Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-12-27
CRIME BOARD FACES
FIGHT FOR ITS LIFE
Group in Prohibition Service
Likely to Arouse Contro-
versy in Congress.

The principal matter within the scope
OF prohibition having a real certainty
OF coming up in Congress soon is extern
sion OF the life Of the commission to
study crime and law enforcement. More
narrowly the question is one of re-
curing the commission to hold public
hearings as the price of extending its
life. 1t is this question that precipi-
lated the outbreak of prohibition state
ments this week. This question is prac-
tlcally certain to come up soon altar
Congress resumes. For reasons too
complex to state here, practically all
and perhaps literally all the ether mass
OF prohibition questions will be deferred
IN Congress for some time.
Whether the one question about the
Crime Commission will result in a
showdown j. of wet and dry strength
remains to BE seen. 1t need not neces-
sarily do so. Prohibition leaders claim
the present Congress has larger num-
Der of drys than any preceding enc. Be-
cause OF this claim. disputed by the
vets, there is eagerness for some meas
ure to come up that would result in a
full and accurate lineup Of the two
factions. The Crime Commission ques-
ton may or may not reveal this line
up, probably not.
Situation Outlined.
The manner in which the Crime Com
mission Is apt to come no needs ex-
PLANTATION. The commission is able to
exist and function by virtue of an ap-
preparation. The matter OF renewing
the appropriation is ahead of Congress-
In this situation, there is some unrest
and criticism on the part Of some.
though not all, the drys in the Senate.
The original appropriation through
which the commission functions did not
contemplate exactly or primarily this
KIND OF commission. The original APP
preparation of $250,000 contemplated
the investigation of prohibition alone,
or certainly primarily. When the COM
mission was broadened to study all
forms OF crime some prohibitionists in
the Senate felt little suspicious and
resentful.
Senator Carter Glass of Virginia, for
example, thinks the commission has
perverted the real purpose of its con-
Stitution." He says 1t has taken an
incidental and parenthetical authorize
tion as Its primary purpose and has
shunted aside the real purpose. :"
Another Grievance Listed.
Another grievance of some, though
not all, prohibitionists is that the COM
mission is functioning without holding
any PuOllC IlCdTlIlSS. SENATOR 1aTTlS Oh
Georgia particularly complains Of the
lack of public hearings. He says "the
so-called Law Enforcement Commission
Is the only star-chamber commission
know of in this country today. Under
our form of government do not think
there should be a commission coming
within that category"
This suspicion and resentment against
the Commission has two immediate OBJ
jectives. One Is a demand, made by
Senator Harris, that the Commission
shall make preliminary report" The
reason put forward as justifying a pre-
liminary report is in Senator Harris
words. His reason is that when the
appropriation bills come before the
Senate we may have the information
which the Commission has gathered,
together with any recommendations as
to additional funds they believe neceS-
Sary to carry on this work"
The ether purpose of some prohibit
ZIONIST critics Is to provide that mo
part of the new appropriation shall be
expended for this Commission so long
as they have secret sessions"
Out OF these proposals, the prohibit
ton question on partial phase will be
precipitated IN Congress when or before
the new appropriation Is asked for.
whether the consequence would be
show down" of dry and wet strength
is doubtful. Some of the most earnest
prohioitionists in Congress are sympa-