These varying and dissimilar law-enforcement conditions throughout the State are due mainly to 1. Incompetency and corruption amongst a considerable number of State and county enforcement officials. 2. Corrupt politicians, in some instances controlling the appointment of enforcement officers. 3. Minimum sentences, generally, of county and city courts. 4. Notoriously weak pardon and parole system. 5. A general feeling of apathy and reluctance on part of a large percentage of the so-called middle class of citizens (apparently lawabiding in most other respects) to take violations of the liquor laws seriously. Corroboration of the above statements may be found in this report. LIQUOR LAWS AND COURT DECISIONS HISTORICAL This State was originally known as Indian Territory and Oklahoma Territory, Indian Territory embracing the eastern half and Oklahoma Territory the western half. Indian Territory was dry, having Federal laws prohibiting the transportation and selling of intoxicating liquor to Indians, etc., while Oklahoma Territory was wet, with open saloons and with no Territorial laws prohibiting the sale of liquor, excepting so-called Sunday laws and the selling of liquor to minors, etc. At the time Oklahoma assumed statehood under the enabling act in 1907 the State was half dry and half wet. As a condition precedent to admission to statehood Oklahoma agreed to continue the area known as Indian Territory as a dry area. The framers of the constitution were then faced with a peculiar situation, a State half wet and half dry. Finally the framers of the constitution submitted this question to the people, with the result that an ordinance providing state-wide prohibition was adopted and made a part of the constitution in 1907. Constitution of Oklahoma.-Ratified September 17, 1907, providing state-wide prohibition. Proposed constitutional amendment.-On November 8, 1910, Oklahoma voted on a proposed amendment to the constitution to permit the reopening of saloons. This was defeated by a vote of 126,118 to 105,041. Drastic existing liquor laws. From 1907 until the present time many liquor laws have been enacted, amended, and in some instances repealed, with the result that in 1930 there are many existing statutes, some with very drastic provisions. These laws are as follows: Years 1907-8 (secs. 7002 to 7039, Comp. Okla. Sta. Ann. 1921).— These sections cover many prohibitory laws, but the outstanding features are provisions prohibiting the manufacture, barter, sale, giving away, or otherwise furnishing of any spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors or compounds of any kinds or description whatsoever, whether medicated or not, which contain as much as one-half of 1 per cent of alcohol and which is capable of being used as a beverage. Penalties. Of above, fine of from $50 to $500 and imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than 6 months in jail. Removal of officers.-Section 7036 provides that any sheriff, county attorney, constable, marshal, and police shall be removed if he fails or refuses to do or perform any duty provided in this act. Comment.-Power of removal rests in governor and attorney general. A few removals have been made. Train conductors.-Empowered to make arrests without warrants for liquor violations. Civil liability (sec. 7034).-Any party who shall be injured in person or in property or in means of support by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of intoxication of any persons, shall have a right of action for all damages actually sustained. Years 1910-1929 (secs. 6982-7001, Comp. Okla. Sta. Ann. 1921).— The main features are Druggists and physicians.-The sale of pure grain alcohol for the compounding of prescriptions for beverage purposes is unlawful. It is also unlawful for any druggist to sell or any physician to prescribe intoxicating liquor for medicinal purposes. For violation of the provisions of this act where there is a conviction on a second offense, a physician or druggist shall forfeit his license to practice. (This drastic penalty is contained in secs. 7002 to 7039, Comp. Okla. St. 1921.) Felony (sec. 6991). For the second and all subsequent convictions of any of the provisions of this act the penalty shall be a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $2,000, and by imprisonment of not less than 30 days in the county jail nor more than 5 years in the State penitentiary. The conviction on a second offense constitutes a felony. It is mandatory upon the judge to pronounce sentence within 10 days of conviction. Comment. Second offense provisions held constitutional in Fowler v. State (14 Okla. Crim. 316 and 107 Pac. 917). Third offense.