Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-03-18
NEW YORK GROUP
FIGHTS J0NESLAW
New Act Provides Maximum
Penalties for Discretion
of Judges.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.

In New York City a committee of
lawyers of high standing announces
that they propose to fight the Jones
law with the same vigor that the New
York bar displayed in the case Of the
t fugitive slave law"
II the prosaically named Jones law"
Is to have the elevation in history that
: the fugitive slave act had, doubtless
: the public will wish information as to
exactly what the Jones law is. 1t was
enacted in February. The vote in the
Senate was SO yea, Is nays, 10 not vot-
ing. In the House the vote was 264
yeas, 90 nays 81 not voting. This ratio
of support of the Jones law conforms
to the attitude of Congress on previous
prohibition measures. Ever since pro-
hibition came, the Senate has been
about 20 per cent dry and the House
about rs per cent.
The essential language of the Jones
law reads that the penalty for violation
of the national prohibition act shall
be fine not to exceed $4,000. or i'm
prisonmcnt not to exceed five years
or both. Provided. that it is the intent
of Congress that the court, in imposing
sentence hereunder, should discriminate
between casual or slight violations and
attempts to commercialize violations of
the law"
Minimum Penalties Unchanged.
The Jones law. it should be under
stood. is a statement of the maximum
penalty. 1t says nothing about mini
mum penalties. Under the Jones law,
minimum penalties remain exactly what
they were before This fact is specifi-
re11U cfotad in ho lou ifcnlf Tho
minimum penalty for a first offense
can be fine of 81 or one day in Jail,
or even less. Under the Jones law, as
1t was put by Congressman Newton of
Minnesota, 1.-The minimum penalty is
left where 1t is; that is, nothing" The
minimum penalty for second offense
was still remains 5000 fine or one
month in JAIL The Jones law is short
makes no change whatever in mini
mum penalties.
Another way to describe the Jones
law is to state just what change it
makes from the law as it was before.
What the Jones law does and all it
does is to increase the possible maxi
mum penalty up to $4,000 and five
years. Before the Jones law, the maxi
mum was $1,000 and six months for
first offenders; and $4,000 and five
years for second offenders.
IL Is dSkeQ WHY ttilS ulCIedSe WIS
made in maximum penalties, an au-
thoritative answer is in the statement
of the Assistant United States Attorney
from the Department of Justice, Mrs
Willebrandt, who asked Congress to
make the change. As it was put by
the congressional report, "she testified
that in big cities and in large cases
- the Judges complain that the
maximum penalty was too low; that If
they could have the discretion like that
given by this bill to impose the maxi
mum sentence in certain cases against
big offenders the violators might
be driven out of the business" \
AS 1t was put by Congressman VIII
liams of Illinois, These increased pen
alties are provided for the higher-ups,
for the aristocracy of the liquor traffic. :"
Judges Given Wider Range.
The debate over the Jones bill was to
only small extent about the heaviness
of the maximum penalty. There was
practically no assertion that the maxi
mum penalty is .unreasonably heavy for
the maximum type of big and frequent
offender The dispute was mainly
about the fact that the Jones law gives
to judges the whole range of discretion
between 81 and $4,000, between one
day and five years.
1t was agreed that the proviso about
the intent of Congress" has no bind
ing effect whatever. 1t was agreed that
the Judge really has the whole range OF
discretion. AS it was put by Congress
man La Guardia of New York City,
mot the offense, but the temperament,
feeling, favor, whim, spite, caprice, or
digestion of the individual judge is the
measure of punishment"
It was apparent that many Representa-
tives and Senators were seriously
troubled about this extraordinary dele
CATION of discretion to judges. The
substantially universal practice is for
Congress to fix the grades of crime and
the corresponding penalties. 1t is not
denied that the Jones law, as 1t was
put by Representative Irwin of Illinois,
gives to Federal judges the power to
send man or woman to jail for five
years and make them pay a fine of
$4,000 if found guilty Of making pint
of home brew for their own USE
Fight Was Clean-Cut.
AS a whole the debate in Congress
was mainly not about the Jones law
specifically. but about prohibition in
general. The fight over the Jones law
was a fight between vets in the
broadcast sense, and drys in the broad
est sense. Some of the debate from the
wet side was violent. Representative
OConnor of New York City said: Il
am against prohibition. I am against
the eighteenth amendment. I abhor 1t
I despise it. I have no respect for it
Words would fail me in expressing my
disgust and absolute refusal to adhere
to the Volstead act I would not
vote for one penny to enforce 1t.
would not counsel anybody to even
respect the law. 1t is not worthy OF
respect 1 do not know anybody, or al
least not many, who do respect it.