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

fencing college boys, mothers with small
children and o man who carries o flask
on his hip to the penitentiary for I'VE
years.
Federal judges are appointed for life
They are ofIicers chosen for their dis
cretion. Every day they sentence hum
dreds OF offenders under laws that have
a sliding scale Of punishment enabling
the sentence to be all the way from
fine Of 81 to IS years in the peniten-
tiary. We can trust our judges. Ger
tainly government Is in q bad way IL
we cannot leave the fate Of college
boy who carries O flask to the foot ball
game to the sound discretion of the
Federal judge whom he faces. There
isn't an objector to the Jones law in
the entire United States who could
hands that boys fate would not be safe.
VOlstead Act q CObweb Of Restraint.
The crux of the matter is that q
Chicago racketeer would no longer feel
so safe. The judge now has the power
to send him to the penitentiary for five
years, and neither the racketeer nor his
patrons like that.
Every safeguard is still left around
the casual offender. He can be given
only . fine. Or he can be given the
smallest kind Of q jail sentence Of an
hour or day. Everybody seems to for
get the probation statute, under which
the Judge can suspend all punishment.
That Is why was for the Jones amend
ment. It Is not oppressive. It is right
for the Judge to be able still to deal
leniently with the exceptional case. But
1t arms the Government against crafty
criminals. know that teeth are needed
in the law. SO that he who violates the
Constitution M kfnu
money may be dealt with In such
manner that the punishment means
something.
There would be little opposition to
this amendment II 1t pertained to any
thing except prohibition. The little
criminals and little drunkards will never
overthrow the dignity of the law. We
have drifted along for 10 years. with
conditions becoming worse, until new
danger has arisen. It Is the commercial
class of law violator-the racketeer, al
cohol baron and rings of smugglers-
who combine their lawlessness with In
trenched political power. To them the
Volstead act was no more than q cob
web Of restraint. Any fine under 1t was
less than q license compared to the
profits of the business. And 1t was easy
for them to hire substitutes TO 60 to
Jail for little terms.
A Worried Alderman.
In Chicago not long ago an alderman
was convicted. He had organized
SIS. GOO, 900 company to engage in a sys-
tematic violation of the prohibition law
for the specific purpose of commercial
izing crime and making money out Of
defying the law. My experience as q
law enforcement official has convinced
me that the Volstead act needed to be
amended so that when that alderman
stands up for sentence the judge may
have the power to mete out something
reasonably proportionate to his offense.
Before the Jones amendment the price
would have been six months or $500 fine
for profits to q 100000 illegal
combine!
Another reason know that beneficial
results will follow the Jones amendment
Is that 1t will do away with the too
prevalent use of the conspiracy statute.
United States attorneys when given
evidence Of huge sales or manufacture
of liquor on a commercial scale. in or
der to avoid the toothless misdemeanor