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

of her remark, she greeted the Chief
Justice warmly by saying, "Oh, do
hope you will decide this case In our
favor" This impulsive comment made
in the presence of several people Just
drew forth one of Chief, Justice Taft's
famous chuckles. But the Supreme
Courts opinions t265 U. s. 545: 272 u.
S. SID upheld the constitutionality of
the law.
And so 1t happens that we nibble
yeast instead Of drinking malt extract
for health and vigor.
Taxing BOOtIeggers' Incomes.
Vast sums are made by bootleggers.
They never pay income tax. Frequently
the way we have brought them to JUS
tice best is by investigating first their
financial transactions and assessing the
tax A bootlegging buccaneer named
Manly Sullivan resisted paying any in
come tax. And his best defense was that
he had made his income unlawfully and
it violated the Constitution to compel
him to put in a tax return. He won the
point, too, before the Circuit Court OF
Appeals. He tried his own case. He
had a sense of humor. quick wit and
glib tongue. The judge was reluctant to
hold him as closely in check as to the
asking of irrelevant questions as he
would a practicing attorney. Sullivan
was aware of this and imposed upon the
judges reluctance to the limit. He was
constantly overstepping the bounds OF
propriety.
At appropriate places in his examina-
ton or croSS-eXamination he would turn
aside for comments to the jury. One OF
these comments was: You gentlemen
see how these Northerners are haraSsing
me under the prohibition and the tax
laws-two of the most damnable stat
utes on the books Of this country"
When I was in the midst of my argu-
ment on the law OF the case later to
the Supreme Court of the United States
the Chief Justice suddenly burst out in
an audible chuckle that quite upset my
train of thought. He had found the
page of the record upon which Sullivans
comment appeared. He commented that
the defendant in the case seemed to
hold very decided views with respect to
certain of the Federal statutes.
Making Crime Less Profitable.
The Supreme Court held in this case
that an income tax was collectable on
profits illegally amaSsed. This has had
q far-reaching effect touching graft,
illegal contracts and crime profits OF all
descriptions. in addition to that derived
from illicit liquor. Tax collections from
bosses of the underworld have reached
many millions of dollars since the Sulli-
van decision. maintain that If the
man conducting a criminal business is
financially pinched in every way that
the law permits it will do as much to
deter crime as penitentiary sentences.
The Sullivan decision made crime less
profitable, for the illegal operator in
making his return does not dare to
deduct his outlay for graft. The lower
court raised that very point, but Justice
Holmes waved 1t to one side. saying:
"It is urged that If a return were
made the defendant would be entitled
to deduct illegal expenses, such as brib-
cry. This by no means follows. but 1t
will be time enough to consider the
questions when some taxpayer has the
temerity to raise it,
These decisions represent permanent
gains In the Governments huge task
OF enforcing the eighteenth amendment.
The winds of popular disapproval and
political excitement over "VOlSteadism"
may rage, but those foundations, though
unspectacular, are sure and firm. Ulti-
mate orderly enforcement will be built
upon them. At moments Of discourage
ment find reinsurance in the knowl-
edge that in this way have really left
a permanent contribution to the devel-
opment Of constitutional lava con-
tribution of increasing value as the
Government proceeds on its task Of en-
forcing the eighteenth amendment.
The Jones "Five-and- Ten Law"
Many tears have been shed by anti
and especially organiza-
tions actively engaged in propaganda
against the prohibition law because of
the amendment which the ants have
labeled 1.-THE Jones Five-and-Ten Law"
have heard many such comments as
this:
Nov you have a law that will let
judge send a woman to prison for five
years for selling a quart of whisky, and
probably the next thing the prohibi-
tionists will get through is law giving
a life sentence to the bootlegger who is
caught second time, and after that
you will probably try to get capital
punishment for supplying the stuff that
even judges are drinking. The prohibi-
tionists are just getting desperate be-
cause they know the law can't be en-
forced under reasonable penalty"
How much truth is there in such
statements?
First, let's see what the Jones law
provides:
BE 1t enacted by the Senate and
House of Representatives Of the United
States Of America in Congress assem-
bled. That wherever a penalty or pen
alties are prescribed in q criminal prose-
cution by the national prohibition act,
as amended and supplemented, for the
illegal manufacture. sale, transportation,
or expectation of intoxicat-
ing liquor. as defined by section /, title
II. OF the national prohibition act. the
penalty imposed for each such offense
shall be fine not to exceed $4,000 or
not to exceed five years,
or both. Provided. That 1t is the in
tent OF Congress that the court in i'm
posing sentence hereunder should dis
criminate between casual or slight vio-