Sign the Resolution Contents | Feedback | Search DRCNet Home | Join DRCNet DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library Historical References 1926 Senate Prohibition Hearings
General Histories | Ancient History | 1800-1850 | 1860 | 1870 | 1880 | 1890 1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990

THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW

HEARINGS  before the  SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE - SIXTY-NINTH CONGRESS

April 5 to 24, 1926

STATEMENT OF JULIEN CODMAN, HAMILTON, MASS., REPRESENTING THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE WHICH REPRESENTS THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, THE ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE PROHIBITION AMENDMENT, THE MODERATION LEAGUE (INC.) OF NEW YORK, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. CODMAN. My name is Julien Codman. I am a resident of Hamilton, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a member of the Massachusetts bar.

In addition to having been asked by Senators Bruce, Edge, and Edwards to present the evidence bearing upon the resolution on and bills which they have introduced and which have been referred to this committee, I represent also the joint legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the Moderation League of New York, the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, and such other citizens of our country-and there are millions of them--- who believe as we do in the modification of the Volstead Act so as to permit the manufacture and sale of beer and wines which are nonintoxicating as a matter of fact, as permitted by the words of the eighteenth amendment itself. I represent no special interests, Do person or corporation connected in any way with the manufacture, production, or distribution of beverages of any kind. I want to make that point clear to the committee at the outset.

We are asking for a modification of the national prohibition law not only because it exceeds the mandate of the eighteenth amendment by defining as intoxicating beverages which are not intoxicating, but also because it has been shown own, and we will produce additional evidence on this point, that it is not appropriate legislation to enforce the eighteenth amendment; that it has done incredible harm instead of good; that as a temperance measure it has been a pitiable failure; that it as failed to prevent drinking; that it has failed to decrease crime; that, as a matter of fact, it has increased both; that it has promoted bootlegging and smuggling to an extent never known before

in the history of the world; that it has spread illicit distilling over this country until no part is free from the taint.

Until this law was passed the great majority of our citizens purchased whatever they required, either wine, beer, or whisky. Kew a great many make it themselves. If bootlegging has its tens of thousands of votaries, home brewing has its millions. Worst of all, it is making us one of the most corrupt nations on earth. It is destroying the standards of our youth and creating universal contempt for law.

The time has gone by for pretending that these things are not true. Even our opponents admit them by implication, if not in so many words. They say, however, that the remedy lies in more drastic enforcement, by putting teeth in the law. They do not seem to appreciate that even to try this remedy, futile as it would prove, would cost an enormous amount of money, probably billions of dollars, and that the people of this country show no eagerness to pay so large a bill.

Though we know that all the States, except two, have passed laws for the supposed purpose of cooperating with the Federal Government in enforcement, only one or two have appropriated money to make this cooperation effective. In fact the law is about as well, or badly enforce in the States which have no State enforcement law as in those which have. I think the enthusiasm of many so-called dry States would be greatly cooled if they had to pay for their own enforcement.

Mr. Buckner can find some comfort from the fact that even if the New York Legislature had passed an enforcement law he would get no real help unless a large appropriation had gone with it. I think you will find that effective enforcement exists in this country only in the communities where a large majority of the people are in sympathy with the law.

The time has come when Congress must consider, if it is to do its duty to the people, in what way it can best get out of the terrible mess into which this ill-considered legislation has plunged us. All over the country the cry for relief is heard and some concrete plan is demanded.

We believe that the time has come for definite action, but it is impossible to lay before Congress any one bill which, while clearly within the provisions of the Constitution, will be a panacea for the evils that the Volstead Act has caused. We must not be vain enough to believe, as the prohibitionists do, that the age-old question of the regulation of alcohol can be settled forever by the passage of a single law. With the experience of the Volstead law as a warning, it behooves us to proceed with caution, one step at a time, to climb out of the legislative well into which we have been pushed.

If you gentlemen are satisfied, after hearing the evidence supplemented by the broad general knowledge which each of you already possesses, that the remedy that will tend most quickly to correct the wretched social conditions that now exist, to promote temperance, find to allay the discontent and unrest that the Volstead Act has caused, is to be found in the passage of one of the proposed bills legalizing the production of beer of an alcoholic content of 4 per cent or less, there is no doubt, in my opinion, elf your power to do so; and we believe that our evidence will show that the passage of such a bill will

greatly help the situation. We do not claim that it will do away with all the evils produced by attempted prohibition, but it would be a step in the right direction.

I feel, however, that we have a peculiar right to respectfully demand from the committee as our minimum that they report with favor Senate bill 3118, which, to put it shortly, substitutes for the words "more than one half of 1 per cent" where they occur in the Volstead Act, the words "intoxicating in fact," the purpose of which Senator Edge has fully explained.

Senator MEANS. Excuse me, right there. There seem to be some amendments to S. 3118. Do you mean to consider the two together, or are you going to enlighten us as to what is the effect of this bill and then the amendments later on?

Mr. CODMAN. I have not seen the amendment. I think it has come in since I knew about it.

Senator EDGE. The amendment is merely a matter of detail. It only refers to the place where sold, is an amendment to that extent but the bill S. 3118 is the main question.

