The Bismarck tribune., 1922-05-22
PUBLIC CLAM0R
HAS NO EFFECT
IN U. S. COURT
Federal Judge Miller States PO-
sitiOn of Court in Comment
ing on Statement
LIQUOR PENALTIES HEAVY
ViolatOr of Dry Law Draws $1O,-
900 Fine and Penalties for
Having Liquor
LIQUOR PENALTIES HEAVY

Having Liquor
Fargo, N. D., May District
Attorney M. A. Hildreth, stating in
federal court here that there had been
criticism directed against both him
and the court for not being more Sc.
we're in liquor cases, was informed
by Federal Judge Andrew Miller
that he was quite aware that the
district attorney had been diligent in
the prosecution of liquor cases and
that any clamor concerning the court
was a waste of breath on the part
Of those engaged in it..
'This court will continue in each
case to dispense justice as this court
understands it and interprets the law,
with entire Indifference to criticism
from any class of people, any organi-
zation or anyone else," said Judge
Miller. "This is court where clam
or does not interfere with or influ-
ence it's decisions"
Small Fine. Heavy Penalties
During the afternoon federal Off
cials made public figures showing
that small fine in federal court is
in reality many times as severe as a
conviction for violation of the liquor
laws in state court.
A typical case given follows: John
Doe was arrested by federal agents
in January. He had IA gallons Of
LIQUOR in his possession. He was fined
$1OO by a federal judge:
? Immediately the prohibition direct
or's office filed the following tax
claim against him: manufacturers
penalty, $1,000; failure to have re-
tail liquor permit, $500; special tax
for six months from January t 0
June 80 (June is taken as the first
month Of the year, $1,000; and
stamp tax of l Ia gallons at $3.50
gallon, S16-making the total tax
Judgment against him $2,516.
To this was added $629, which was
25 percent Of the judgment. was add
ed as it was not paid within ten days
after it was served on the defendant.
An extreme case cited is that of a
defendant who had 500 gallons Of
liquor in his possession. The stamp
tax on this amount totalled $6, ,4OO.
Other penalties brought the judgment
up to $4,000.
District Attorney Hildreth moved
for the dismissal Of several liquor
eases. He read telegram from the
Acknowledgement stating that he
should use his own judgment in dis
missing such cases where evidence
did not warrant conviction. Mr.. Hill
dreth said prohibitionists were critl-
cising him for not being more severe
in prosecutions.
Judge Miller's Remarks
Judge Miller, in his remarks, de-
clared that he knew the district attor-
ney had been diligent in this regard
but called attention to the fact that
most of the cases brought in federal
court were for manufacture OF home.
brew and not for liquor running from
Canada or for wholesale disposal Of
liquor. ).
''The court" he said, "is amazed al
the statements of the district attor.
ney. / have known you for a gooc
MANY years. have sometimes thought
that you prosecuted with more indus
try in some cases than was required
but that you ever failed or lacked IN
dustry in prosecuting. and partlcu
larly with reference to prohibition
cases, is an amazing statement to me
You have brought some two hundred
and more cases before me in the shor
time that have been on the bench
Most of these cases, yes, may sa!
ninety per cent or more, were cases o
minor Importance, cases where tn
violations which you charged wer
merely that some person had brewed
or in most instances had attempte'
to brew but had not yet finished il
something for his own use in his owl
home, without any charge Of engag
ing in the traffic. transportation 0
sale.
Amazing Statement
"In some Of those cases the sur
rounding circumstances were sue
that I thought the District Attorne
would well have been warranted i
not bringing the cases before mi
But that anyone or any class OF pei
sons should charge you as the distrie
attorney with failure to prosecute
an amazing statement. l understan
that YOU are shortly to address bod
of people, whose first and creates
ambition is to enforce the prohibitio
law. and if you will make the state
ment to them that you have made
this court l am sure there will be. 4
suspicion resting on you with refe
ence to the prohibition law.
with reference to your sugge
ton that criticism has been mat
of the court, dismiss that from 20,
mind and do not let that worry 20
Mr.. District Attorney. This court w
continue to in each case dispense ju
tice as this court understands it al
interprets the law, with entire i
difference to criticism from any ella
of people, any organization, or an
one else. This is court where pub
clamor doesn't interfere with or j
fluence it's decisions, and your mott
to dismiss iwll be granted, because
know that when you move to d
miss case, and particularly a pl
hibition case, you haven't any cas-,
What Dry Law Does
Against those who are apprehend
for manufacturing liquor or posse!
Continued on Page ~