Judge — November 13, 1920 — page 14: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

a a Reusez P. Srercure, President Perrrron Maxwett, Editor Janes S. Metcarr ERE is the record, probably not complete, of a “ rev- enooer,” one of the creatures employed under the authority of the Prohibition amendment to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the so-called Volstead law, It is taken from his own lips, under oath, and is probably correct as far as it goes. His first arrest was for forgery in Fort Worth, Texas, He was sentenced to four years in the penitentiary. After serving three years he was pardoned. He was next arrested in Indianapolis for passing bad checks. For this he was sentenced to eight years in the Indiana State Prison but was paroled after serving four years and five months. He then came to New York and shortly after was arrested in North Pelham charged with robbery in the second degree. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to from six to nine years in Dannemora Prison. By betraying a fellow-prisoner who had knowledge of the Black Tom explosion plot, he secured his release. Shortly afterward he was employed by the United States HIS man’s history is given to illustrate some of the evils to which we are subjected by the intemperate legislation forced through a cowardly Congress by the Prohibition lobby. The law is on the statute books and must be enforced no matter what the instruments that have to be employed. Decent men shrink from the occupation of sneak, spy and informer, so help must be looked for where it can be found. The opportunities for graft under Prohibition are so many and so easy that this new trade naturally recommends itself to the criminal classes, providing as it does what is practically a Government license to blackmail and steal. The more a government reaches into the personal affairs and lives of its citizens the more oppor- tunities it creates for the exercise of these delectable trades. The citizen is supposed to be protected against the illegal acts of such officials by the fundamental provisions of our laws against search and seizure. Arm a man like the one described with a badge and pistol and what does he care about the legality of his acts? How much time is he going to waste in securing a warrant before he forces an entrance to any premises where he scents possible loot? How much regard is he going to have for human life when he has the defence of taking it in the execution of his official duty? For still further safe-guarding of his em- ployment he has the likelihood that if he is brought to criminal ountability it will be before a judge or jurymen saturated with the fanatical belief that any means are justifiable if they are used to enforce Prohibition. Grorce |. Stercner, Secretary A. E. Rottaver, Treasurer atic Editor J. 4 . Warnron, Associate Editor NE does not have to be a friend of the saloon, or favor the indiscriminate trading in liquor, to lament this new stain that has been brought upon our republican form of government. It is even possible to admit that in its early stages Prohibition has accomplished a certain amount of good and at the same ti perceive that that good has been bought at heavy cost to national character. Every reader of the daily press is over-fed with accounts of the conflicts between those who are trying to enforce and those who are trying to evade the liquor law. The organized evasion has become a new industry, heavily manned and gencrously capitalized. Employed in it are many whose consciences afflicted not all by what they are doing because they feel they are breaking not a moral law but one entirely of man’s making and with the making rather a doubtful and tricky process. IGHT or wrong as these views may be, there is no question that they are held by a very considerable minority of the people and that they are going to make the present laws a cause of social trouble for a long time to come. They will make the enforcement of the law a constant source of irritation if not an impossibility. This means a long period of scandals, official and personal corruption and even of tragedies. A majority can not tyrannically invade what a large minority, correctly or incorrectly, regards as its vested rights without danger to every one concerned. ‘The worst danger in the present case appears to be the lessening of respect for law as an institution. That lack of respect is increasing in so many directions that it be- hooves our law-makers to take heed of the tendency. It should lead them to less legislation, a modification of laws that gall and the use of their superfluous energies in strengthening the en- forcement of the laws that are reasonable and necessary, As to Prohibition and its evils, there seems to be indicated an application of that fashionable remedy known as com promise. Fanaticism has not run its course as yet, but before the new Congress just elected has finished its term of office it would seem as though it might be possible to put the liquor laws of the nation on a more rational basis. No one, not even the better saloon-keepers themselves, wants to return to the old wide-open days. There is a middle ground which would make them impossible and yet save a large num- ber of our citizens from being law-breakers. Not the least benefit of a reasonable liquor law would be the saving of the United States government from partnership in the activities of such men as Stewart N. McMullin, whose record is given above. Grant E. Hasutton, Art Editor