Senator MEANS. Inasmuch as both bills have been called to the subcommittee's attention by Senator Edge and yourself, I wish you would take the two bills and explain what the amendments mean and also the original bill.

Mr. CODMAN. I will take that up later, if you wish.

Senator MEANS. Very well, you may go on.

Mr. CODMAN. All this does is to make the whole act conform to the words of the eighteenth amendment and to give to everyone the same rights that are now enjoyed by such individuals as are in a position to take advantage of the exception in section 29 of the present enforcement law. At the present time a gross injustice exists, for under the decision of the circuit court in the Hill case, which apparently has been accepted by the Government, any person who has the facilities can make cider and wine in his own house so long as a jury will find that it is nonintoxicating in fact; while other citizens without such, facilities are deprived of the beer which they want and which as a matter of fact contains less alcohol than the permitted wines and ciders.

In presenting evidence to the committee we have two clear duties to perform:

First. To show that the Volstead law should be amended, and

Second. To show how it should be amended.

On these two propositions I shall offer such testimony as the time limited for the hearings makes possible. But before I call my first witness I wish to say one thing, or rather to repeat what I said two years ago when I addressed the Judiciary Committee of the House at the hearings on the 2.75 per cent beer bills which were presented at that session by 60 Members of Congress.

It has been the universal custom of prohibitionists to claim for themselves the representations of all that is virtuous in our Republic and for their supporters the whole moral and religious sentiment of the country; and to leave to their opponents the representation of that which is wholly evil. We who are against the Volstead law have been branded either as indulgent gluttons indifferent to the welfare of our fellow citizens, or as the dupes or representatives of a sinister organization known as the "liquor interests." The reason

92101*-26-VOL. 1- 4

for this propaganda is apparent. It is the intention of our opponents so far as I can see, to prevent, if possible all decent people from studying the results of the policy which they have advocated and to induce such people to prejudge our case when we present it before them and to discredit us personally as either dishonest or selfish.

Such charges are as outrageous as they are insincere.

We must insist, therefore, that if any progress is to be made in the solution of this vital problem that you must concede that we who believe that the Volstead law is not a solution are just as honest and patriotic citizens and equally entitled to a fair hearing as those who hold a contrary opinion.

All we ask is that the committee approach this question with open minds. We have no message to the narrow-minded bigot or to the fanatic. In the long run it is not their opinion which finally determine the settlement of any great social question.

We insist that prohibition is not a moral question. The only question is whether temperance can be attained by means of prohibitory laws such as the Volstead Act, or whether the experience of man shows that such coercive and repressive measures defeat themselves by stimulating opposition, and that the only true method is by reasonable regulation backed by public sentiment.

Senator WALSH. Mr. Codman, is your authorization from the associations to which you referred in writing?

Mr. CODMAN. It is not, sir, but the representatives of those associations are present. Mr. Stayton is the chairman of that group, and I am also a member of the joint legislative committee.

Mr. McGuire. I will speak for the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts and Mr. Kugler will speak for the American Federation of Labor. He is their authorized representative.

Senator MEANS. Persons in the audience will please not interrupt the proceedings, but must be heard in the regular order if they desire to be heard. But so long as you have made a statement please give your name and state whom you represent.

Mr. McGuire. My name is Thomas F. McGuire, of Boston, of the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts.

Senator MEANS. And who was the other gentleman to whom you referred?

Mr. McGuire. His name is Albert J. Kugler, of the American Federation of Labor.

Senator MEANS. Mr. Codman, you may proceed.

Mr. CODMAN. Perhaps I better make it plain right now that if the subcommittee wishes to have my authority in writing filed with you I will be glad to do so and thereby save any discussion.

Senator Walsh. That will be the better plan.

Senator Reed of Missouri. It seems to me that there is nothing here before this subcommittee to challenge the authority of a respectable lawyer who appears and says he represents certain clients.

Senator Walsh. I did not challenge his authority. I simply asked for information, which I think we should have. Mr. Codman, do you appear here under employment?

Mr. Codman. I am not paid by the joint legislative committee. If you wish to know my exact status I will be very glad to tell you.

Senator Walsh. Yes, if you please.

Mr. CODMAN. I am under retainer, or rather--

Senator Walsh (continuing). That is what I want to know.

Mr. Codman. I am under retainer in my own Constitutional Liberty League, which I represent. I receive compensation for the actual time when I am away from Boston on work for the Constitutional Liberty League. But I receive no pay or compensation of any kind whatsoever from the joint legislative committee or from any other person.

Senator Walsh. What is the joint legislative committee?

Mr. CODMAN. The joint legislative committee was formed two years ago and was started and thus far consists of the American Federation of Labor, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, and the Moderation League (Inc.), of New York. There are about eight members of the committee. I should be very glad to furnish the Senator at any time with a full statement in regard to it., giving the names of the members and their officers, and all other information which he may wish to have.

Senator WALSH. Well, of course, we are interested in knowing, Mr. Codman, whom you do represent and how you represent them.

Mr. CODMAN. I think I have made it clear now, have I not?

Senator WALSH. Well, I think so. Just a further question; you are under a general retainer, you say, from the Constitutional Liberty League?

Mr. CODMAN. I am vice president of the Constitutional Liberty League, and when I leave Boston for them I receive a small compensation from them, not adequately to pay me for my time, but more or less to cover my expenses.

