Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-17

were made every year, but the worst
offender, the big man with the pull, was
never arrested, while the man of small
means was prosecuted without mercy.
The city authorities, notably the police
magistrates, the police department and
the district attorneys office, were in
alternately profted and suffered by their
willingness that he should violate the
law"
Couldn't the same general statement
be made about liquor conditions now
under the eighteenth amendment in
New York State, and, that being so. can
it be truthfully said that the prohibition
law is any more unenforceable than
State laws?
Other Side of Picture.
Now let's turn to the other side of the
picture and see what can be done when
the State and local communities do
what the eighteenth amendment OF the
United States Constitution contemplates
exercise their concurrent authority to
enforce.
In the State of Kansas, which had an
effective law of its own for prohibition
enforcement long before the eighteenth
amendment was adopted, the Federal
Government has had comparatively lit
tie to do since enactment OF the Vol
stead law. In one year. for instance,
we had to handle only IL liquor cases
in the Federal courts of Kansas. But
they were important cases, and the Gov
eminent won all IL of them. The cases
instituted in Kansas range from few or
none, some years to 10, which is the
highest number, in 1928. Contrast this
with the situation in New York State,
where the Federal Government has been
obliged to prosecute from 500 to 1000
cases a month, and then only scratches
the surface. 1t is not the difference in
the size of the two States that counts;
it is the difference in the attitude of
the local enforcement authorities, large
ly influenced by the press. The situa-
ton in this aspect is the same in Phila-
delphia, Chicago and New York as in
hundreds of small towns and cities.
For instance, at Trenton, Fla, we
recently secured the conviction OF the
mayor, one of the members of the city
council and an ex-constable and deputy
sheriff. They were indicted with others
for violations Of the prohibition act.
and upon conviction were sentenced to
terms of is months and a year and a
day in the Federal penitentiary.
In some of the smaller towns in the
country we have found evidence of vir-
tual licensing of bootleg establish
ments by local authorities. The prac-
tice at Silverton, Colo, in the mining
district, for instance, was to regularly
fine those who operated what amounted
to open saloons, the fines being used
for municipal purposes instead of rails
ing tax rates on the property of law
abiding citizens. AS long as fines were
paid regularly the bootlegging estab-
| liShmentS were allowed to continue OPP
erationS without any interference by the
local municipal authorities.
State Cooperation.
| On the other hand, where the State
or city uses its power to curb liquor
violations the results are worth while.
In Pennsylvania, for instance. the State
| Alcohol Permit Board works in close CO.
operation with the Federal prohibition
administrator. Applications for Federal
permits are referred to the State board
and applications for State permits are
referred to the Federal authorities for
| past records. Violations by permitteeS
are reported to each other. Violators
are prosecuted under State and Federal
laws. All records, reports, witnesses and
, assistance are provided by each to the
other in bringing actions to a successful
and prompt termination. The language
I have used in describing the co-opera-
| ton is that of the State board itself in
| its annual report. The result has been
reduction of almost one-third in the
number of permits issued in two years
for the handling of alcohol and liquors.
On reports of Federal prohibition
agents manufacturing company To-
Gated at Reading, Pa, was deprived by
the State board of its permit to operate
a brewery or cereal beverage plant and
its $4,000 bond forfeited. Injunction
proceedings we're also brought and the
brewery premises padlocked. This was
only one of several like cases where the
State authorities took action on evidence
furnished by Federal prohibition agents.
When Col. S. o. Wynne, Federal pro-
hibition administrator for the fifth dis
trict, located in Philadelphia, appealed
to the attorney general of Pennsylvania
for aid in the enforcement of prohibi-
ton laws a special State deputy at
torney general was assigned to conduct
paddock proceedings. On one day 65
cases were instituted by the State at
torney general, and So places involved
in these cases were ordered padlocked
Six other places were restrained and
the character of business changed.
How different this is from the Situa-
ton in New York State! One of the
United States district attorneys in New
York has called attention to the fact
that the two Federal judges in the
western district of New York State have
sole power to try prohibition cases in a
territory populated by approximately
two million people. Necessarily, there
fore, the pressure of work encourages
bootleggers, little and big alike, to enter
pleas of guilty rather than hopelessly
congest the court dockets with untried
jury cases. Is 1t prohibition that is a
failure in New York State or is it gov
eminent by the people of New York
State that Is failing?
Conferences Held.
I have from time to time-many
times-urged that United States at
torneys, marshals and key men in
charge of investigative agencies be called
to Washington for zone conferences at
which a definite policy of approach to