The Washington times., 1930-01-22
MELLON HIDES:
|. OWN OPINION
Of DRY LAW

(continusd From Page y
how prohibition was set up In
the Treasury Department.
Presumably, this was the rea.
son for placing prohibition en-.
forcement in the Bureau Of In.
ternaI Revenue. It was an illoai.
cal choice. There is no connec.
ton between the assessment and
collection of taxes on beverages
which 1t is legal to sell and the
enforcement of laws intended to
prohibit their manufacture, trans:
portation, and sale.
when the Congress created the
bureau of prohibition, It formally
recognized that there is no such
relationship. II this be so, pro
hibition is unrelated to the duties
Of the Treasury Department and
to the purposes for which that
department was created. The
Treasury, generally speaking, is
responsible primarily for manag-
ing the finances Of the nation.
collecting the revenues and pro.
tecting the integrity Of the
revenue laws and Of the cur.
rency. with all incidental duties
relating thereto.
Sound Basis For Changes
II know Of no reason, there.
fore, why the Treasury Depart.
ment should be charged with the
duty Of enforcing an unrelated
penal statute. On the other
hand, there Is q very sound basis
for charging the law enforcement
department Of the Government
with this task.
1T is the duty Of the Depart
ment Of Justice, acting through
your district attorneys, to prose
cute violators Of this and other
Federal statutes and It seems to
me that better results may be
obtained II those who are to try
the cases are in a position to con.
troll and direct investigations Of
violations Of the law and the
gathering Of evidence necessary
for their prosecution"
touching on the alcohol permit
work, Mellon said:
In so far as the so-called reeu.
latory functions are concerned. Il
can be argued with considerable
1orce that there is no reason why
the Treasury Department should
issue permits for the manufacture
OF industrial alcohol and for the
sale Of such alcoholic spirits as
can be legally sold or certain spe-s
cried purposes. At the same
time. 1t is equally clear that these
functions do not fan within the
jurisdiction and duties Of the De. =
partment Of Justice.
No Reason for Removal
In fact, they can fairly be said
to be entirely foreign to these
duties and functions. And since
they are now being performed by
the Treasury Department there is
no adequate reason for removing
them unless it can be shown
that they logically belong else
where"
Mellon pointed out that the
bill would give the Justice De-
partment a "full measure Of Joint
control over the issuance Of per.
mits." He said the Department
OF Justice therefore could initiate
regulations, Jointly with the
Treasury, to keep industrial
alcohol from getting into the
hands Of bootleggers.
In conclusion. the Secretary
said he recommended Enact.
ment Of the proposed legisla,
When Mellon concluded his
statement, he was faced with .
barrage Of questions.
Representative Igoe CD Of
Illinois asked him bluntly II he
thought the prohibition law was
enforceable.
TT is not q question Of my
opinion" Mellon said. ''ThiS Is
a very controversial subject. I
don't see that this is any time to
express peSsimism."
@SNP4 COC4AOdO4VC w W11k1du1SOu M
Of South Dakota, committee
chairman, asked Mellon about the
provision of the pending legisla.
ton which would allow the At
torney General to act jointly with
the Treasury Secretary in au-
thorizing issuance Of industrial
alcohol permits.
Sees No Trouble
It'd like to inquire II that
might not at some time create
difficulties between the two de.
partments," he said.
II don't think so," Mellon re-
piled.
do you think advisable" he
asked, "a provision that If there
is a disagreement between the
Secretary Of the Treasury and
Attorney General the President
should dispose Of the matter?"
II don't think that is neces-
Sary," Mellon said.
1goe asked the Secretary II he
believed enforcement was efficient
under his department. The Sec.
retary said he tIanayclof fha ria.