Senator WALSH. Do you receive any compensation for appearing here from any other source?

Mr. CODMAN. None whatever.

Senator WALSH. Is there a membership roll of these organizations that you represent?

Mr. CODMAN. Why, I suppose there is a membership roll of the American Federation of Labor throughout all of its local branches.

Senator Walsh. No doubt.

Mr. CODMAN. And there is a membership roll, if I am not mistaken, of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment; is there not, Captain Stayton?

Mr. STAYTON. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. There is a membership roll of the Constitutional Liberty League though I do not know exactly in regard to the Moderation League (Inc.), of New York. But I can tell you the names or can give you the names of their presidents, vice presidents, and advisory committees, and all of their executive officers, but I am under the impression that the Moderation League (Inc.), of New York, has not much of a membership, but is what you might better describe as a small working organization.

Senator WALSH. Can you furnish the committee with a copy of the membership roll of these organizations other than the American Federation of Labor?

Mr. CODMAN. I Can only speak for the Constitutional Liberty League, of Boston, Mass. I should think I could do so, but not at once.

Senator WALSH. Could you furnish a copy of the membership roll of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment?

Mr. CODMAN. As to that I should have to ask Mr. Stayton.

Senator WALSH. All right, I wish you would do so.

Mr. CODMAN. Captain Stayton, would it be possible for you to furnish such information?

Mr. STAYTON. The cards are here in this city. It would be possible, but there are 720,000 members, Senator, and it would be a very difficult thing to make and submit to you such a list. But we will do anything you tell us to do, sir.

Senator WALSH. Do you have, a list?

Mr. STAYTON. I have only the card catalogues. We keep the cards filed in the office here in the city, keep two sets of cards--- one arranged alphabetically and the other arranged geographically.

Senator WALSH. Is it your intention to appear before this subcommittee as a witness?

Mr. STAYTON. I do not know. It will depend upon Colonel Codman. He has not indicated whether be wishes me to appear or not.

Senator WALSH. We will let the matter go for the present if you will furnish a list of officers and directors.

Mr. STAYTON. I will be glad to do that.

Senator MEANS. Are there any other questions by any other member of the committee before Colonel Codman calls his witnesses? [After a pause.] You may go right ahead, Colonel Codman.

Mr. CODMAN. Before actually calling my first witness I wish to bring to the attention of the subcommittee certain facts which it will be necessary for me to present before I can begin my case.

The chairman will recollect that I filed last week a list of some 20 witnesses whom I asked to have subpoenas issued for. At that time I understood, evidently erroneously, that the committee would issue subpoenas for the witnesses which we requested. Since that time I have been informed, rather too late for my convenience and for the best interests of my case, that the committee had declined to summon witnesses. I must therefore renew the request in certain instances and ask the committee to reconsider their decision and subpoena the witnesses whom I can not get otherwise, and who are essential to my case.

The first one, I wish to state---

Senator MEANS (interposing). Make your request in writing and submit it and we will take the matter up, without taking here a portion of your time. You will please put in writing whom you want, and why you want them, and this subcommittee will consider any application you may make. But I wish you to put the request in writing and then go right ahead with your statements, so as not to take up your time or any of the time allotted for these hearings.

Mr. CODMAN. If the chairman would permit me I should prefer, even at the cost of a few moments of my time---

Senator MEANS. I would prefer that you do it just as I told you.

Senator REED of Missouri. I would prefer that counsel be allowed to proceed and make his statement, as far as I am concerned as one member of the committee. He says he is willing to sacrifice that much time, and we do not know what he is going to say as yet. I

do not know what he is going to say. I think be ought to be allowed to say it.

Senator MEANS. I have no desire to interfere with any statement he wishes to present, but I must insist that he put in writing any request he desires to make so that we may determine it at another time. I will say that the time arranged for is yours, and you may waste it at your peril and we will not place any restraint upon you in that regard. But if you will present in writing any request you have to make the committee will consider that request at another time.

Mr. CODMAN. I Will try to present it in writing not later than to-morrow morning.

Senator MEANS. Very well, you may proceed.

Mr. CODMAN. Is Secretary Andrews present?

Senator MEANS. Mr. Codman, the committee deems it advisable to put the witnesses under oath. Have you any objections to that procedure?

Mr. CODMAN. Not at all. I have no objection. I am perfectly willing that the Assistant Secretary should not be sworn. I know I shall get the truth from him under either circumstances.

Senator REED of Missouri. Well then, we will swear them all.

Senator MEANS. Then will you be kind enough to hold up your right hand.

(The witness was duly sworn by Senator Means, chairman of the subcommittee)

Senator MEANS. I want to state for the record that General Andrews appears at the request of the committee as any other Government official. I know that he wants the committee to state that be does not appear as an advocate on either side of this question, but solely for the purpose of giving to the committee the benefit of the facts within his knowledge and at his disposal. Go ahead.

Assistant Secretary Andrews. My name is Lincoln C. Andrews, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Residence, Washington, D. C.

Mr. CODMAN. Mr. Secretary, when did you assume your present position?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. April 1, last year.

Mr. CODMAN. Did you at that time make an investigation of the Prohibition Unit?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I made a study of the situation, Mr. Codman. I did not conduct a formal investigation.

