Evening star., 1922-04-02

good many violations-so many, In
fact. that the federal courts are
blocked up. In other places the state
ofi1cials do not cooperate with the
federal agents and do not work up
many cases themselves. Buffalo. N.
Y, Is cited as a good illustration OF
this lack of cooperation. New Jer-
sey also has very congested docket.
the Department of Justice points out.
These monthly sheets by districts
do not show much Of picture of cul-
prits brought to justice. Take east
ern Michigan. In July there were
four cases terminated, with $1.700 in
fines and total Of thirty months
imprisonment. Last year In eastern
Michigan there were 256 cases begun
and 11S terminated. with 102 criminal
convictions and four judgments for
the United States In civil cases. The
judgments in the civil cases totaled
$500 and the fines in the criminal
cases totaled S56,500.
PRISON SENTENCES LIGHT
IN MASSACHUSETTS.
Take Massachusetts, for another ex-
ample. In the July term Of court
there were Ave cases commenced and
four convictions. with fines Of s245.
In the September term there were
ninety-eight cases commenced. sixty
two terminated and convictions In
f1fty-one. The fines imposed agsre-
gated 1888 and the Imprisonment
sentences totaled eleven months. The
Department of Justice officials ex-
plain that the attitude of the judge
was that this has been largely a
period of education and that from
now on more jail sentences are to be
expected.
Take New Jersey as a third illus
tration. During the last fiscal year
there were $50 cases commenced. of
which 307 We're terminated and ag-
gregate fines of s20.4SO in criminal
cases imposed.
The reason ascribed for the records
being not more UP to date. so that it
American people are getting in the
way of convictions and penalties for
all the millions that are being ex-
pended in prohibition enforcement. is
that the federal agents, are not able
to keep up with all the work that is
crowding in upon them and haven't
time to make current reports to the
Washington headquarters.
1t is pointed out also that the pro-
hibition enforcement act, which went
into operation January 16, 1920. was
half of that time by one
administration (democratic) and the
other half by another administration
(republican) and that the change Of
administration has tended to keep the
business disturbed. Besides this, 1t Is
emphasized, and Mrs. Willebrandt
stressed that before the appropria-
tions committee, that it takes a long
time to work an important case
through the courts. and that the really
big ones are just beginning to come
through. The imposition Of heavy
punishment in these cases is expected
to have a very salutary effect in scar
ing off the increasing number Of Of
tenders.
OFFICERS
AMONG THE ACCUSED.
The most important cases that are
on record in the Department Of JUS
tice involve maifeasance In office of
federal prohibition agents, and a brief
summary of some Of these should
prove interesting:
Harold L. Hart, federal prohibition
director for New York, is under in
dictment for conspiracy to violate the
prohibition act. growing out
Of the fraudulent issuance of permits
and the withdrawal of liquors on
those permits.
Thomas A. Delaney. former prohibi-
ton director Of Wisconsin, and Jo-
seph Ray. former dry inspector under
Delaney, have been found guilty of
to violate the Volstead act
on two indictments after the jury had
for nineteen hours. De-
Green Bay and prominent for years
in politics. Ray was formerly clerk
to an important committee Of the Ma
tional House of Representatives and
later vice consul at Vladivostok, ST.
IBERIA, during the war.
Samuel Singer. a big bootlegger at
Atlantic City. was convicted and is
serving three years sentence in the
federal penitentiary at Atlanta, be-
sides a fine Of $4,000. He appealed for
a writ Of certiorari to the Supreme
Court Of the United States which
overruled the appeal a few days ago.
Fines of $65.o00 and ten years i'm
prisonment In tho Atlanta peniten-
tiary were imposed upon Edward
Donegan in New York, for trafhcking
in stolen and forged liquor withdraw
al permits on a large scale. He was
convicted on thirteen counts. The De-
partment of Justice is convinced that
Donegan and Hart were working to-
gether to violate the prohibition act.
AND STATE
COURTS IN CLASH.
Thomas A. McAuliffe, former pro-
hibition officer and formerly Of the
revenue Office. became mixed
up with police officials in Hartford.
Conn, in violations Of the act. He was
charged in both the state and federal
courts with accepting bribe. The
federal authorities had the state ac-
tion remanded to the federal court for
trial The state authorities protested
against this and carried the protest