14? OCTOBER TI?lt,M, 1?07. O?n?on of ths Com't. 20? U. 8. �? of ?ty j?ction, then no ?mfion nor ?- ?d?l ? ? ?e the ?k of the ?v? p?en? w?ch ?y ? ?ffic? ?der such ?, ?d l?tion w?ch ?tly ?o? the pm?o? of the Fo?nth Amend- ment ? ? ?e o?mtive for ? p?fi? p?. By l?ve of ?, Mr. W? D. Hi? fil? �Hef heroin ? ? of the ?uthe? R?lway ?m?y, ? ?p? of �e ?n?ntio? of the ?ndent. MR. Jo? ?AM, ?' ma?n? the fo? ? ment, dehve? ?e opi?on of the ?. We ? ?d app? ? ?e fu?t e?t the ve? ?t im? of t? ?, not o&y ? the ?i? now ? fo? the ?, but a? ? ?e ?t ? of t?e citi? of t? ?t?, ? of w?m ?e in? in the p?ti?l work- i? of the ? of j?ti? t?u?out the ?nd, ?th F?e?l ?ff s?, ?d in the pm?r exem? of the j?iction of the F?eml ?, ? h? ?d ?ntmH? by the F?e? ?n- stitution and the ?ws of ?. TMt the? ? ? ?m for ?ffe?n? of opi?on ?th ? ? ? ?ch h?tio? the re?rt? ? ? t? ?urt ? ?ncl?ive ?timony. It c?ot ? s? tMt the ? ? fore ? ? ent?ly fr? from any ?ible doubt nor tMt ?- ?nt men ?y not differ ? ? the ?ct ?er ? the quition we a? ? u?n ? d?ide. The quition of i?iction, whether of the ?t ? or of th? ?, ? f?quently a deh? mater ? d? ?th, and it is ?ciaHy ? in t?s ?, where the ?1 ?d m?t im?t objetion ? the ju?iction of the ?rcuit ?urt ? the ?ion tMt the ?t ? in eff?t a?i?t one of the S? of the U?on. It is a quition, however, which we a? ?H? u?n, and w?ch it is o? duty, ? .decide. Under thee cir- cu?n?s, the ?ge of C?ef J?tice M?H in Co? v. Vir?, 6 ?t. 2?, ?4, ? m?t ap?i?. ? t?t ? he ?d:
�
