, and of which he had the serial numbers. W. G. Nance, narcotic agent, Fort Worth, Tex., was immediately notified, and took the case over and reported same to office of narcotic agent in charge. United States v. Eugene Beer, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Antonio, Tex. Reason.-Eugene Beer was no-billed because of the fact that the informer who made the purchases of morphine was not present to testify before the United States grand jury. This informer is known in the vicinity of Wichita Falls, Tex., only as Blackie, but his right name can be gotten from Roy Adams, narcotic agent, San Antonio, Tex., as he was working for Mr. Adams at that time. Facts.-Roy Adams, narcotic agent, and E. P. Allen, city detective, Wichita Falls, Tex., witnessed six sales of morphine made to Informer Blackie by Eugene Beer, defendant, and on the last occasion (time of arrest) the above officers recovered the marked money when they arrested Eugene Beer, which consisted of either five or six $1 bills. Eugene Beer admitted selling the morphine and was very anxious to enter a plea of guilty; wanted to go to Leavenworth, Kans., and get away from the use of narcotic drugs; claimed that he wanted the court to sentence him for at least a year and a day in order that he have time to get entirely well. Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, claims that it is necessary to have the person who actually makes the purchase of narcotic drugs testify before the United States grand jury, regardless of how many officers witness the sale or sales. United States v. Roy C. Elliston, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Reason.-Roy C. Elliston was no-billed because of the fact that J. P. Boatright did not have the evidence with him to present to the United States grand jury. Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, claims that it is necessary to present the evidence before the grand jury, regardless of how many officers testify. Facts.-Roy C. Elliston was arrested at Wichita Falls, Tex., by W. W. Belcher and Charlie Gant, deputy sheriffs, and the morphine was found in defendant's watch pocket at the time of his arrest. This defendant admitted having the morphine and wanted to enter a plea of guilty and ask to be sentenced to Leavenworth, Kans., in order to get away from the use of narcotic drugs. United States v. Fred Keys, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Reason.-Fred Keys was no-billed because C. P. Taylor, informer, was not present to testify before the grand jury. Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, claimed that it was necessary to have C. P. Taylor, informer, testify before the grand jury that he purchased morphine from Fred Keys, even though Roy Adams (narcotic agent), Luke Hart, E. P. Allen, and Jimmie Gonsales (city detectives, Wichita Falls, Tex.) had witnessed the sale of morphine to Informer Taylor by Fred Keys, and after making the arrest the marked money was recovered. Facts.-Roy Adams, narcotic agent, and the above-named city detectives of Wichita Falls, Tex., gave C. P. Taylor, informer, four $1 bills and instructed him to purchase morphine from Fred Keys. The officers, keeping the serial numbers of the four $1 bills and searching Informer Taylor to see that he had no morphine on his person, then followed Informer Taylor and witnessed the sale of morphine made to him by Fred Keys. The morphine was immediately turned over to the officers and Fred Keys placed under arrest and searched, and in his pocket the officers found the four $1 bills of which they had kept the serial numbers and given to C. P. Taylor for the purpose of purchasing morphine from Fred Keys. Fred Keys admitted selling the morphine to C. P. Taylor, informer, and wanted to enter a plea of guilty to the court. United States v. George Bloxom, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Reason.-George Bloxom was no-billed because Betty Golden, informer, who made the purchase of morphine from George Bloxom at the time of his arrest, testified before the grand jury that she did not purchase morphine from George Bloxom, and Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, then pronounced Betty Golden an unwilling witness and a no-bill was returned. Facts.-F. E. Summers, E. P. Allen, and A. L. Stubblefield, city detectives, Wichita Falls, Tex., gave Betty Golden, informer, five $1 bills of which they kept the serial numbers and followed her to George Bloxom's room, waited outside for a period of about three minutes, then Betty Golden, informer, came out the door and handed the morphine to the officers and informed them that she had just purchased it from George Bloxom. The officers immediately placed Bloxom under arrest and searched him, and the five $1 bills, of which the officers had kept the serial numbers, were found in his pocket. George Bloxom admitted selling the morphine to Betty Golden and wanted to enter a plea of guilty to the court. Betty Golden, informer, is now George Bloxom's sweetheart. Immediately after Bloxom was no-billed and released from jail he and Betty Golden went to living together as man and wife. United States v. Forrest Lawson and Mary Beauchamp, Wichita Falls, Reason. Forrest Lawson and Mary Beauchamp were no-billed because of the fact that Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, did not approve of the local officers arresting these defendants, and stated that sales should have been gotten against them if they were illegal dealers in narcotic drugs. Facts. These defendants were arrested by F. E. Summers and A. L. Stubblefield, city detectives, Wichita Falls, Tex., and the morphine found when searched. The case was then immediately turned over to W. G. Nance, narcotic agent, Fort Worth, Tex. These defendants admitted having the morphine in their possession at the time of their arrest, and Forrest Lawson wanted to enter a plea of guilty to possessing all the morphine and asked that Mary Beauchamp be released, stating that the morphine was all his. These defendants were in an automobile at the time of the arrest. United States v. Jess E. Leverett, Wichita Falls, Tex, case No. Pro. L-N, Reason.