was some discussion in the hearings with reference to the reorganization of the executive departments, but I have not taken it up with them.

Mr. HERSEY. You do not understand that your bill makes any change?

Mr. CRAMTON. As a matter of fact, when I was first studying this, before I had gotten very definite conclusions I called at the Department of Justice to consult Mrs. Willebrandt, but she was engaged in hearings and I was not able to see her at that time. I have felt that the matter being now in the Treasury Department, I want to go as far as I can to get the bill in form so it would have the approval of that department, and, securing that, I felt that I had gone as far as I could.

Mr. BOIES. The Department of Justice has nothing to do in any event until some legal question is presented to them.

Mr. CRAMTON. That is my point of view. The Department of Justice exists to give advice to the different branches of the Government or to prosecute when the evidence is brought to them.

Mr. PERLMAN. They make investigations.

Mr. CRAMTON. They have a department for investigations, but I think that is almost extraneous to the theoretically logical function of the department and ought not to be increased.

Mr. PERLMAN. They have numerous bureaus which detect crime and the violation of the law.

Mr. CRAMTON. They have to some extent. that ought not to be extended.

I think it is a policy

I want to thank you. Judge Moss, Assistant Secretary, and Judge Britt are here, subject to the wishes of the committee.

STATEMENT OF MR. M'KENZIE MOSS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, IN CHARGE OF COLLECTION OF REVENUE

Mr. Moss. I have very little to say, Mr. Chairman. I would like to emphasize the question which you raised at the close of Mr. Cramton's argument as to the propriety or advisability of placing the prohibition force in the Department of Justice.

On the face of it, it would appear that that is the proper place for this work, but having had for several months some rather intimate connections with the whole project, I wish to emphasize Mr. Cramton's argument that those agencies, almost necessarily, must be under one general head; those agencies engaged in the prevention of illicit traffic in liquor. That includes the Coast Guard, the customs, and Mr. Cramton inadvertantly said that customs had to do with. the prevention of smuggling by land. It is really by land and sea as

well.

In my judgment the Coast Guard, customs, and prohibition should all remain under the same general head. At the present time, while the results are not highly satisfactory, there is fairly good cooperation. It is understood that the Secretary has expressed his approval of the bill. I happen to know that the Secretary at one time favored the placing of the prohibition work under the Department of Justice. He believed that that would be done, he has told me, when he came into office. But he is firmly of the opinion that it should be under one head and under the Treasury.

Mr. DYER. Mr. Secretary, may I ask a question there? What would you say as to the attitude of the department in leaving under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the enforcement of the regulation of the act pertaining to industrial alcohol and having a commissioner, such as the bill provides, handle everything else? I think my own views are quite definite on that, and I would like to have

yours.

Mr. Moss. Mine are not definite. As explained by Mr. Cramton, when this bill came to the Secretary's office, I was absent from my office.

I have given very little study to the bill. It was taken up by the Secretary with Judge Britt, and my attention was first called to the bill after Judge Britt had suggested certain modifications and changes, to which the Secretary had agreed, and the bill perhaps had been reprinted.

A few days ago the representatives of the industrial alcohol concerns, through my efforts, had a conference in Mr. Blair's office. Mr Blair, Judge Britt, and myself were present. They presented their views on that very particular matter very fully, and they are very keenly concerned.

I hardly believe that it is practicable from an administrative standpoint.

I talked with the Secretary on yesterday afternoon about that feature of that. I reported to him the results of the conference of several days ago with Mr. Blair and the industrial alcohol people. I gave him a full report, as far as I could without attempting to color it, as to what transpired at this conference and told him of the feeling of the industrial alcohol people and their great desire to have that part of the work remain where it is, in the hands of the collectors of internal revenue in the different States.

As I say, I can hardly believe it would work out as a practical measure, but Mr. McGovern, general counsel for one of the large industrial alcohol organizations, suggested yesterday in my office Judge Britt was present by accident, as we were there on some other matter that he believed he could offer to the committee, if he was given an opportunity later for a hearing with the industrial alcohol people, a suggested modification of this bill that would properly take care of their situation.

I told that to the Secretary, and I feel that it is not improper for me to say to the committee that the Secretary is greatly concerned, and properly so, in the welfare of this very important, highly important industry. He hopes, and of course confidently believes, that they will have a hearing and be accorded such relief as the committee may deem proper. But the Secretary offered no suggestion as to the practicability of the matter, or as to his attitude on the question of leaving the permissive part of the administration in the hands of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say, Judge, that nearly all of these protests, as far as I have gone over them, are from business concerns interested in the lawful side of dealing in alcohol.

Mr. Moss. Yes. I have heard of no other particular objection to the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. They protest against this on various grounds, as set forth in the letters.

Mr. Moss. Of course, I assume that those gentlemen will have a hearing here. I do not know about that.