Mr. CODMAN. What conclusions did you come to, Mr. Secretary, after having made the study of the organization of the unit at that time?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I came to the conclusion that reorganization was necessary, particularly of the field force, and an adoption of a definite policy as to our procedure, and proceeded to put that determination into effect.

Mr. CODMAN. What were the defects that you particularly noted and wished to remedy?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Primarily I felt that the responsibility for the enforcement of the law was not definitely enough fixed on the representatives of the department in the field. There was no one that you could seem to hold responsible for results.

Then I felt that the division of responsibility for enforcement Of the law was not being carried out. That it would he necessary to bring about a cooperation or collaboration on the part of local authorities for the enforcement of the law, which could be done better by localizing the powers of government more in the field than in Washington. So that I adopted the policy of decentralization and of fixing that responsibility in the field.

Another thing which was a moving consideration in that reorganization was a realization of the necessity for not only cooperation but collaboration between the field forces of the Department of Justice and our forces in the field. Law enforcement could be affected only through court action. We were not accomplishing the results by the arrest of criminals. Those results could be accomplished only through their punishment, which would be brought about by court action.

There needed, then, to be an intimate team work between our forces in the field and what I term the judicial machinery, meaning the Federal district attorney and the courts. So I used the Federal judicial district as the geographical unit, the basic geographical unit or the division of the territory for my prohibition unit. And that was the fundamental consideration, as I look back upon it now, which determined the set-up of the organization. I wanted a man in the field who had my responsibility and power, and I wanted him in such a situation that he could team up with the district attorney and the two, of them together enforce the law. So I made the Federal judicial district the unit, and grouping them into districts, and trying to group them so that the same conditions more or less were held throughout a given district, we determined upon 22 prohibition districts, in each of which was placed an administrator, and to him was given the authority and the responsibility for law enforcement.

Mr. CODMAN. What was the total number of employees at the time when you took over the work?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Three thousand six hundred, including the narcotic force, and that is now 350.

Mr. CODMAN. And how were those divided between field force and administrative men?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. About 700 in Washington, and the rest in the field.

Mr. CODMAN. And how does that compare with the size of the force at your disposal to-day?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I have 200 more; about 200 more.

Mr. CODMAN. You have about 200 more?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. And at my request, Mr. Secretary, or rather, I think at Senator Edge's request, you supplied us very kindly with a statement covering the distribution of the force.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. And a map which shows the distribution, and which I think it will be interesting for the committee to see. The various districts, you see, are laid out.

Senator REED of Missouri. Is this the map?

Mr. CODMAN. This is the map.

Senator REED. Have it marked as Exhibit A.

(The map produced by Mr. Codman was marked "Exhibit A"

Mr. CODMAN. That is the map representing things as they are to-day, is it?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

(The map, Exhibit A, presented by Mr. Codman is on file with the clerk to the committee.)

Mr. CODMAN. And this document, marked "Exhibit A," which was handed to me, and which I will put into the record also, describes in words what that map describes graphically?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. Now do not let us get confused. The map is Exhibit A.

Mr. CODMAN. Yes the map is Exhibit A and this document has previously been marked "Exhibit A," and I referred to the marking on it. I will ask to have that marked "Exhibit B. "

Senator REED of Missouri. Now what is Exhibit B?

Mr. CODMAN. Exhibit B is a statement of the distribution of the officers--- a statement of the various districts into which the prohibition forces are divided by States. It gives the same information which this map gives graphically. I think that is a correct statement, Mr. Secretary?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

(The statement giving the prohibition districts of the United States was marked "Exhibit B " and is here printed in the record in full, as follows:)

Mr. CODMAN. Then you have also given me a statement in a letter to Senator Edge, which I will put in as Exhibit C, giving the number of agents in each district.

(The statement giving the number of agents was marked "Exhibit C, and is here printed in the record in full, as follows:)

EXHIBIT C

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 81, 1926.
Hon. WALTER E. EDGE,
United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR EDGE: Referring to your letter of March 29 requesting certain information respecting the personnel of the Prohibition Unit engaged in prohibition enforcement, I give below the information desired.

Question. Number of State or regional prohibition directors and the lines of each district.

Answer. There are 24 prohibition districts, each in charge of a prohibition administrator. The attached list and map marked "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B," respectively, show the territory embraced by such districts.

Question. Number of prohibition agents in each district.

Answer.

Question. Number of additional prohibition agents working at large, if such a force exists.

Answer. There are 71 prohibition investigators employed under the chief prohibition investigator on special interdistrict investigations of major cases of violation of the national prohibition act such as large conspiracy cases. There are also 105 prohibition agents paid from the appropriation for the enforcement of the narcotic and national prohibition acts who are detailed to duty under collectors of customs to prevent the smuggling of liquor over the border.

Question. Number of all others engaged in the actual enforcement of prohibition.

