delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a review of a sentence against the petitioners' upon a criminal information, filed in the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico, charging-in the first count possession, and in the second count transportation, of intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act. The conviction on the possession- count was set aside by the Circuit Court of Appeals, so that only the second count is here involved. Upon arraignment, petitioners wаived a reading of the information and pleaded not guilty. Their counsel thereupon requested that, they be furnished with a copy of the information free of charge. The request was' denied by the court and an exception noted, the trial court stating that the defendants and their counsel were free to examine the information and to make copies themselves, or have the clerk make them on payment of his fee.
At the trial, Alfonso Cеballos, Chief of Police at Carolina, Porto Rico, testified for the prosecution that, having received a confidential telephone message that Seguróla was driving a Buick automobile with a load of liquor from *108 Luquillo to Loiza, he procured one Ismael Colon to drive him in a Ford car out to a point on the road where he, awaited the appearance of the Buick machine; that when that car appeared, he tried to intercept it by obstructing the road with the Ford, but Seguróla operated his Buick so as to force the Ford aside, by threat of a collision, and went by at high speed; that the officér was in. uniform, which Seguróla must have observed; that he followed in the Ford into Carolina, where, owing to obstacles encountered by the Buick, he managed to get around in front of it, and when Seguróla saw his way blocked by the Ford, he stopped the Buick, put it in reverse, and crashed into-аn electric-wire post; that Ceballos then arrested Seguróla, as well as Santiago, who was sitting beside him, and that a search by Ceballos of the rear compartment of the Buick, ■ which was a roadster,, disclosed a number of sacks containing bottles of whiskey,(brandy, and gin.
• In the cross-examination, Ceballos was asked who gave him the information by telephone. Counsel for the Government objected that “ they are the secrets of: the police fоrce, which should not be stated in a court of justice, and the stating of the source'of such information would be against public policy.” The objection was sustained and an exception noted. Evidence was given.of the alcoholic, content of. the liquor and the identity of that examined, with' that seized. When the liquor was offered and received in evidence, it was objected to on the ground .thát it had not been properly identified, but the objectiоn was overruled and the liquor admitted. Thereafter, counsel for the defendants moved to suppress the liquor, as evidence, on the ground that the search was without a warrant and did not appear to have been madе upon probable cause, and, also, for the reason that, upon the issue of prob. ble cause, defendants were mot permitted to cross-examine the seizing officer as to the person from whom he *109 recеived by telephone the information which induced him to go to look for the Buick car. The motion was overruled. No objection was ever made to the evidence of the officers and others-that liquor was found in.the cа,r and no evidence to dispute these facts was offered by the defense. At the close of the trial’the jury found the defendants guilty as charged and the Court sentenced them to pay fines.
The case was carriéd upon writ of еrror to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; 16 Fed. (2d) 563. That Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the refusal to furnish a copy of the information without payment of a iee to the.clerk was right and, even if erroneous,, was, under the circumstances; a harmless error; that the refusal to permit cross-examination of the officer as to his informant in respect to the coming of Seguróla and’ the contents of his car was in accord with approved public рolicy and that the circumstances constituted probable cause for a legal seizure.
The error assigned to the failure to. direct the delivery of a copy of the information rests on the second section оf the Organic Act of Porto Rico, — Act of -March 2, 1917, c. 145, 39 Stat. 951, Ü. S. C., Title 48, §' 737, in which it is provided that “ in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense, to be informed of the nаture and cause of the accusation, to have, a copy thereof, to have a speedy and „ public trial, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, and to have'compulsory process' for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” The district judge fieH-that thisdid not mean that the defendant was to have a copy of -the-information without paying the regular copying fees to the clerk. ■ We think this was an erroneous construction .of the statute., It was enacted by Congress to apply in. a country where there were two languages, .and in which a
*110
criminal procedure, new in some of its aspects, was to be put into effect. It was not strange, therefore, that it was thought necessary
ex industria
to emphasize the means by' which the accused could be advised of the charge made against him. These circumstances' make the case of
United States
v.
VanDuzee,
The questions which have been chiefly argued here are, first, the correctness of the refusal of the court to allow the police officer to be cross-examined as to the nаme of the person who communicated to him the information that the defendants were engáged in transporting liquor in a Buick car; and, second, the question of the existence of probable cause to justify the seizure of the automobile under the circumstances shown.
We think that these two questions do not arise, and that the judgment should be affirmed, without regard to the proper answer to them. The results of the search *111 and seizure were shown by the testimony of the chief of police and of the other witnesses without any objection on behalf of the defendants; and thus was disclosed the fact that the defendants had been engaged in transporting a large amount of liquor in the Buick. No motion was.made to strike that evidence out, and no evidence whs introduced to contradict‘what was disclosed by the statements of the chief of police and other witnesses upon this point. The only objection made toward the close of the evidence for the Government was that, when it was proposed to introduce the liquor, it had not been properly identified, but there was ample evidence to show that it had. The motion made thereafter to suppress the liquor as evidence, on the ground that there had been an illegal search, did not include a motion to strike out the evidence of the witnesses as to what occurred when the car was stopped. The objection to the seizure was plainly an after thought.
As there was no evidence introduced by the defendants to refute or deny the testimony unobjeete'd to, which clearly showed the illegal transportаtion of the liquor and sustained the verdict, the admission in evidence of the liquor and the refusal to permit cross-examination of Ceballos worked no prejudice for which a reversal can be granted. Moreover, the рrinciple laid down by this Court in
Adams
v.
New York,
On behalf оf Santiago, the companion of Seguróla in the Buick, it is urged that there was no evidence to justify his conviction and that his is a case of poor dog Tray. He accompanied Seguróla from Luquillo to Carolina and in the raсe of cars which occurred, on that trip. There were 188 bottles of liquor lying loose in eleven sacks in a box back of the seat under him in the Buick. He could hardly have been unconscious of their presence. The seizing оfficer said that Santiago was present and saw the liquor as seized.' .But Santiago testified that he didn’t see the liquor and did nof know why he and his companion were being taken to the station.' In view of the jar of the collision of the Buick with the electric wire post and the exciting race between the cars and the contradicting evidence of the government witnesses, the jury evidently *113 thought that Santiago protested too much and had destroyed his credibility. Wé can not say that there was no evidence to sustain their verdict.
The judgment is
Affirmed.