The Washington times., 1925-04-02
BREWERY
"PADLOCK"
DISPUTE
Couzens and Other Senators
Said to Be Against Melons
Prohibition Policy
BY WILLIAM K. HUTCHINSON.

BY WILLIAM K. HUTCHINSON.
Seeking legislative remedy for
prohibition violations, the Couzens
Senatorial Committee today re-
sumed its investigation Of q clash
between the Department OF Justice
and the Treasury Department over
enforcement of the dry law.
Evidence before the committee
showed the two departments were
in conflict over the prohibition
bureaus action in selling Eastern
against the advice of
the Attorney General.
Bone Of Contention.
The Treasury, It was shown,
the seizures Of breweries
where violations occurred while the
Department Of Justice insisted that
be obtained against the
violators.
The committee recalled Mrs. Mabel
Walker Willebrandt, Assistant At.
torney General in charge of dry
to further explain her
charges that the Justice Department
was. ''dissatisfied" with the work
Of prohibition agents In New Eng
land, New Yol, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Mon
tana, West Virginia and Michigan.
It was in these States, the COM
mittee was told, that the prohibition
bureau seized brewery properties
against the advice Of the Attorney
General.
Recommendation already given
the committee by Mrs. Willebrandt
for improving prohibition enforce
ment included the adoption Of q
policy Of using inJunctions against
dry violators and the special train.
Ing Of field agents to locally enforce
the dry law. She also advocated
higher pay and civil service for dry
agents.
Letter BY Stone.
The clash between the two de.
partments over seizures and In.
functions was revealed to the com.
nittee by submission Of q letter
written Secretary Of the Treasury
Mellon by former Attorney General
Harlan Fiske Stone. In this let.
ter. Stone wrote: st
you viii recoIlect there has been
\ sharp divergence Of views be-
tween the prohibition unit OF your
and the decision of this
department. handling prohibition
your unit has contended that
search warrant and libel proceed.
lngs are absolutely essential 70 the
effective enforcement of the law.
This department has felt that
since Congress in enacting the pro-
act devoted four sections 10
setting forth injunction proceedings
and failed entirely to mention libel
as a matter Of policy
The Government should adopt the
most in harmony with
he unquestioned intent Of Congress.
Further, as q practical matter,
It is felt here that the injunction
proceeding Is by Tar the most eff.
'ective in the long run, though lack.
ing the spectacular possibilities
Of so-ca1led search and seizure
Bribery Of Guards.
The committee also was told that
The Attorney General condemned
the seizure Of property because Of
the heavy expenses incurred in
guarding it and the fact that the
aw continued to be violated through
the bribery Of guards.
This condition occurred, II was
said, time and again in Pennsyl.
vania ana New Jersey, whore the
most seizures were made.
The seizures also were condemned
and mot an actual effective
"No summary proceeding Is pos
sible when violations occur at
under seizure" she said.
"Guards may be bribed and beer
run out without the possibility Of
fixing the responsibility.
II the property IL under Injunction
and q violation occurs, the Govern.
ment has some one on whom to pin
the responsibility and that person
can be hailed into court and punished
for contempt"
Whatever decision the committee
finally makes = and indicati tons
to an Endorsement Of the
OF Justices position
its verdict will be pronounced in a
series OF recommendations to Con-
erNaR next fall