Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-08-02
BUREAU DEPLORES
DRY LAW TRAPS
Method That shocked" Chi
cago Judge Not Tolerated
by Officials Here.

The Prohibition Bureau diSapproves
Of "entrapment or schemes bordering
on entrapment" in securing evidence
against dry law violators, officials an
Ilounced yesterday in commenting on
reported methods which shocked
Judges of the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Howard T. Jones, acting prohloltlon
director, reserved a formal opinion on
the Chicago decision, pending receipt
of a CODY of the courts statement and
the return of Col Amos w. Woodcock,
director.
I. II was learned, however, that pre-
liminary inquiry has disclosed that the
criticized methods did not involve opera
-tion by indianapolis prohibition agents
of speakeasy, as reported in press
dispatches. The agents did, however,
rent a room, in which policemen and
-bootleggers were brought together, with
gallsgedly corrupt consequences.
Sense Of Justice Shocked.
The court decision, freeing i've
Indianapolis policemen convicted last
iyear CT conspiracy to protect speak
easy. is quoted in part as follows:
TT is unnecessary TO the due admin
tistration of the criminal laws and 1t
shocks the courts sense of justice to
permit a prosecution to proceed where
the evidence shows the offender was in
.nocent Of wrong-doing and free OF ev;l
intent prior to his acquaintance With
THE Government or State representa-
ttives, who, in the professed cause OF
law enforcement, proceed, first to cor
;rupt the accused's mind by possibilities
of profit and gain through violation OF
THE statutes, and then, surrounded by
.accoupliceS as witnesses, await the
downfall and ignominy of the victim"
The court conceded there mad peen q
conspiracy to violate the pronloltlon
law, but declared:
: 1.-The conspiracy was conceived by the
three prohibition agents, who enisteo
the services of a decoy Such a sitlla-
ittou. is not dissimilar to the case where
sone arranges through third party Tor
"a robbery to be permitted upon himself
with a view of receiving reward. the
Government should not be permitted 10
adopt means which are condemned py
the court when practlced by ltS GU
liens"
- Under Regional Office.
The INDIANAPOLIS operations were I'M
der direction Of the regional ONCE OF
the Prohibition Bureau, and otncials al
Washington knew nothing OF the pan
at the time, it was said.
The Indianapolis case recalled 10 tne
mind of officials the operations in that
same district of the late Lone Wolf
Asher several years ago. Asher opened
a roadside stand, which he named
."Uncle Sans Place" and spread word
among the liquor gentry that he was
going to run a Speakeasy. Rum sales
men flocked to INN II get his business,
and after Asher hati purchased numer-
Gus samples Of the r products he ar
rested them for vi ating the prohibi-
stion law. The coul is upheld this plan.
. 1T is pointed out t'at Asher's scheme
did not corrupt" persons previously
innocent of wrongdoing and free OF
es@l intent" The offenders already
were In the illegal liquor business, and
Asher merely duped them into selling
. to him.
, The Indianapolis case differed in that
the accused policemen apparently had
/, clear records prior to being brought In
: to contact with temptation through the
/; alleged connivance Of prohibition
, agents.
f; In the Indianapolis case, according
: to press reports, dry agents rented a
room, installed q decoy TO run the
place and, posing as bootleggers. sold
liquor to and gave small sums Of money
: to, the policemen.