-Jess E. Leverett was no-billed or the case not presented to the United States grand jury because of the fact Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, stated that she had lost her copy of the case report or had left it at her office at Dallas, Tex. W. G. Nance, narcotic agent, Fort Worth, Tex., offered to give Mrs. Menezes his copy of the case report, but, for some reason unknown to this agent, Mrs. Menezes did not take it. Facts. This defendant admitted having the narcotics at the time of his arrest and wanted to enter a plea of guilty. United States v. Roy Adair, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Reason.-Roy Adair was no-billed because Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, seemed to doubt the officers' testimony. Facts. This defendant was arrested by E. P. Allen and Luke Hart, city detectives, of Wichita Falls, Tex., and 2 cubes of morphine found in the waistline of his clothing when searched. Defendant was immediately turned over to W. G. Nance, narcotic agent, Fort Worth, Tex., who was just across the street when defendant was arrested by local officers. Defendant wanted to enter a plea of guilty to the court, had he been indicted by the United States grand jury. United States v. Dr. Ormand Edgar Looney, Paducah, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Tex. 6281. Not presented. Reported by W. G. Nance, narcotic agent, Fort Worth, Tex. Reason. Doctor Looney's case was not presented to the United States grand jury. When the attention of Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney, was called to the fact that the case had not been presented to the grand jury, Mrs. Menezes stated that an offer in compromise had been submitted in the narcotic case against Dr. Ormand Edgar Looney, of Paducah, Tex. Facts.-Doctor Looney was arrested by W. G. Nance, narcotic agent, Fort Worth, Tex., after a series of purchases of morphine (cube morphine cut into small pieces and in capsules) made to an informer who was working for W. G. Nance at the time, by Doctor Looney. United States v. S. E. Barry, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Tex. 5558. Either no-billed or not presented to United States Grand Jury. Reported by Roy Adams, San Antonio, Tex. Reason-Unknown. Facts.-S. E. Barry was arrested by Roy Adams, narcotic agent, San Antonio, Tex., and when searched the narcotic drugs were found on his person. This defendant wanted to enter a plea of guilty in order to be confined long enough to become cured of his drug addiction. Defendant's brother, who resides at Vernon, Tex., was present also, wanting the court to confine defendant in order that he might become cured of his drug addiction. United States v. Lena Phillips, alias Clara Phillips, Wichita Falls, Tex., case No. Pro. L-N, Tex. 6364. True bill. Reported by M. W. Barnett, narcotic agent, Wichita Falls, Tex. This defendant was billed by the United States Grand Jury after Agent Barnett and S. B. Wiese, informer, had been questioned at length by Mrs. S. C. Menezes, assistant United States attorney. Lena Phillips was arrested in the afternoon of November 18, 1929, and case presented to United States Grand Jury in the forenoon of November 19, 1929, at which time Mrs. Menezes attacked the search warrant in the grand jury room, stating that it was no good and that I should turn it over to her, which I did, and she kept it until the next day. Mrs. Menezes further instructed me to go to the office of United States Commissioner J. A. Lantz and get the affidavits made by this agent (M. W. Barnett) and S. B. Wiese, informer, on which the search warrant was issued, which I did, and then Mrs. Menezes instructed me to never get another search warrant when working in her district on affidavit made by any informer, if I couldn't get the information and make the affidavit myself to pass it up. Further instructed me to not bring a bunch of no-good cases made by local officers before her the next term of United States district court, March, 1930, that she didn't want to be bothered with them, having other things to do. Lena Phillips was tried by jury November 20, 1929, and found guilty and sentenced by the court to serve 18 months at Alderson, W. Va. Mrs. Menezes informed me after the trial that my case against Lena Phillips was absolutely no good, and had Lena Phillips employed a good attorney I would have lost my case. Lena Phillips had for her attorney E. E. Fisher, a reputable attorney of Wichita Falls, Tex. Lena Phillips was charged with five sales of morphine to S. B. Wiese, informer, and charged with having in her possession at the time the search warrant was executed and time of her arrest about 200 grains of morphine. I have tried, on numerous occasions, to go over the narcotic cases with Mrs. Menezes before going to trial with them, but have never been successful in doing