Answer. In the 24 prohibition districts there are the following who direct and supervise enforcement and inspection work in the field: 24 prohibition administrators, 18 assistant prohibition administrators in charge of enforcement work, 20 assistant prohibition administrators in charge of permissive work, and 52 deputy prohibition administrators; 63 attorneys who give advice and assistance in legal matters; 30 chemists who analyze samples of liquors and appear in court as expert witnesses; 162 warehouse agents who guard liquor stored in warehouses; and 982 clerks and other office employees in administrators' offices. In addition, there is a supervisor of alcohol control and 14 agents in alcohol investigations; I supervisor of brewery control; and 1 supervisor of wine control. These Cures do not include the narcotic field force or the force in Washington in connection with prohibition and narcotic work, all of whom are paid from the appropriation for the enforcement of the narcotic and national prohibition acts.

Question. A resume of the number of agents who have been disassociated from the service since the bureau was established under Mr. Haynes.

Answer. Exhibit C shows separations of prohibition officers and employees from the service for cause from the commencement of prohibition to February

1, 1926. This shows a total of 875 of such separations. Of that number 658 separations have been effected since Maj. Roy A. Haynes took office in June, 1921.

Question. The number of changes in State directors.

Answer. See Exhibit D.

Question. Number of agents convicted of crime.

Answer. The following is a compilation of all officers and employees of the Prohibition Unit, including enforcement agents, inspectors, attorneys, clerks, etc., except narcotic officers, who have been convicted on charges of criminality, including drunkenness and disorderly conduct, by fiscal years from the date the national prohibition act became effective, January 16, 1920, through March 30, 1926:

Question. Number of agents whose resignation were demanded.

Answer. Exhibit C includes those whose resignations were accepted with prejudice. It may be and is likely the fact that some resignations were requested by our supervising field officers and forwarded to Washington for acceptance without prejudice, in which event the Washington office would have no knowledge that the resignation was in fact requested. It would be impossible to furnish an absolutely accurate compilation of the number of resignations that may have been requested orally by field officers because of the great number of changes in the personnel of the prohibition service and the fact that many prohibition field officers who may have requested resignations are no longer in the service.
Sincerely yours,
L. C. ANDREWS, Assistant Secretary.

Mr. CODMAN. Would you let me have a statement, Mr. Secretary, in regard to the rates of pay and salaries of the force?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I think it is contained there in that statement. Mr. Jones, bring me that envelope. Will you give Mr. Codman the various papers he asks for in case he has not got them.

Mr. CODMAN. I have some of them here. Mr. Secretary you have testified as to the changes in organization that you made, and you have given us the reason for them. Now can you tell us with regard to your changes of personnel, and the reason for the changes of personnel after you took over the work of the reorganization of the department

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. First I created a new office--- the administrator in the field. A man who must exercise the power of the commissioner of internal revenue in conducting the permissive phase of our work, which is really a very serious and important unction, and also in accepting and carrying on a responsibility for law enforcement in his district.

Mr. CODMAN. May I interrupt you to ask you to describe just what the permissive phase is?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. What it means?

Mr. CODMAN. Yes; exactly. Make it plain. Just what that part of the work is?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Every user of alcohol or medicinal spirits must have a permit. That means the doctors or retail druggists

in the medicinal spirits work. Then we come to the matter of the use of alcohol in industry, vital to the industry of our country. The man who manufactures that in the distillery. The man who denatures it. And its distribution. And above all, and most difficult, the man who uses it in industry in the manufacturing If his laboratory product whatever it be. And in addition to that, of course laboratories, hospitals, and things like that.

Mr. CODMAN. Doesn't that take a great many of the members of your force, that phase of the work, the permissive phase?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. How large a proportion of your force do you think it takes up?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, we have not enough men in that field.

Mr. CODMAN. You have not enough men in that field?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. No.

Mr. CODMAN. Have you enough men in any field?

Assistant Secretary ANDREW. Experience has shown me that we need more trained inspectors.

Mr. CODMAN. In that field?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. In that field.

Senator REED of Missouri. But that does not answer the question as to what proposition of his force is now employed.

Mr. CODMAN. Yes.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I will have to ask Mr. Jones to answer that for me. What proportion are engaged in the permissive work, Mr. Jones?

Mr. JONES. The work is pretty much intermingled. Some, of the men will be engaged on enforcement work part of the time, and on permissive work and inspection work another part. I would say that it ought to be about 25 per cent inspectors and 75 per cent enforcement. But now on account of the lack of the force We work is pretty much intermingled.

Senator MEANS. Bat the activities of your whole force are directed in this proportion: 25 per cent of it toward the permissive phase and 75 per cent toward the enforcement?

Mr. JONES. I would say so; yes.

Senator MEANS. Yes.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, that would vary tremendously in different districts.

Senator MEANS. Yes.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. There are districts in which the permissive work is negligible.

Mr. JONES. I was speaking in general. In some parts of the country the districts are bone-dry, and we need very few inspectors.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Since last December particularly I have learned by experience that that is going to be perhaps the most helpful line of activity for law enforcement, and am turning more and more energy into the matter of stopping the diversion of alcohol to illegitimate industry and trade by a closer and closer supervision of permittees. That was brought through reorganization and changes in regulation into the hands of the Prohibition Unit from the collectors of internal revenue about September 1. And it was all new to us.

Mr. CODMAN. Mr. Secretary, you say that you have not got at the present time enough men to use on the permissive end? That you have not a large enough force?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I am asking for 318 additional inspectors of the pharmacist type, and believe that by using them in cutting out diversion, and that is what it amounts to, we can reduce the amount of court work very materially and bring about much better enforcement.

