The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-04-28
BY SmedIey ID. Butler

Liquor law enforcement was not
popular, apparently, with Philadel-
phia's public officials.
The magistracy refused to do it's
duty. The district attorney was re-
luctant to proceed vigorously. Grand
iuries and petit juries permitted
their sympathies and prejudices to
interfere with their judgment. The
courts, too, were often at fault.
L will prove these assertions. I
have figures to show the compare
tive liquor law violations for the
first elevent months of 1923 (the
year before I came to Philadelphia,
1924 Cmy first year,, and 1925 (ny
second and last year,. The twelfth
month is omitted because did not
finish that month in office and sta
tisticians are not available.
In 1923, Alb persons were arrest
ed on various liquor charges; in 1924
the number totaled 5,757, while in
the eleven months of 1925 9,424 per-
sons were arrested.
What Happens in Court
What happened to these violators?
In 1923, just 307 of the lab
prisoners, about 20 per cent, were
discharged outright, or fined and dis
charged by the magistrates. In 1924
the number discharged leaped to
2,4S8, or about As per cent of those
arrested, while in 1925 1896 were
discharged. Bookkeeping, under such
conditions, is rather an ideal bust
ness.
The others were held by magis-
trates What happened to those?
In 1928 grand juries indicted $50
Of the LOO held. In 1924 they did
better, indicting virtually every pris-
oner. However, in 1925 they re-
turned only 1906 true bills out of
1888 submitted them.
OF those finally brought to trial,
SOS persons were convicted in 1929
1850 in 1924, and in the eleven
months Of 1925 only 800.
A bootlegger thus had about
thirty chances for immunity to the
one chance police had Of conviction
in that last year!
Eighty-Nine Freed
In my last full month in office
1862 persons charged with liquor law
violations went to court. OF these,
forty.eight pleaded guilty and were
assessed small fines; twenty-five
stood trial and were found guilty;
and the remaining eighty-nine stood
trial and were freed.
1t is fitting that in this frank re-
cital about our legal officials word
of credit should be interjected, and
so T want to say that Judge Harry
s. McDevittl was my fright arm" in
the courts. The success of the pad
locking procedure was due to his
whole-hearted cooperation.
But there were judges of the OPP
posite type, too.
Councilman Pommer. one Of Boss
Vare's heelers, complained to me
one day that we were padlocking all
the saloons Of his boss.
In surprise, I asked docs Bill
Ware run saloons?"
NO" said Pommer "but his friends
do and you paddock them, but you
never paddock the saloons Of O'Con-
nor"
Friends Protected
Pommer referred to Magistrate
Francis X. O'Connor, bitter political
enemy Of Ware.
Again 1 asked, Docs O'Connor
run saloons as a side line?"
Again the answer came that
O'Connor did not, but his friends
did.
I told Pommer I would pe glad to
paddock O'Connor's saloons as well
as Wares. and Pommer suggested
that I take the cases to a judge
other than MCDevitt.
(which judge?" 1 asked.
We'll" said Pommer, 'I'll see the
boss (Vare) In a few minutes and
I'll put it up to him." The following
dou pOpapna,- informed mo that I