-Mandatory sentence of a year imprisonment. Comment. First offenses are misdemeanors. In spite of the fact that the law provides drastic penalties for second offenders as a felony, very few felony cases are prosecuted as such. This is not because there are no second offenders. There are apparently many cases of second offenders which under the statute should be prosecuted as felonies, but it just isn't done. Only in exceptional instances will the State courts handle felony cases. The felony cases are mostly turned over to the Federal courts. Bone-dry law (sec. 7001). This was enacted in 1917, is drastic, and brings together many provisions in other acts into the one act. The outstanding feature is that an offense is committed when proof of mere possession is established. Under this act one being the mere recipient of a gift of liquor becomes a violator. Comment. There are many indications which show that a very large percentage of the people either openly ignore this provision of the statute or are not interested in its existence. Later laws.-Session laws of 1923, page 21; 1923-24, pages 43 and 44; 1927, pages 15 and 16; 1929, page 73. The above-cited acts deal principally with amendments which in some instances have increased drastic effects of the prior acts. Court decisions 1929.-The most recent court decision drawing attention and causing most comment is under the subject of searches and seizures-namely, Gore v. State (218 Pac.). Prior to this decision the State supreme court had been proceeding regardless of how the evidence was obtained. After this decision the Federal rule was adopted. JUDICIAL MACHINERY FEDERAL Circuit court.-Oklahoma is in the tenth circuit, the judge sitting at some point in the State when Federal appeals are heard. Northern judicial district.-One United States District Court and one judge. One United States attorney located at Tulsa. Eastern judicial district.-One United States District Court and one judge. One United States attorney located at Muskogee. Western judicial district.-One United States District Court and one judge. One United States attorney located at Oklahoma City. STATE Supreme court.--One supreme court with 9 judges (term, 4 to 6 years; elective). Constitutional. In civil matters, an appellate court of last resort. In criminal matters, undecided. Criminal court of appeals. One court with 3 judges (elective; term, 4 to 6 years). Appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases only. District courts.-The entire State is divided into 31 so-called districts. The counties included in the particular district varies according to population. Some districts embrace three or four counties, while other districts embrace only one county. There are 31 courts, 1 for each district, and 50 judges (elective; term, 4 years). Juries are impaneled in all of these courts. The jurisdiction is in felony cases and in some types of civil cases. COUNTY County court.-One for each of the 76 counties throughout the State. One judge for each court (elective; term, 2 years). Jurisdiction covers probate matters and misdemeanors in criminal matters where the penalty is not over $500 nor more than 6 months in jail, or both. MUNICIPALITIES Tulsa.-This is the largest city in the State, and has a court system distinct from other cities. Municipal court.-There is one municipal court created by a special act of the legislature, with one judge. The judge is appointed under a commission form of city government (term, 2 years). The jurisdiction is concurrent in criminal matters with the county courts. Common pleas courts. One court with four judges (elective; term, 4 years). Jurisdiction in minor criminal cases, including liquor violations. All other cities.-One police court each, with a police judge for each of the other cities. This court handles cases involving mere violations of city ordinances, such as public intoxications, etc., but not cases of misdemeanors, such as driving while drunk. TOWNSHIPS The 76 counties of the State are grouped into districts according to population. As previously stated, there are 31 districts. Each district has at least one justice of the peace. This official acts as a committing magistrate in criminal matters. In civil matters this official handles cases where the amount is not over $500. EXECUTIVE ENFORCEMENT MACHINERY STATE Governor.-The history of the incumbency of the governor's office from January, 1923, to February, 1930, is as follows: J. W. Holloway, the present governor, was formerly lieutenant governor, and succeeded to the office through the removal of his predecessor, Gov. H. S. Johnston. Just prior to the Johnston régime, the then lieutenant governor, H. E. Trapp, succeeded to the governorship through the removal of Gov. J. C. Walton. The governor is not only the chief executive and responsible for the enforcement of the laws, but, under the liquor statutes (sec. 7036), has extraordinarily broad and sweeping powers of removal of any sheriff, county attorney, constable, marshal, or police officer for failure to do or perform any duty required to be done in the enforcement of the liquor laws. The foregoing paragraph