Mr. CODMAN. Well, do you think that by adding these 300 inspectors that you will get satisfactory enforcement from your own point of view?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I think that I will come pretty near stopping the diversion of alcohol to illegitimate channels.

Senator REED of Missouri. Now I can ask this easier than to transfer it to you.

Mr. CODMAN. Yes; at any time you wish, Senator.

Senator REED of Missouri. Do you propose to take those 318 additional men which you need in the permissive work from the force, or do you want that many men in addition to the present force?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I want that many men in addition to the present force.

Mr. CODMAN. That is on the permissive side only?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. Have you an adequate force from the point of view of enforcement?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. No. I want quite a few more men that I have detailed here. Would you like me to give you what I want?

Mr. CODMAN. Well, I will ask you that perhaps in a slightly different way.

Senator REED of Missouri. Can he give it to us in the aggregate?

Mr. CODMAN. I will refer to Exhibit C, the one which gives the distribution of the force. I see that in the district No. 1, which takes in the New England States--- you are undoubtedly familiar with these, Mr. Secretary, so that I do not need to refer to them.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Oh, no; I know it.

Mr. CODMAN. Which takes in Maine

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS (interposing). The New England States except Connecticut.

Mr. CODMAN. The New England States except Connecticut. You have a total number of 91 agents.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. And are those divided about 75 per cent and 25 per cent between permissive and enforcement officers?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I can not answer that question. I really do not know.

Mr. CODMAN. You really do not know?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. No. I would have to make an analysis of that. It is something that I have not thought of.

Mr. CODMAN. But it is correct that there are 91 in that whole district?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. Now, do you get any satisfactory cooperation from these authorities of those States in enforcing the law?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Very helpful cooperation, yes; and in one State more than another. But increasing. That is the encouraging part.

Mr. CODMAN. You are getting increasing cooperation in those States?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes; I am.

Mr. CODMAN. Do you know in any States where they have appropriated any money for the special purpose of assisting in cooperation with you in your work?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I do not know either way, yes or no. But of course we all know that they have, as every State has, a considerable machinery, both police and judicial.

Mr. CODMAN. Oh, yes. Now, in district No. 2, which includes Connecticut and the whole State of New York---

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. No; the Greater City of New York.

Mr. CODMAN. The Greater City of New York.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. And Long Island.

Mr. CODMAN. And Long Island. I see that you have in toto 190 officers, of whom 183 are agents, and 7 are inspectors and pharmacists. Have you a large enough force for that district?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. No.

Senator REED of Missouri. How many more does he need?

Mr. CODMAN. How many more would you need to make enforcement effective there?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Now I have not got that detail here, Mr. Senator, by districts. What I need for my alcohol squad, what I need for my beer squad, and what I want for the border patrol, and the detailed distribution of those between the districts I have in the notes we made at the time we set up this request, but I have not them here, sir. I can explain what these squads are designed to do, and these additional men, and why we consider them quite essential to efficient operation.

Senator HARRELD. Do you not send these men, whether in the permissive squad or in the enforcement squad, from one district to another at times, anyway?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Not to any great extent, no, sir. I could do so, and here and there do so in the case of a particular investigation, but not to any great extent.

Senator HARRELD. Your intention then in asking for this additional help is that it should be allocated to each respective district?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I would like to explain that the Federal alcohol squad, whose business it is particularly and solely to interest itself in the control of these industrial alcohol permittees, will be a mobile force of 75 men who will work without regard to district lines, in those sections of the country only where a great deal of alcohol is used in industry, where there are thousands of permittees. The same way with the beer Squad. That will be a mobile squad, and it will not regard district lines. And then comes the border patrol, and that will be allocated to collectors of customs on the land orders mostly.

Mr. CODMAN. Have you organized the border patrol as yet, Mr. Secretary?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. My assignment last April was to take charge of customs, Coast Guard and the Prohibition Unit, and

try to bring about cooperation between the three for the purpose of the enforcement of the prohibition laws. It being the natural function of customs to stop smuggling, and of the Coast Guard to stop smuggling by. the sea. I found only about 170 patrolmen in the customs service. A very insufficient number. A large number relatively in the immigration patrol, but not under our orders in any way. I placed the full responsibility for stopping smuggling on the collectors of customs on the land borders, and on the sea fronts to act as a second line of defense behind the Coast Guard, and had them make each a study of his problems, and ask me what he needed in order to function efficiently.

They needed more patrolmen than I could possibly supply, but I did supply 150 prohibition agents, who were enlisted, appointed, selected by the collectors of customs for their particular fitness for that kind of duty, and then appointed prohibition agents, and also designated customs patrolmen without pay. And those 150 worked last year along the borders They were particularly successful and proved their worth by stopping a lot of smuggling other than that of liquor, so that we feel justified now in asking for 235 more, and that their presence on the border will stop the smuggling so that we will collect much greater revenue than they can possibly cost.

Mr. CODMAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, I want to find out if I can how large your whole border patrol force is. For instance, we will take the Canadian border. Can you give us an idea of how many men you have for the purpose of stopping smuggling from Canada.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I have 170 on both land borders of customs and 110 now of prohibition. That makes 280. And then I want to add to that 235, making 525.

