The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-11-18
TERROR REIGN
CHARGES LAID
TO IGNORANCE
YeIIoW9ey Strikes Back by
Claiming Case of Gross
'EXaggeration.'
Continued From Page One)

planning about the manner in which
agents of this Office are making their
routine inspections Of retail liquor
establishments in Indianapolis as
are similar agents in every city Of
the country with a population Of
more than 100000.
The letter as received by this Of
flee and as quoted by you is full Of
misstatementS. eXaggerationS and
evidences of complete ignorance Of
the law and the duties imposed by
law upon agents of the alcohol tax
unit Of the Treasury Department.
In fairness to the inspectors in
Indianapolis who are so roundly
criticized in the letter quoted by
you, 7 believe the public should be
Informed Of the true facts in con-
nection with this situation.
Received Only One Complaint
First of all, only one lone COM
plant has been received by this Of
flee, that a letter signed by one j. F.
OMahoney. There have been no
protests from the Indianapolis Re-
tail Druggists Association, the In
dianapolis Hotel Mems Association,
the Indiana State Hotel Mems AS
ISOLATION or the indianapolis meat
dealers and grocers, all of which are
listed by you as having participated
in the O'Mahoney letter.
Naturally, we are reluctant to
ifTr Oh oh !,
formal reply other than the letter
answering Mr.. OMahoney's original
letter, but since our inspectors must
continue to function in Indianapolis
as elsewhere and since they wish to
continue the cordial relations they
have with the great majority of law
abiding, respectable liquor dealers,
their position also should be made
clear to the public.
Holds Reasoning Is "Jumpy"
"The only way I can understand
how the complainant comes to &C
Cuse our inspectors of holding kan
CARGO courts in Indianapolis is that
his own reasoning process must be
as jumpy as kangaroo, for he has
certainly leaped to conclusions not
at all warranted by the facts.
Every retail liquor dealer in the
country prior to the current nation
wide inspections received a circular
outlining in full and in clear simple
language the requirements of the
law for such establishments.
These inspections were ordered
by the Treasury Department in
Washington as part of a general eff
fort to place the newly legitimatized
industry on a sound respectable
basis.
The great ma iority Of liquor re-
tailerS requested such a canvass and
lauded its Inauguration with assur-
anceS to the Treasury that such
activity would protect honest eS-
adjustments from dishonest COM
petitOrS who had not yet shaken off
their habits of prohibition days.
Denies Power Discretionary
There is no discretionary power
as Mr. OMahoney would have you
believe vested in the inspector. He
is bound by law on making an in
spection to report all violations
toward the end that there be no
discrimination among tavern keep
erS
The letter which you quote con-
tends that agents assigned to this
district have created a reign of ter
ror in Indiana. District headquar-
tiers here in Chicago are in close and
constant touch with every group in
volved in the applications of the in
ternal revenue laws concerning
liquor and unbiased observers con-
SiStently report to us that the only
persons talking about terror are the
moonShiner and the bootlegger and
that the consumer who is happy
that the Federal government once
again gives him protection against
poisonous and harmful beverages is
heartily applauding such reign of
terror.
Now let is be understood that
there are no such things as fines
insofar as revenue agents are con-
Cerned. Fines are a matter for the
courts TO handle.
Denies Kangaroo" Courts
Moreover. in spite of Mr.. O'Ma-
honey'S loOSeneSS with terms, our
inspectors conduct no aSi-judicial
hearings. They are required by law,
Section 1929 of the revised statutes
of the United States, to call atten-
ton of the violatorS of their right
TO submit an offer in compromise
This device has been developed
for the protection of minor violators
so that they mend their ways and
continue in business rather than be
subjected to lengthy court trials
with the possibility of more severe
penalties.
There is no dureSs whatever in
the application of this section of the
law and none is possible even
though Mr. OMahoney would like
to have us believe that a practice
developed for the benefit of liquor
dealers is being used to intimidate
them.
Compromise Is Optional
"All our inspectors tell violators
that the offer in compromise IS OPP
tional with them. If they prefer
trial they most certainly may have
1t, but if they submit an offer they
do so by means Of postal money
order or certified check made pay
able TO the collector of internal
revenue in their district.
so it is manifest that the inspec-
tors do not assess fines or collect
any money as charged by the letter
which you quote. The check is held
by the collector as surety while the
Bureau of Internal Revenue con-
siderS the offer.
IF it is accepted, the money is
retained. If rejected, prosecution is
usually then recommended and in
most cases the amount of money is
less than would be required if the