STATE PROHIBITION COMMISSIONER

The office of State commissioner, or director of prohibition, was created in the year 1916, and $50,000 was appropriated therefor. He now has an office force of 6 employees and about 100 agents. Some agents are paid regular salaries and expenses, some work on commission, and some work gratis. Seventy thousand dollars is the amount of the appropriation for the office and enforcement work at this time. All received over that amount goes into the State treasury. The money received from the confiscation of automobiles, as well as of materials used, goes into the State treasury after deducting from

expenses.

The attorney general has again requested an increase of $50,000, making the proposed appropriation for the office and work $132,000.

The commissioner is a strong believer in prohibition. He is very competent and earnest in his work and in the conduct of his office. His force is well organized, with competent agents appointed under the supervision of the assistant attorney general of the State in charge of prohibition.

It may be instructive or interesting, at least, to read what the State prohibition commissioner said in his first annual report after the Mapp prohibition law went into effect as to the reaction therefrom:

The law itself is revolutionary, revolutionizing the traditions and habits of Virginians for centuries. Such a law could not be initiated anywhere without friction. It could not operate in Virginia without much friction and without incidental hardships.

The legislation is new and every phase of Virginia life and mercantile necessity could not be anticipated by one session of the general assembly; hence, there have arisen a number of awkward situations making the administration of the office a vexatious task.

Many Virginians who opposed the change of policy from the license system under local option, as well as those who favored it, have with commendable loyalty entered cheerfully into the spirit of the change and upheld the majesty of the law, but not all of them. Everywhere are to be found men much enslaved by appetite who have constituted a sullen menace to enforcement by critical slurs and by surreptitious encouragement to the worthless element of vagabonds given to bootlegging and lawlessness.

There are also among us those with good intentions and high purposes who always expect the mere passage of a law to accomplish everything-superficial thinkers who do not understand the difference between law fundamentally and the mere instrument or statute which expresses law. These unfortunates can never understand why murder is not eliminated when the statute says "Thou shalt not kill." Such persons are unreasonable in their expectations of results and critical of officers charged with the enforcement of law, but, like the poor, they are always with us.

Many persons heretofore interested directly and indirectly in the traffic in ardent spirits have acted with commendable loyalty under the law, but no one expected all of them to do so, and therefore it is not surprising that a large number of these people remain unreconstructed, hostile, vindictive, and mischievous. They have made themselves felt in illicit distilleries, in unlawful transportation and sale, and in the testimony (withheld or prevented) before the courts, and actually have insinuated themselves by devious but undeniable ways upon juries for the trial of these causes.

Summary of activities of department of State prohibition during the period from July 1, 1928, to June 30, 1929

Total amount of fines, exclusive of those under town ordinances_- $439, 674. 69 Total amount of fines under towa ordinances_.

$153, 815.00

Total amount of fines_

$593, 489.69

Stills seized by agents of this department.

Number of months defendants sentenced under State law_.
Number of months defendants sentenced under town ordinances_.
Total number of months..

Stills seized by local officers as reported_

14, 129% 2,246% 16, 376

1,664

Total stills seized___

1,095

Ardent spirits scized by local officers, gallons_.

Ardent spirits seized by agents of this department, gallons___

2, 759

35, 283

31, 911% 67, 194

393

861

Mash destroyed by agents of this department, gallons.

1,254

1,896, 991

1 This includes 3 (1928) nolle-prosequied cases.

The statistics furnished me by the prohibition administrator's office of the eighth district relative to the State of Virginia are as follows, fiscal year ending June 30, 1929:

Number of persons arrested by Federal prohibition officers.

375

Number of persons arrested by State officers, assisted by Federal officers.
Number of prosecutions in Federal courts recommended.

302

426

Number of cases prepared and forwarded to the district attorney.

397

COOPERATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Assistant Attorney General Gibson, in charge of prohibition prosecutions for the State of Virginia and the appointment, suspension, and dismissal of agents in the State prohibition force, assured me that the cooperation given the State authorities by the local administrator and his force was splendid and all that could be desired. Both the assistant attorney general and the State prohibition commissioner, H. B. Smith, stated that increased funds for their enforcement work were greatly needed, though the work was in a satisfactory condition according to the funds available.

The chief of police at Norfolk thinks there is room for closer cooperation by the prohibition administrator and his force. He thinks the national prohibition act should be amended to secure better enforcement. He favors the Canadian liquor system and educational program.

The secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia said the cooperation work of the Federal force under the administrator was splendid. The postmaster at Richmond also spoke of the good cooperation given by the Federal prohibition force there, and thought Richmond and vicinity was in good shape and dry.

On the whole it is apparent that the Federal officials and the State and county officials in Virginia are agreed also that their forces work in harmony and cooperate about 100 per cent.

The chiefs of police of Norfolk and Portsmouth are not included in that class.

INCREASE OR DECREASE IN VIOLATIONS OF LIQUOR LAWS

In some localities in the past the only violation or charge involving liquor was for selling unlawfully, while now the statistics and computations include not only the charge of selling but also transporting and possessing, which in part accounts for the number of violations received.

This point, as well as the population increases, must be considered in making all comparisons on the matter of increase or decrease in drinking and the notations reported and prosecuted, for at the earlier periods only one column was made, while now there are several columns to be reported, and in the earlier periods there was transportation and possession, though not the violations under the law then.

INCREASE OR DECREASE IN DRINKING BY YOUNG PEOPLE

United States Attorney Kada, of Norfolk, says he is confident there is less drinking among the young people there than formerly, and that general liquor conditions are better.

Chief of police of Portsmouth said the young people-boys and girls are not drinking as much as when the law first went into effect. He has checked up on it and undoubtedly they are not drinking as much as a year ago. The novelty is wearing off. On Halloween night he stood on street corners and did not see one under influence of liquor.

The chief of police of Norfolk and his desk sergeant, or chief clerk, thought there was an increase in drinking among boys and girls, though when I called attention to conditions in Norfolk before prohibition laws were passed in the eighties and nineties, with the saloon on nearly every corner and at crossroads, etc., some doubt as to the correctness of their statement as to boys at least was admitted. as far as a comparison with that time was concerned.

Some prohibition agents at Norfolk thought that the drinking among the young people was increasing, though the statistics of police court records on Layman Act cases showed a great many over 21 years of age.

JURIES-ATTITUDE OF

The secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia said that prohibition enforcement in the State of Virginia was unsuccessful, and would be as long as the violators preferred to waive a jury trial and be tried before the judges.

The State prohibition commissioner stated that the bootleggers would rather cast their lot with the judges than with the juries.

Juries and prosecuting attorneys, or at least a number of them, seem to feel that if heavy sentences are imposed in all cases, or in the smaller and hip-pocket cases, the effect on the juries would be to make it harder to get indictments and convictions generally, and especially in that kind of cases.

LIGHT OR HEAVY SENTENCES EFFECT OF AS DETERRENT OF CRIME

The United States attorney for the eastern district of Virginia is of opinion that certainty and celerity of punishment is the best deterrent of crime.

The district judge of the eastern district rather thought the giving of heavy sentences in "pint" cases hurt the enforcement, as the average jury will not convict or indict so steadily under these conditions. The usual sentences by this court are, upon pleas of guilty being made, 60 days for first offense of sale; 3 to 6 months, illegal manufacture; for transporting, usually a fine, except when large quantities are involved. Possession in small quantities draws a small fine.

In smuggling cases a sentence of from one to two years in the penitentiary at Atlanta is imposed.

Another Federal jurist thinks the heavy sentences in all cases are detrimental to upholding the prohibition law.

STATE CASES IN FEDERAL COURTS AND FEDERAL CASES IN STATE COURTS

In Virginia it seems that hip-pocket cases are not being taken to or tried in the Federal courts, but only more important and commercial cases.

The administrator said that about a year ago the judge of the Federal court for the eastern district of Virginia advised that the small cases should be taken to the State courts.

More than one-half of cases in Virginia are tried in State courts. In North Carolina, in the same administrator's district, about 99 per cent of cases of prohibition agents go into the Federal courts. In South Carolina, also in the same administrator's district, the Federal judge in the western judicial district made an order or rule that where one State officer and one Federal agent make a case it should be handled in the State court, and where one State officer works with two Federal agents the case should be brought in the Federal court. Therefore-and as in South Carolina the constables furnish autos and pay expenses of buys and autos when cooperating with Federal agents-about 85 per cent of the cases are tried in the Federal courts.

As search warrants are obtained in Virginia on information and belief, and as Federal agents accompany the State officers, such cases must be tried in State courts.

In the eastern district of Virginia conspiracy and Jones Act cases are referred to the Federal authorities for prosecution.

In Portsmouth, however, no cases are put in the Federal court by the police.

Judge Groner (United States district attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk) said he thought the general run of prohibition cases should be handled in the State courts, which have adequate penalties and can dispose of them more quickly and at less expense for witnesses, etc.