Mr. CODMAN. Did you say that covers the Mexican border as well, when you said both land borders?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. That is along the Mexican and Canadian lines you have in all 500 men?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I Want 500. I have now 280.

Mr. CODMAN. You have now 280?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Two hundred and eighty.

Mr. CODMAN. Can you stop smuggling over those two borders with 280 men?

Assistant, Secretary ANDREWS. I can stop a great deal more with 500 than I can with 280.

Mr. CODMAN. Well, that was not quite my question.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. And there -is 'before Congress a bill Which I hope will become a law, which our department has been very much interested in, in its framing, which will organize a United States border patrol for the enforcement of all laws on the border.

Mr. CODMAN. How large a force do you want of this border patrol for that purpose?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. That force in its inception will consist of the consolidation of all the patrolmen of all the departments of Government who maintain patrolmen on the borders for the carrying out of their particular interests. And my recollection is that immigration has about 800. The customs has about 170. And I hope that prohibition will have about 500 by that time.

Mr. CODMAN. So that your total force---

I Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Will be something like 1,600---1,500 or 1,600.

Mr. CODMAN. Your total force will be something like 1,500 or 1,600 to patrol the whole of the Canadian border from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. And the whole of the Mexican border from the Gulf to the Pacific.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. With that patrol of 1,600 men you would intend to prevent violations of the immigration laws, violations of the customs laws, and violations of the prohibition laws?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes; and agricultural laws---every thing that we have to watch on the borders. And it will be very economic and very efficient compared with the present organization.

Mr. CODMAN. Well, will it succeed in stopping the smuggling of liquor and wine either from over the Mexican border or over the Canadian border, in your opinion?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes, in My Opinion it will.

Mr. CODMAN. You think it will entirely stop it?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, If you will except an individual coming across with a quart. It will stop the traffic in liquor, that is what am interested in.

CODMAN. Do you think that it will materially reduce the supply in the country to-day?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. No; because I do not think that the supply in the country to-day comes from Canada or Mexico

Senator REED of Missouri. Not to divert you, but to clean up matters. Is this force which you propose to organize not only to embrace those necessary to guard the Canadian line and the Mexican line but also to guard the east and west coasts? Are they all included?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, it is all included, but very few, Senator Reed, are used on the water fronts. Very few. Perhaps one collector of customs would have 10 men.

Mr. CODMAN. You stated that the smuggling was not the principal source of liquor in this country. Would you state what you consider to be at present the principal source of liquor?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes; I consider to-day that the smuggling and the diversion of medicinal spirits are the principal sources of the flavoring, and that the diversion of alcohol is the principal source or the backbone of the bootleg liquor that is sold to-day, and that applies to these areas through which that business is transacted. Now, let us go into the South, Middle West, and those localities, and I think moonshine is the source of supply.

Mr. CODMAN. Have you ever made any estimate, or is it possible to make any estimate of the amount of alcohol that is made in small stills in private houses?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I have never attempted to make an estimate.

Mr. CODMAN. Well, it is not possible to make such an estimate without using means which have not as yet been authorized.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Right.

Mr. CODMAN. Would it help you in your law enforcement if the States themselves would take over the whole question of intrastate

enforcement and leave to the Federal Government simply the duties to prevent smuggling and interstate movements--- transportation?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Would it help Me?

Mr. CODMAN. Yes; would it help you?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. It would relieve me of a tremendous responsibility, and if by "Would it help me" you mean, would it bring about better law enforcement---

Mr. CODMAN (interposing). I want to know your opinion. Would it help in the enforcement of the law if the States would take over those matters and leave what we might call the purely Federal matters in the hands of the Federal authorities, such as the prevention of smuggling, and the production, and interstate transportation?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. But there must be a continued interest on the part of the Federal Government in manufacture, must there not?

Mr. CODMAN. Well, that is partly the question I asked, because manufacture inside the State, would not that also be handled by the State authorities, where you would get such cooperation?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I think that would have to remain in the hands of the Federal Government, because of the necessity for permits, and so on, and I hardly see how we can separate this control of alcohol in industry; that is always a Federal function. So, if you try to confine the Federal functions to the stopping of smuggling and movements in interstate commerce, I do not believe it would be practical, Mr. Codman.

Mr. CODMAN. Well, laying aside the permit situation, if the States would aid the enforcement, you, rather than

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS (interposing). Well, let me answer freely.

Mr. CODMAN. Yes, sir.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I do believe if the States would exercise or take the responsibility for the police work, local police work, that would be a very helpful thing--- if they would take full responsibility for the local police work. Now, that means distribution, as I see it, on the part of the retailer---retail distribution of liquor---the speakeasies and to that phase of the industry.

Mr. CODMAN. Where do you find that you get the best local cooperation?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, I do not like to appear to discriminate. It is developing, Mr. Codman.

Senator MEANS. Genera, you can say Colorado, and it will be all right.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I thought of Colorado, but you might be interested to know that local cooperation is becoming a real element in other parts of the country, just as the result of the last three months' effort on the part of our organization.

Senator GOFF. Do you not think you ought to mention the others and give Colorado a little competition?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. If I mention one, I feel I ought to mention several.

Senator MEANS. That is not necessary.

