Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-08-23
LIQUOR BOND SCALE
REDUCED WITHOUT
POLICE Being TOLD
Hart Explains That Depart
ment Did Not Necessarily
Have to Be Notified.
FOUR JUDGES AND ROVER
AGREE ON LOWER RATES
Clerk or Other Court 0ficial Re-
quired to Approve Bail offered
After Arrests.


A new bond scale in liquor cases went
into effect May 81 without notifca-
ton to the Police Department, it was
pointed out at Police Court today.
The new scale, which reduced the
bond in liquor cases, was agreed on
at meeting of Police Court judges and
officials Of the United States attorneys
ONCE early in May, Assistant United
today.
He explained that he did not know
whether police had been informed OF
the new bond scale and stated that he
did not see the necessity Of that action.
ut is not necessary for the police to
be informed of the bond scale because
they do not Ak the bond. When man
is released on bond the arrangements
for his bond are made with the clerk
with my office. The police have nothing
whatever to do with it," he declared.
When q man Is arrested on liquor
charges and taken to precinct his
bondsman secures transcript Of the
charges and then must confer with the
clerk OF the court or some other court
official before the man can be released
on bond" the prosecutor explained.
Harris reference to the new bond
Maj. Henry q. Pratt, superintendent
OF police, In which the police chief said
he was unaware Of any reduction In the
liquor bond schedule.
Maj. Pratt gave out letter which
contained notice of q bond schedule
drawn up at a meeting of four Police
Court judges, District Attorney Leo A.
Rover and several assistant district at
torneys last March. The letter was
from Mr.. Rover.
Opposed 70 Reduction.
The police chief said he was MT
In favor of q reduction in liquor bonds,
but declared that the matter of bond
was question for the court or the
district attorney to decide.
In reply to Harris stand that In most
instances . single charge was SUM
cient to place against q prisoner, he
said he intended to leave that question
up to the arresting officer.
Hart explained today that the rea-
son he suggested to police to place but
one charge against q man when 1t Is
possible was to prevent the high bond
which would necessarily follow the
placing OF several charges.
"Of course, it Is realized that when
an officer places man under arrest
he does not have any discretion IS to
be charged, but must place such charges
as in his opinion the arrested man has
committed. Then in the event Of adj
ditional charges are placed by the
prosecuting attorney or some OF the
charges dropped and others substituted
the oficer has done his fun duty
Hart said.
and better cases"
Present Bond Scale.
The present bond scale, that went
into effect May II, follows:
Sale and possession, $l.500; trans
| portation and possession, $500; trans
| portation, sale and possession, $ls5OO;
| possession, $500; nuisance and possess
sion. 81 900; manufacture and possess
sion, $4,000, and conspiracy, $1,000.
Meanwhile, Milton s. Kronheim.
president of the Professional Bonds
mems Association, announced ne wruid
confer with District Attorney Rover to-
day to request grand jury investiga-
| ton of the reported collision between
police and bondsmen.
Kronheim said: IF there Is any
| truth In the statement that any bonds
man Is in collision with the police and
has caused the arrest Of any person for
the purpose Of creating q bond, it
should be presented to the grand jury
for investigation.
aWhere charges are proved, persons
involved should be indicted and pun
ished."
ProRteering Racket Reported.
The reports that police and bonds
men were working together in a profit
eering racket were circulated following
complaint that excessive bonds were
charged at police precincts.
! The wrangle over the bonding situa-
ton here started when Attorney Hart
refused to issue papers against Is liquor
law violators with the suggestion that
only nominal bond be required ct
of larger bond IL necessary up to the
district attorneys Office or Police Court
judges.