Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-13

are advised that open, persistent and
extensive violators of the law have
been enabled to escape so-called
padlocking of their property in this
way.
We think this grave defect may
be met by a simple amendment
adding to section %, title II of the
national prohibition law a provision
that If in a proceeding under that
section 1t Is made to appear to the
court that any person unknown has
or claims an interest in the prop
erty or some part Of 1t, which would
be affected by the order prayed for,
it may order that such person be
made a party by designating him as
unknown owner or claimant Of some
interest in the property described.
It should go on to provide that such
person and any defendant who is
absent from the jurisdiction or
whom, whether within or without
the Jurisdiction, 1t is impracticable
to serve otherwise, or who Is shown
to the satisfaction of the court to be
concealing himself for the purpose
of evading service of process or of
any order of the court, may be served
in accordance with the provisions Of
section 81 of the judicial code.
Would Add Strength.
The use of Injunction proceedings
as a means of enforcement is so i'm
portant that this provision for reach
ing unknown claimants, non-resi-
dents, and residents who conceal
themselves to evade service of
process, would add very greatly to
the efficacy of the statute. It con-
tains nothing which is not already
done in the States generally when
private claims to property are con-
cerned.
CD. Provisions for relieving con-
Restion In the Federal courts.
From various parts of the country
come complaints of congestion Of the
Federal courts, due to the large VOL
ume of petty prosecutions under the
national prohibition act. Obviously.
these prosecutions must go on. It
would not do to create an impression
that minor attractions are to be ig-
nored. AS things are, however, the
congestion of prosecutions In the
Federal courts for minor tnfractionS,
caused by the necessity of proceed
ing by indictment In all cases, ex-
cept for maintenance OF q nuisance
or for unlawful possession, Is a seri-
Gus handicap to dealing vigorously
with major infractions and makes
handling Of the minor attractions
perfunctory. 1t has done much TO
create a feeling in some localities
that the law cannot be enforced. In
our opinion, the delays and oppor--
tunities for escape from punishment
thus occasioned may be and should
be obviated.
Means to That End.
Three methods to this end have
been suggested. First, to increase
the number of Federal judges; sec
ond, to create inferior Federal
courts, or, as it has been put, Fed
eral police courts, for such cases:
and, third, to utilize the present ma
chinery Of the courts. meeting the
causes of delay and congestion by
a simpler procedure for petty cases.
There are constitutional questions
to be considered in connection with
both the second and the third OF
these proposals. The first does not
involve any constitutional difficulties.
But 1t leaves the cumbersome pro-
cedure by indictment, wholly inap-
propriate to minor attractions, In
full force and multiplies the appa-
ratuS designed for great cases in or
der to deal with small ones. The OBJ
jections to this method are palpable,
and 1t should not be odopted II the
situation may be met in some other
way. So with the second. 1t in
wolves some of the constitutional
questions which must give us pause
in connection with the third. But,
what is more to be thought Of there
oh N VVa,YltiYNIiYyy
courts. If it is possible to deal with
this matter adequately with the ex-
listing machinery Of the Federal sys-
tenn, 1t should be done. We think
such solution entirely possible and
in the right line of progress, not
merely in the enforcement of the ma
tional prohibition act, but of all
Federal legislation.
Rights Of Defendants.
Under the fifth amendment, no
one shall be held to answer for q
capital or other infamous crime un-
less on a presentment or indictment
of a grand jury. AS construed by
the Supreme Court, infamous
crime" means one punishable by
imprisonment in penitentiary, or
for more than one year, or for any
period, II at hard labor. Hence,
where imprisonment is to be in jail,
Is not to exceed six months, and is
not to be at hard labor, the crime
is not Infamous. It is only where
there is a possibility Of imprisonment
in the penitentiary, or for more than
a year, or at hard labor, that an in
dictment is required. The Jones
law has expressly recognized q class
Of casual or slight violations" A
statute providing that in prosecu-
tions under title II Of the national
prohibition law the district attorney
may, in case of casual or slight vio-
lations," prosecute by complaint or
information, and In such cases, when
SO prosecuted, the penalty for each
offense should be fine not to ex-