For seven months President Hoover’s Commission on Law Enforcement has been silently working behind closed doors. Wets and Drys have raised loud cries that the President had “submerged” Prohibition, demanded that the Commission produce something to justify its existence.
Last week President Hoover sent to Congress the Commission’s first-born—a preliminary report on Prohibition with recommendations for improved enforcement —for a legislative christening. At once it was disclosed that the “birth” of this report had occurred two months ago (Nov. 21), when Chairman George Woodward Wickersham forwarded it to the White House.
It was a long report, devoid of major surprises. The enforceability of Prohibition, as everyone expected, was not discussed. For opinions on Prohibition’s observance, its social and economic effects. Chairman Wickersham asked more time to study “the views and habits of the American people as to statutes affecting their conduct . . . the attitude of the pioneer . . . the conception of natural rights, classical in our policy . . . the tradition of a ‘right of revolution’. . . the many historical examples of large-scale public disregard of laws in our past.”
Four preliminary recommendations were made:
1) Transfer of enforcement machinery from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice.
2) Revision of the 25 or more U. S. Dry Laws into a simple, unified code.
3) Extension of padlock injunctions to reach property owners who conceal themselves from the court.
4) Relief for Federal Courts congested with liquor cases.
Recommendation No. 4 was the most important, stirred up the most comment, because it involved a change in the system of punishing liquor law violators. Rejecting proposals to increase the U. S. Judiciary, to establish inferior or “police” courts, the Commission suggested a modified use of existing courts. Its purpose was to get around the “cumbersome procedure of indictment and trial by jury” for petty offenders whose cases clog the courts. The Constitution calls for indictments and jury trials for “infamous crimes.” The Supreme Court has held that offenses punishable by less than a year in jail are not “infamous crimes,” require no indictment or jury trial. The Jones Law making all liquor violations felonies (“infamous crimes”) though explicitly recognizing “casual or slight violations.”
Ingeniously the Commission proposed (that Congress amend the Jones Law to define “casual or slight violations,” removing them from the category of “infamous crimes.” Petty violators would then not be indicted, tried by jury, but would be brought before U. S. Commissioners for a judicial hearing. The commissioner in turn would report the details of each case, with recommendations, to the U. S. District Judge who, probably never seeing the offender, would render a decision, pass sentence. If found guilty by this speedy process, the petty defendant would still have the right to appeal for a jury trial.
U. S. District Attorneys would have primary discretion to prosecute a liquor defendant as a petty offender before a U. S. commissioner where punishment would be limited to a $500 fine or six months in jail, or to seek an indictment and try the case before judge and jury where punishment might be the limit of the Jones Law (five years in penitentiary, $10,000 fine).
Reported the Commission: “It would not do to create an impression that minor infractions are to be ignored. [But] speedy convictions and certain imposition of penalties are more likely to be efficacious than threats of severe punishment rendered nugatory by congested dockets.”
President Hoover in sending the Wickersham report to Congress with a special message of his own echoed the Commission’s thoughts, generalized about Crime, used the word “Prohibition” twice and made this remark:
“While some sections of the American people may disagree upon the merits of some of the questions involved, every responsible citizen supports the fundamental principle that the law of the land must be enforced.”
While nowhere specifically recommending enactment of any of the Commission’s points. President Hoover expressed a belief that “the administrative changes mentioned above will contribute to cure many of the abuses.
The Wickersham report’s reception at the Capitol was not exactly as the President had wished. He had asked for a Joint Committee of Congress to study changes in the administration of Prohibition enforcement. The Senate had voted him what he wanted. Last week the House got the studs, refused to authorize a Joint Committee. Speaker Longworth explained: “The leaders decided they did not believe in a Joint Committee which would take preliminary jurisdiction away from the Committees of the house. … It is our purpose to take up each legislative measure and have it acted on by independent committees.”
The two-month delay between the birth and the christening of the Wickersham report was apparently due to President Hoover’s waiting for Congress to give him what he thought was a proper committee to receive the Commission’s firstborn.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- L.A. Fires Show Reality of 1.5°C of Warming
- Home Losses From L.A. Fires Hasten ‘An Uninsurable Future’
- The Women Refusing to Participate in Trump’s Economy
- Bad Bunny On Heartbreak and New Album
- How to Dress Warmly for Cold Weather
- We’re Lucky to Have Been Alive in the Age of David Lynch
- The Motivational Trick That Makes You Exercise Harder
- Column: No One Won The War in Gaza
Contact us at letters@time.com