Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-21

so OF his confederates under q con-
spiracy charge, was given the maximum
sentence the Judge could impose. That
sentence was two years.! And 1t wasn't
under the prohibition law. Under 1t
Haar could have received not more than
six months, and 81 900 fine. In other
words, man who had by bribery, cor
ruption and fraud distributed liquor
through many States, contributing to
the downfall and perhaps death OF many
persons with whom he never came in
contact, was subject to less punishment
than he would have been If convicted
Of stealing gold watch or DIAMOND
ring in any one of most of the States.
Consider for moment the actual case
of an Indian agent who simply de-
frauded the Government in supplying
groceries and other necessities to In
CiianS on their reservations and who
thus violated two sections OF the Fed
eral statute. The agent had family to
support and was working for only 81 500
year. Nevertheless, he was sentenced
by a Federal judge to seven years i'm
prisonment In Atlanta Penitentiary.
On the other hand, bootlegger whose
sale of liquor traced by the Treasury
Department amounted to 50 many mil
lions of dollars that he was subject to
tax assessments Of more than 81 ,000, 900
was sentenced to but six months in jail.
Any person who imports goods in vio-
lation Of the customs law or who sells
such goods after importation may be
imprisoned two years.
In other words, II George Jones had
been convicted of smuggling into the
United States empty whisky bottles, a
judge could have sentenced him to the
penitentiary for two years and could
have fined him 5000. But II George
Jones had instead struggled into the
United States hundreds Of gallons Of
whisky. he would, prior to the Jones
amendment, have been subject TO q
maximum. penalty Of only $500 fine In
case OF conviction.
A drug importer failing to pay the tax
levied on opium may be fined $4,000
and imprisoned for five years. or both.
II manufacturer fails to afix the re-
quired revenue stamp on phosphorus
matches, he is liable to O sentence Of
two years in prison.
Another man, manufacturing tobacco
without giving the required bond. Is
subject to minimum sentence Of from
one to five years in prison.
For certifying check when o de-
positor had not SUFFICIENT funds the ma
tional banking act provides q penalty
of imprisonment in the penitentiary for
from to IS years. II an Army of1icer
Wnlle III an Intoxicated cOnOlJlOn NJ Y
polling place interferes with an elec-
ton. he is subject to q sentence of five
years imprisonment or Q 5000 fine.
But the bootlegger who sold him the
cause Of his intoxicatiOn. II convicted
prior to enactment of the Jones act.
faced at the most only six months in
jail and 81 900 fine.
Not . New Law.
The fact is that the penalties of the
prohibition act were inconsequential
during the fist 10 years of its enforce
ment, or attempted enforcement, and
they were totally out of proportion to
the big offenSes which constitute the
real Federal problem. They were out
of proportion to the penalties that fol-
low violation Of other Federal laws. Yet
the violation of the prohibition statute
is a violation Of the Constitution itself.
The Jones amendment Is not q new
law. 1t leaves most of the Volstead act
untouched, raising penalties for viola
ton of such sections as parallel specifi-
cally with the eighteenth amendment.
Only maximum puniShments are raised.
The judge is simply given a larger slid
ing scale to enable him to At the pun
ishment to the crime. There has been
raised by the anti-prohibition press a
great hue and cry over the outrages
judges may commit under 1t in SEN