so. I have recently been informed by the sheriff's department and police department of Wichita Falls, Tex., that they were very much disappointed, and regret very much that the assistant United States attorney had that attitude toward their officers after having spent their time and personal funds in apprehending the people who were no-billed and released during the November term of United States district court, 1929, at Wichita Falls, Tex., on account of a single drug addict's testimony being considered more valuable by the assistant United States attorney than from two to four experienced officers, especially in the cases of George Bloxom and Billie Appell. Respectfully, Copied 1 a. m, (Signed) M. W. BARNETT, EXHIBIT D On rendering judgment in cause No. 1438, United States v. Tom Mason, charged with importing, selling, possessing, etc., intoxicating liquor, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo division, on November 17, 1927, Hon. J. C. Hutcheson, jr., judge of said court, said: "This is a motion to suppress evidence obtained by members of the border patrol, who are employees of the Bureau of Immigration and authorized under section 110, title 8, United States Penal Code, without warrant (1) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission of aliens, and (2) to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States, railway car, conveyance, or vehicle in which he believes aliens are being brought into the United States; and such employees shall have power to execute any warrant or other process issued by any officer under any law regulating the admission, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens.' * * * "I have asked the district attorney to make an investigation both by inquiry of the patrol officers and by examination of the statutes and regulations as to provisions covering the authority of such officers to make arrests or to make searches, and outside of similar provisions in the act of 1917, which seemed to have been extended by the act just read, no provisions of law or regulations conferring authority on such officers have been called to my attention. In deciding this case, therefore, I must decide it upon the basis of that statute and of the general principles of law governing arrests and, principally, searches and seizures. "There are certain classes of officers, generally denominated peace officers, constables, policemen, sheriffs, etc., who seem to have general authority to enforce laws, and with reference to whose powers most of the common law on the subject of arrests and searches and seizures has been built up. Outside of these officers it has always been held, or at least with great uniformity, that special officers have only the authority given them by the statute which creates them or extends them their powers. Of course that is subject to the qualifications which run through the English law-the common law-that a private citizen has enough interest in the preservation of the peace and the protection of society to be himself authorized, by virtue of his citizenship, to make arrests without a warrant where offenses are committed in his presence, or where it is necessary to prevent the commission of an offense, and, of course, any special officer would have the same right as a private citizen, and what I am saying I would, of course, be understood as recognizing the right of any officer, no matter whether he was a special-I mean, no matter how special any appointment, to do what a citizen could in a like case do. The right to arrest without a warrant seems to have been recognized at common law in many typical cases, and is recognized by most of the States of the Union as necessary and right where time is of the essence of the matter-where the offense is about to be committed or the offender is about to escape; and while it is the approved, as it will no doubt continue to be the approved method of procedure where time permits to have a warrant as an authority for arrest, and while it is the law and must continue to be the law, one who is without a warrant takes it upon himself to justify that arrest or to be liable for it. The right to arrest without a warrant is recognized and has been extended by the statutes of many States. It has always been recognized by the common law and by the legislation and the decisions of the States that an arrest is a different thing, and to be extended as far as it is exercised without a warrant goes more liberally and with less precaution than a search and seizure. Upon that matter of searches, except that incident to an arrest-for, of course, it is the law that if a man is arrested he loses his right of person-is arrested lawfully, he loses his right of personal sanctity and can be searched. But that matter of exploratory searches, the right of an officer to invade the privacy of a citizen, either in his home or his person or property, has always been a matter that the English-speaking people have been very sensitive about, and properly so. And where an exploratory search-that is, a search for the purpose of finding out whether an arrest ought to be made or a seizure taken, has always been condemned by the laws of England and of this country-I say always; it has been for many centuries, or for many years. I do not want to go back too far. So that when our Constitution says that a man shall be free in his person and his property from unreasonable searches and seizures, that was not put there for the purpose of, as some people seem to |