Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-16
SNAPSHOT Criticism.

SAAb4NAoAAs
The Law Enforcement Commission,
which includes in its membership emf
nent jurists and attorneys, has adj
vanced a proposal to relieve the con-
gestion of the Federal courts, due in
great measure to the piling up of pro-
hibition cases. In brief, the plan pro-
poses that Congress shall by law diff
ferentiate between minor violations OF
the prohibition law and major viola
lions and that in the case Of minor vio-
lations the cases shall be heard by a
United States commissioner if the de-
PENDANT pleads not guilty. Immediately
there was a burst of criticism OF the
plan. Constitutional lawyers on Capitol
Hill saw In the proposal a menace to
the right Of trial by jury, the setting
up Of United States commissioners as
Federal Police Court judges"
Unfortunately, criticism frequently
springs from the Threats, even of mem
bers of Congress, without the critics
having a full understanding of what
they criticize. A little study of the
supplemental report of the Law En-
forcement Commission and of the pre-
lirninary report, too, might have allayed
the fears of some Of these gentlemen
who now appear to be upset by the
constitutional question involved. 1t is
easy, however, to criticize first and
1okn lie
which has no desire to see the law
amended so as to increase the effective
ness Of prohibition enforcement. 1t has
been the claim of that group that pro-
hibition never could and never would
be enforced. Any step which might
jeopardize that claim would be sure to
arouse hostility. The defenders Of pro-
hibition, however, may have more diff
Guilty explaining to the people who be-
lieve in prohibition why they should
oppose plan to relieve the congestion
in the courts and make 1t possible to
try and dispose Of prohibition cases.
Particularly when this plan comes from
the Law Enforcement Commission and
apparently has the Endorsement Of the
President Of the United States and the
Attorney General.
The plan neither takes away the right
of trial by jury nor does it set up Q
new group Of minor judges. In the
first place, the defendant in case OF
minor prohibition violation is given the
right to demand trial by jury If he
pleads not guilty and If after hearing
by the United States commissioner
that official recommends conviction
to the court, the defendant may
within three days after the flins
of that report demand a jury tria
and get it. In the second place, the
United States commissioner may only
recommend conviction. The Judge Of
the court to whom the commissioner
reports may, upon examination Of the
commissioners findings, either acquit
or convict the defendant. and the sem
terlce, if conviction is held valid, is i'm
posed by the court, not the commits
sioner.
Congress Is asked by the Law Enforce
ment Commission to define casual OF
slight" violations Of the prohibition
laws, for which the penalty shall be
not more than q fine Of $500 or i'm
prisonment, without hard labor, fol
not more than six months, or both. An
uproar arose over the passage OF the
Jones Stalker "five-and-ten" law, which
made It possible to impose heavy pen.
alties for slight violations Of the liquor
laws. Yet some Of the same men who
engaged In that uproar are now attack
ing the plan to specify minor violations
of the law with lighter penalties. Con.
sistency, however, so far as the pro-
hibition question is concerned, run;
only to entire opposition TO any en-
forcement of the dry laws.
George w. Wickersham, former Attor'
ney General of the United States, chair
man of the Law Enforcement Commits
sion, has come forward in defense O
the plan Of the commission to relieve
congestion in the courts. He assert
that it violates no principle Of the Cen
stitution and that 1t does not contem
plate any invasion of constitutions
guarantees. He calls attention to tn
fact that the commissions proposal
on all tours with State legislation, which
has distinguished a number of petit,
misdemeanors from major crimes ant
made them subject to prosecution unde
complaint or information and triable b.
a magistrate without jury.
The Law Enforcement Commission
has come forward with definite plal
to do away with congestion Of tn
courts. Such congestion has become
menace to law enforcement and has re
tarded justice. Opposition to this plal
must be based on solid ground, indeed
if 1t is to be convincing.
| One of the greatest ECONOMY cam