Evening star., 1925-11-09
ATTACK ON u. S. DRY 4
RULE is HELD SEVEREST YET
Pennsylvania Governor Flags Granting of Permits
by Federal Government as Violators'
"First Line of Defense

withdraw 500 gallons OF specially de
natured alcohol was granted to the
-- Co. of Philadelphia for the pur
pose of manufa cturing toilet articles
and perfumes. One of the partners In
this company had been street car
conductor and a policeman, and had
had charges preferred against him hVe
times while on the police force. The
other had been a small livery stable
keeper: Neither, according to the
off1cial report, had ever had any eX
perience in making perfumery or IN
chemistry, or in manufacturing OF any
kind Within less than three months
after the permit was issued, the part
nership premises and those next ad
joining, belonging to one OF the part
ners, were raided, and were fouhd u
contain all kinds Of liquors. counter
felt stamps, alcohol, whisky cololihf
matter, ether, five rolls or ieau caps
corks, one bundle of counterfeit reVe
nue. stamps, and other whiskN-mlakiIs :
apparatus or apparatus indicating
LIQUORS were being made from alcohol
The report also says that from the
company premises over to those ol
one partner, prior to that ralu' D
barrels of alcohol belonging to TINS
concern had been unlaW1ully re-
moved and that they were 'selZed py
Federal agents.
I'm June. 1923. although but few
weeks before that date the permit hao
been suspended for diverting " par
rels Of alcohol and other violations OF
the act, the permit was reinstated. al
lowing. however, not the withdra wa
| of 500 gallons OF alcohol month as
| before the raid and suspension. but
| OF an increase to 1900 gallons
month, and within three months after
that, on September II, 1923. the fed
| eral agents say: This small concern
with no business and probably the
worst record of any alleged toile'
| water concern in this country, was
granted the right to withdraw ano
use 15,4 400 gallons Of denatured aicoho
per month.
Small Business Found.
"Of this plant the Federal agents re
port: They had no machinery or ap
| paratus OF any character for han
| ding an output of the magnitude
claimed by them We nave
personally visited and canvassed every
alleged large customer TO whom they
have sold these preparations In recent
| months.
"It is our opinion that there l:
| not single bona. fide large customer
shown upon their books. we
| do not think that one-hak of l per
cent Of the alcohol received by this
! institution Is actually made up into
| toilet articles or perfume sprays
| What little they do make up, in our
| opinion, they have difficulty in get
ting 1t out of their business into the
| hands of even questionable Gus
| toners.
I'm spite of all this, not until May
Is, 1924. did this crooked concern
| have its permit revoked. and then
that permit was restored by Commits
! sioner Haynes on August II, 1924
| From that date 1t continued to with
draw its alcohol until finally indicted
on August is, 1928. During the
month when 1t was indicted it with
drew 1851 gallons. In September
after the indictment. it withdrew
| 1882 gallons-and 1t still holds its
| permit.
ITO sum up the helpless inefficiency
| of the prohibition unit in its dealings
with these fraudulent Withdrawals, OF
81 permittees in the Philadelphia dis
trict. each authorized TO withdraw
over l 900 gallons of specially de
natured alcohol each month-some as
much as $4,000 gallons monthly-and
| altogether to withdraw 2,61 900 gal
! Ions a year, SO were cited from one
to three times for violations of law
! during the last rs months, but of the
81 only IL have as yet been put out
| OF business"