proves that the final responsibility for the effective enforcement of State prohibition lies with the governor. Despite this fact there is considerable evidence to indicate that the governor is loath to accept this responsibility, which should be his, in matters of liquor law enforcement. In support of this statement the following evidence is offered: When citizens of various counties throughout the State appealed to the governor for help and relief, in writing, from the deplorable conditions in these counties, the governor's office merely transmits these complaints to the Federal authorities for action. The governor's office, so far as ascertainable, takes no other action in the matter. Copies of some of these complaints and other relevant data are made a part of this report as Exhibits 1 to 9, inclusive. An examination of the nine complaints shows that each is of recent date; some are pathetic; some allege conditions so serious that the writers, fearing reprisals, omit their signatures. The complaints in point originate from small communities over six different counties. On February 15, 1930, a conference was had with Governor Holloway at the statehouse, and the writer inquired why it was when complaints of citizens were made direct to his office that they were referred without action to the Federal authorities. The governor seemed rather incredulous that such a situation existed, but after handing the governor the copies, each bearing evidence of passing through his office, he stated that these complaints are probably handled by his investigation bureau. The governor explained that this bureau is an arm of his office, headed by a former sheriff, who was well acquainted with 80 per cent of the sheriffs in the 76 counties, and that by referring the appeals to the Federal authorities better results would be forthcoming than if handled by the State. Further evidence in support of the writer's statement that the governor is loath to accept responsibility in liquor enforcement is the fact that many county officials have either failed to do their duty or are corrupt. Despite this there is but little evidence to show that the governor has taken any initiative to bring about a remedy. The corroboration of this may be had from this report. Attorney general.-This office consists of J. Berry King, attorney general, and 11 assistants. During the year 1928 this office handled a total of 360 cases before the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Approximately from 50 to 60 per cent of these are liquor cases. Personal contact by the writer was had with various officials of this office. Throughout the State the writer observed considerable criticism directed at the official conduct of the attorney general's office. One instance of this came to light in connection with the recent Pottawatomie County conspiracy case. Oscar Gordon, variously reported as an assistant attorney general, and again as an investigator, was charged with accepting a bribe from the former mayor of Earlsboro, Homer Knappenberger. The outcome of his case is not to be had at this date, but Gordon was allowed to resign from the attorney general's staff. County attorney (elective). The office of the prosecuting attorney is one of the most important links making up the chain of agencies having to do with law enforcement. Of the agencies comprising this so-called county chain, namely, the county judge, the county prosecutor, and the sheriff, the prosecutor is the most important. If any one link is weak, this fact, without exception, is reflected in the unwholesome conditions existing in a county. In Oklahoma many prosecutors are either incompetent or corrupt. Corroboration of this statement may be had from the opinions of reliable officials, some of which are contained in this report, and from other facts contained herein. ENFORCEMENT MACHINERY FEDERAL The Federal prohibition administrator for the States of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska is located at Topeka, Kans. The office consists of an administrator, assistant administrators, legal force, deputy administrators, and enforcement officers known as agents. clerks, etc. The Federal enforcement officials (agents) assigned to the State of Oklahoma as of January 1, 1930, totaled 18. In addition. two deputy administrators are assigned to and located within the State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma this force is located and operates as follows: Northern and eastern judicial district.-Deputy Administrator William H. Giddens, with headquarters at Tulsa, has nine agents distributed at different points throughout the 43 counties. Prior to January 1, 1930, there had been only an average of six agents for the 43 counties. The lack of government-owned automobiles has been a handicap in the past, but with the assignment recently of one or two cars this condition has improved. An adequate number |