The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-05-11
THAT SOUIBB'S INCIDENT


No one will accuse Federal Judge Baltzell OF ex-
aggeration when he declared the bench that the
theft Of the Suubb liquor seized by the Government
was one OF the most shameful incidents OF Indiana
history
fact that the Government took away this
from a dstillery because 1t had bootlegged
lcl whisky and then permitted, through laxlty or
worse any part of it to be bootlegged again, must
stand as an indictment against those who had 1t In
charge.
Danouncng the incident as shameful Will not
entirely satisfy public curiosity.
II is true that over in Jail, awaiting sentence,
ave three ianitors of the Federal building who adj
nit stealing thirty cases Of this whisky.
But it is also true that there were 800 cases
missing from the lot which seized.
It might be an easy answer to say that these jan
itors merely lied when they discaim taking more
than the thirty cases.
And that might be the answer were it not for
some other details that the public has every right to
know about and to be explained.
Here are a few facts which interesting the
public and which should interest every Federal Off
cal from President Coolidge and Secretary Mellon,
on down to the most minor deputyin any local office
dedicated to the enforcement of law:
The disappearance of this whisky was revealed
from the floor of Congress by Socialist Congress
man from New York.
No local official, officer charged with its GUS
tody, ever intimated that it was gone. ......
When that charge made, denial was made
by the United States marshal that any part of 1t
was gone.
When that charge was made, he at first declared
that it was impossible to know whether any whisky
was missing because no check had ever been made
of the amount turned over to his custody. 5,
When the court record containing his receipt
he rnain
tanned that no inventory had been made
When the disappearance was proved, the former
prohibition enforcement agent for this State, Bert
Morgan, who never had the whisky in custody, but
who was responsible for its seizure declared that
a check by Government official two years ago dis
closed the fact that at that time 900 were
missing.
Morgan charged that this report had been sup
pressed.
Certain it is that effort made, if such
report made, to discover who took that num-
Der of cases of whisky, about $4,000 worth of it.
Denial was made that any such report made
or that any such loss was at that time made known.
The public has a right to know why these vari-
GUS denials were made and why officials charged
with the custody Of the whisky were so eager to
show that none of it had been taken back to boot.
leg and criminal USE
The shameful incident is made more shameful by
the history of the case
1t is shameful in itself that it required speech
from the floor Of Congress to make known crime
committed In the Federal building Of this city,
1t is shameful to read the record Of denias, now
shown to be based on other than fact.
1t Is shameful to admit that it is possible for
three negro anitors to cart away and put back into
bootleg channels, whisky taken from distilery for
the purpose of preventing just that thing.
The people have rights. They ~have right TO
expect that the Government will be careful about
the liquor it takes. They have right to expect that
it will not be diverted to criminal sale, stolen or
perhaps passed out for other sinister purposes
Certainly the Federal machinery Of justice can
do less than to disclose the truth or falsy Of the
charge that for two years Government officials knew
that 220 Of this whisky was gone and took no
steps to trace it,
That charge is open. 1t is made by former
official Of high standing Either he lied or there are
officials in the Government service either here or at
Washington who do not belong in the service.