Senator HARRELD. If you turned over the matter of intrastate affairs to the States, that would simply create 48 Volstead Acts and not assist in its enforcement, would it?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, we have got 45 now, and it is our effort to cooperate with them and help them in local law enforcement.

Senator HARRELD. My point was it would increase the problems of the enforcement of the law materially.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I do not think you could turn it over absolutely. This concurrent jurisdiction is perhaps difficult to understand, but I have a rather clear conception of what it means, from my point of view, and have worked on that consistently since the new organization went into effect.

Mr. CODMAN. I have heard it suggested in very high quarters that it was the attitude of the States to enforce the law locally, and that prohibition would never be successful until the local authorities undertook to do the local enforcement, leaving to the Federal authorities the general work of stopping the supply at the source, and it was really that which I wanted to bring out.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. To find out if that substantial division on the broad basis of the two different types of enforcement---

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS (interposing). I accept that; that is my policy. That is just my policy.

Mr. CODMAN. That is what I understood was your policy and I wanted to rather bring that out and to know what steps you have taken in that direction so far as you can give them.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, my steps are these. I have instructed my administrators to continue to instruct them that their function is to control the sources, so far as they are in their districts, which means the elimination of the sources of illegitimate traffic, and to try to get the evidence against, and bring to punishment, the operator who organizes the traffic, finances it, and directs it, and keeps it going, and to encourage in every way that they can, and they are finding many ways of doing it, the people of the community, to reassume the responsibility of selfgovernment; that is my language. Now, that means that the distributor shall be handled by local authorities, and relieve the Federal courts and the Federal organization of that perfectly tremendous task which they had undertaken, of arresting distributors and bringing them into Federal courts, overwhelming the court's docket, you see, with that kind of cases, and discouraging the judges and discouraging the district attorneys. So, for that reason I teamed up the district attorney and the man in charge of prohibition enforcement that they might survey the problem in their district and select the cases which they make. You will find many such cases made by my organization, more than were made a year ago, but what we are looking for is that each case that is made will be brought to prompt trial and punished, if deserved.

Senator REED of Missouri. That is, you do not arrest all that are guilty. You just pick some cases out of them?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. We do not begin to arrest all that are guilty, Mr. Senator; we can not.

Senator REED of Missouri. Certainly.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. That is, those guilty of a small offense---

Senator REED of Missouri. Yes.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS (continuing). And I feel perfectly confident we never would get anywhere by arresting distributors be-

92101*-26--VOL.1-5

cause the brother or uncle of the man that is arrested takes it up and goes right on.

Mr. CODMAN. Do you get better cooperation in the rural districts in the enforcement of the law, or do you get it, in the cities?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, that depends, Mr. Codman, on the sentiment.

Mr. CODMAN. I do not want too make the question too broad.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. It is pretty broad.

Mr. CODMAN. Yes, it is pretty broad.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Of course, there are cities in which the police force does not help us particularly. Again, you will find a city in which they are particularly helpful, and as a chief of police explained to me in one of the greatest cities in the country, we do it in selfdefense, because the criminal class no longer confines itself to its precarious means of livelihood through theft and burglary, but has turned to bootlegging, and thus become obstreperous, so, in selfdefense, they have turned in that city, although commonly called wet, they are doing everything they can to assist the Federal Government in the wiping out of the bootlegger.

Mr. CODMAN. That is because the bootlegger has become so dominant?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Well, he has become so; he is becoming rich.

Senator HARRELD. He is becoming very effective as a criminal.

Senator REED of Missouri. Rich, powerful, and respected.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I can not think of the exact words, but that is pretty good.

Mr. CODMAN. In spite of the efforts which have been expended, the bootlegger class is still a powerful class in the communities, is it not?

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Not in any community that I know of.

Mr. CODMAN. In the underworld community.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. In the underworld community.

Mr. CODMAN. After all, that is unfortunately a part of many communities.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. Not recognized.

Mr. CODMAN. But they are beginning to find it necessary to recognize it, are they not; they have to begin to deal with it?

Senator MEANS. Whenever you find a good place to suspend, it is only 2 minutes.

Mr. CODMAN. I think it would be a good place to suspend

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. May I say one other thing?

Senator MEANS. Yes.

Assistant Secretary ANDREWS. I would like to sum this whole thing up in a statement, that it is our policy to concentrate upon the traffic--- reading the eighteenth amendment--- manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, exportation--- the traffic in liquor, in that way. I feel that we will win the approval of the whole community when that policy is understood, accepted, and put into effect. The traffic in liquor is a menace to society, and when society realizes that the whole effort of the law is to wipe out the traffic in liquor, I think we will get better results, and we can discuss that later.

Senator MEANS. We will take a recess until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. Be here promptly and we will go right ahead.

(The committee thereupon at 1 o'clock p. m., adjourned, to meet to-morrow, Tuesday, April 6, 1926, at 10 o' clock a. m.)

THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1926

UNITED STATES SENATE,
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10.05 o'clock a. m., in room 224, Senate office Building, pursuant to adjournment on yesterday, Senator Rice W. Means (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Means (chairman), Harreld, Reed of Missouri, and Walsh.

Present also: Senators Edge and Edwards and Representative Hill of Maryland.

Senator MEANS (chairman). The subcommittee will please come to order.

Mr. CODMAN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Edge wishes to make a statement to the committee.