Evening star., 1933-01-22

that the Government save from $3,000,-
goo to $4,000,000 a year by releasing
volstead act prisoners from Jail, the
Attorney General answered with an
emphatic II am against It," branding
1t as general jail delivery"
Il cannot see any justification for
leaving q criminal statute on the
statute books" said Mr.. Mitchell, "and
then refusing to punish anybody under
1t OF previous good character I
cannot see any justification or con-
Sistency in running a pardon mill as
fast as you get them in the grips of
the law"
Explains Drinking Policy.
Raising the question of drinking by
prohibition agents in the line Of duty,
Representative Tinkham drew from Col
Woodcock an explanation Of the policy
in this matter.
I'VE have q rule" said Col. Wood
cock, "a regulation in the bureau that
no one can drink liquor unless it has
been authorized in advance by the ad-
ministrator for that district. There
are plenty of districts which never
authorize it at all. The administrators
in New York. in the Chicago. in st.
Paul district, and to lesser extent in
San Francisco, have found that some
authorizations are necessary. We can
not check up accurately on the amount
Of liquor which is actually drunk. We
do have statistical records of cases
which are made by the purchase OF
drinks. In the month of October 1t
shows that 79 per cent of the cases
made in the United States were made
in that way, but that does not mean in
any sense that the liquor was con-
sumed. I'have absolutely and rigidly
enforced the rule against drinking.
Drinking means dismissal In the Bu-
reau of Prohibition. without any excep-
ton. I do not think that there is SO
much liquor drunk. even in line of
duty"
Asked by Tinkham for the number
of dismissals. the prohibition director
said that from July /, 1880, when he
took charge, down to october Is, 1882,
there was a total of As dismissals for
this purpose The Representative
agreed with the prohibition director in
the wish that courts should accept OBJ
Servation evidence" There was an ap-
preparation of $125,000 last year for
"buys''
Raising the question Of Col. Raymond
Robbins, the prohibition leader whose
mysterious disappearance caused many
agencies to search for him, Representa-
tive Tinkham asked Col Woodcock:
rs there any authority Of law that
gives you the right to expend money
when a prohibitionist disappears?"
mo, sir, not at ALL" replied Col.
Woodcock What we did in the Rob-
bins case We did because his family
made a complaint that he had been
kidnapped by bootleggers, and was being
held by boOtleggers. That seemed to
furnish us with the authority to find
those bootleggers and a search for
Robbins could be justified only as on a
basis of ferreting out violations of the
national prohibition act"
Denies Stretching Authority.
"Is that not rather stretching the
authority that you have?" questioned
Tinkham.
We'll, sir, think we would do that
for any one, whether 1t was Raymond
Robbins. or any one, Congressman" re-
sponded Woodcock.
Suppose Bishop Cannon should dis
appear" suggested Tinkham, would
you feel that you could spend public
"Oh, no, not at ALL" responded Col.
WoodcOck. Il believe you missed the
point that this was a complaint by a
citizen definitely stating that her hus-
band had been kidnapped by violators
of the national prohibition act"
1T seems to me-" continued Tink-
ham. "that that is stretching your au-
thority pretty far, because any one
could make such a report and you
might become, instead of Bureau of
Prohibition, bureau for the discovery
of disappearing prohibitionists.'
There was some basis for the
charge" insisted Woodcock. ut ap-
peared that some bootleggers left the
vicinity of this mans Summer home
in time to be at New York at the
time that the man disappeared. There
was some basis for it. We would not
have undertaken it had the complaint
not been made"
Asked about wire tapping" the At
torney General declared: Il think it
is a practice that ought to be strictly
limited and I certainly am opposed to
completely abolishing the power of the
Federal detective to use it." Col. Wood
cock testified there were 102 cases of
wire tapping during the year, out of a
total of 9O,273 cases made. Wire
tapping was seriously questioned by
Tinkham, but defended in its restricted
use by both the Attorney General and
prohibition director.