The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-04-14
THAT LIQUOR LEAK


Something more than the idle question OF what
became of the $50 cases of liquor which disap-
peared from the custody of the Federal authorities is
involved in this most peculiar transaction
The confidence of the people in the integrity OF
all government will be badly shocked If there Should
follow no action and no inquiry.
The facts OF the matter as established by
the records are simple:
raid upon the Squbb distllery resulted in the
seizure by the Federal Court Of 1853 cases OF liquor
The court turned that liquor over to the GUS
ody of the Federal marshal and it was stored in the
Federal building in indianapolis
An inventory by examiner for the depart
ment Of justice now shows that $50 cases OF that
liquor easily marketable at more than $4,000 at
bootleg prices and possibly twice that sum- are miss
ing.
There are some other facts, not in the records,
which make an inquiry more than necessary
n Outstanding is the repeated assertion Of United
States Marshal Linus Meredith that he had never
taken an inventory of the liquor when it was re-
|. ceived and that he did not know how many cases
we're in his custody
"a This assertion was made despite the fact that
the court records show receipt by the marshal for
the amount named by the attorney general
the marshal that he had made inventory of the
liquor was due to forgetfuness whether it had
real motive especially in view Of the fiat decara-
ton by the Department Of Justice that these thou
sands of dollars worth Of liquor are now missing.
n What is to be said of the efficiency of Govern
ment if it fails to prevent the leak from its own
custody of onefourth of the liquor taken from
private vioator of the law?
The one purpose of the seizure OF this liquor
frOo c,otfin into tba Of
citizens who might and would it in violation Of
the Volstead act
!, 1t was taken from the distery for the pur
pose of preventing it's being used beverage. On
no other theory could court enter order that it
be destroyed.
\ The whole success of the volstead act depends
y upon this liquor siezed in this being de-
stroyed and not drunk.
But over and beyond this is the necessity for
( inspiring confidence of citizens in the actions of
snSpblc officials.
Especially should the believers in prohibition
and in the ultimate success of the Volstead act be
interested in seeing that no suspicion attach to any
legal proceeding or act of any Government official
in connection with the prosecution and enforcement
of this law.
Support for that law is likely to wane, If there
be placed in the public mind any thought that
( through carelessness worse, officials permit lille
gal booze in their custody to be again circulated in
I illegal channels-and there is no legal channel for
any liquor sliced by the Government to circulate.
/ The disappearance of $50 Of liquor from
( the custody of Government official is much
serious than the disappearance of like amount il
( legally, from the distllery.
The sale of liquor by the illicit maker is blow
only at the one law.
/ The disappearance of such liquor from custody
=; of the Government hits at confidence in all laws
(. The people entitled to know the facts about
( this matter.
/ They entitled to know exactly what means
taken to protect this booze from again getting
back to the thirsty.
J They are entitled to know whether 1t was kept
/ in manner which was reasonably safe.
/ They are entitled to know whether it was pos
sibe for thieves to steal it from the Federal build
4 ing. -
+ They entitled to know why the same thieves
showed such admirable restraint that having easily
aken the $50 they did not return for the
L \ They are entitled to know why that leak was not
disclosed or discovered until member Of Congress
from distant State made the open charge from the
floor of Congress.
! They are entitled to know why denials we're
made that it gone up to the hour that an out
side investigator made check and the disappear
ance was thoroughly disclosed
They are entitled to know the truth of the
charge by former Prohibition Director Bert Morgan
that two three years ago official report of the
\ disappearance Of smaller amount was made and
that action taken.
Il They entitled to know the reasons for the
lack of action for the secrecy, the evasiveness the
exploded denials the conflicting statements by Off
Gals.
They entitled to know whether the Govern
ment is less interested in the disappearance of $780,
600 worth of liquor from its officers than it is
in the sale of one drink of moonshne in back al
leyand why.