The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-08-23

for health and vigor.
Vast sums are made by bootlegg
ouently the way We have brought tt
first their financial transactions, anC
A bootlegging buccaneer named
Manly Sullivan resisted paying any
income tax And his best defense
was that he had made his income
unlawfully and it violated the Con-
stitution 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, with a sense
of humor, quick wit. and glib
tongue.
Upheld High by Court
The supreme court held in this
case, however, that an income tax
was collectible on profits illegally
amassed. This has had a far
reaching effect. touching graft,
illegal contracts and crime profits
of all description, in addition to that
derived from illicit liquor. Tax col
lections from bosses of the under
world have reached many millions
of dollars since the Sullivan de-
cision.
These decisions represent per-
rnanent gains in the governments
huge task of enforcing the
eighteenth amendment. Two winds
of popular disapproval and political
excitement over "Volsteadism" may
rage, but these foundations, though
I'm 'ooular, are sure and firm.
Ultm.ayo Derby enforcement will
be built upon them.
Many tears have been shed by
anti prohibitionists, because of the
amendment which the ants have
labeled THE Jones Five and Ten.
Law"
I have heard many such COM
ments as this:
Now you have a law that will
let a judge send a woman TO pri-
son for five years for selling a
quart of whisky; and probably the
next thing the Prohibitionists will
get through is a law giving life
sentence to the bootlegger who is
caught a second time, and after
that YOU probably will try to get a
capital punishment law for supply
ing the stuff that even judges are
drinking. The prohibitionists are
getting desperate because they
know the law can't be enforced I'M
der reasonable penalty"
What the Law Provides
How much truth is there in such
statements?
First. let's see what the Jones law
provides:
Be it enacted by the senate and
house of representatives of the
United States of America in con-
eress assembled. That wherever a
penalty or penalties are prescribed
in a criminal prosecution by the
national prohibition act. as
amended and supplemented, for
the illegal manufacture, sale,
transportation, importation, or ex-
rortation of intoxicating liquor,
as defined by Section /, Title II,
Of the national prohibition act,
the penalty imposed for each such
offense shall be a fine not to ex-
ceed $4,000. or Imprisonment not
10 exceed five years, or both: Pro-
vided. That it is the intent of con-
eress that the court, in imposing
sentence hereunder, should dis
criminate between casual or slight
violations and habitual sales Of
Intoxicating liquor. or attempts
10 commercialize violations of the
law.
Sec. 2. This act shall not repeal
nor eliminate any minimum PEN
atty for the first or any subsequent
offense now provided by the said
national prohibition act.
I do not believe that harsh pen
slties ever will secure enforcement
of or obedience to laws. Ger
tainly as the head of the department
charged with responsibility for con-
duct of prosecutions, I would not
recommend enactment Of a law that
would make conviction more dim
cult to obtain.
Mercy Tempered With Justice
Yet the fact is-and I say it with
out any conjunction or pangs Of
conscience-that 1 actively advocat-
ed the passage of the Jones bill.
Why?
The prohibition enforcement
problem would not have reached
the proportions it has today if there
had been adequate penalties prior
TO passage of the Jones law that
would have deferred and discour-
aged and frightened the thousands
who embarked on bootlegging with
the thought in mind, We'll, even If
do get caught. will get only a
500 fine or a couple months In
jail.
Let's see what the situation was
up to the time of passage OF the
Jones law.
Willie Haar. of national bootleg
sing fame. whose profits reached
the sum of seven million dollars,
after conviction with some sixty OF
his confederates, under a conspiracy
charge, was givena the maximum
sentence the judge could impose.
That sentence was two years! And
Il wasn't under the prohibition law.
Under 1t, Haar could not have re-
ceived more than six months and
81 mn fine In other words q man