I do not believe I have a further statement to make. My contact with the prohibition unit is somewhat remote. You see, it is under the Commissioner of Prohibition, and then in turn under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and only in the most general way under my supervision, representing the Secretary.

Mr. DYER. How long have you had that position?

Mr. Moss. About a year, the first part of March. Its administration comes to my office only in unusual cases, or unusual situations. Judge Britt and I confer very frequently.

I have had a number of conferences with Judge Britt and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, but very naturally, with the Coast Guard and the Customs and the Public Buildings in my office, I can have but slight touch with the field work there.

So, for particulars, I will have in turn to say that Judge Britt will know more about that. Unless there are some further questions, I will yield to him.

Mr. FOSTER. May I ask Judge Moss whether the proposition submitted by Mr. McGovern was considered at the meeting in Mr. Blair's office?

Mr. Moss. No, sir; it was not. I think he had been giving some thought to it after we had our conference. He called yesterday afternoon and we were talking of the thing generally. He said he believed he could offer the full solution of it.

Mr. MONTAGUE. What particular activities did you say that you thought could be consolidated in one?

Mr. Moss. The Coast Guard, the customs, and prohibition, under the same supervision.

Mr. MONTAGUE. How many of them are now under the Commissioner of Prohibition?

Mr. Moss. They are all in the Treasury Department.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Under the enforcement of the commissioner known as the prohibition officer?

Mr. DYER. Prohibition director.

Mr. MONTAGUE. How many of those are there?

Mr. Moss. Under the prohibition director?

Mr. MONTAGUE. Yes.

Mr. Moss. None, except the Prohibition Unit. The Prohibition Unit is under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who in turn is under the Secretary, and that work is generally supervised in my office. We have also in my office the Coast Guard.

Mr. CRAMTON. I do not think Governor Montague quite understood you. Judge Moss was not suggesting that these should be put in one bureau. They are kindred activities, three bureaus that should be under one general supervision.

Mr. Moss. Well, it is a little stronger than kindred. They are all engaged in the enforcement of the general proposition.

Mr. MONTAGUE. The ones that you have mentioned are under the supervision of the Treasury Department!

Mr. Moss. Yes; they are in the Treasury Department and are under my general supervision.

Mr. FOSTER. Your point is that they should be kept there rather than put in the Department of Justice?

Mr. Moss. Oh, décidedly.

Mr. FOSTER. It should all be left to the Treasury Department? Mr. Moss. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Britt, we will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES J. BRITT

Mr. BRITT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it will take but a moment to express to you the views that I have.

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, Judge Britt has just been ill, and if it is agreeable to the committee I think it would be better for him to remain seated.

Mr. BRITT. Thank you. I will manage to get along, but I can not talk very loudly.

I have read the bill with some care and have prepared a brief memorandum on it for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and for the Secretary of the Treasury, and, at his instance, have conferred with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue a number of times in regard to it, and at the instance of the Secretary of the Treasury have conferred with him and Assistant Secretary Moss in regard to it. I think the bill should become a law, judged from the standpoint of the enforcement of the eighteenth amendment and the legislation enacted for its enforcement. As constituted at present the prohibition unit is only one of four units ranking practically with a number of sections in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Because of the transcendent importance of the subject and of the very great difficulty of enforcement, of which the whole country is aware, I think the undertaking should be within an arm of the Government that has the full rank and dignity at least of a bureau in one of the departments, and as has been appropriately said here, it seems to me that because of certain relations the Department of the Treasury is preeminently the department in which this bureau should be placed.

I therefore fully concur in the views of the Secretary and of his assistants and of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Representative Cramton, that it should be given the dignity and standing, and authorized to perform the functions, of a bureau in the Treasury Department, and under a commissioner of prohibition whose rank would be coordinate with that of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and other heads of bureaus in the departments. The two distinctive features of separation between the functions of the prohibition unit, as it is now constituted and as it will be constituted after the passage of this bill, if it becomes a law, are, that the complete enforcement of the eighteenth amendment and its enforcing legislation is entrusted to the new bureau of prohibition, while the collection and covering into the Treasury of all excise taxes and of all incidental moneys arising under these laws, will be left ministerially to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as now. That was the chief suggestion that I made to the Secretary and to the commissioner, and which Mr. Cramton was good enough to embody in the bill he has introduced. Not to have done so would have disturbed the entire mode of collecting and accounting for moneys for a long period back, as you all know. So now the only function left to the Bureau of Internal Revenue is that of collecting and accounting for the excise taxes that are determined by law, and such other moneys

as come in incidently under the law, such as determinations upon compromises and assessments made, which under the Volstead Act are somewhat in the nature of penalties, as has been held in the Supreme Court decision known as the Lipke case.

The most valuable feature in the bill, as it appears to me, is the provision to place the entire bureau, in so far as that is practicable, under the civil-service rules. You gentlemen all know, as the public knows, that wherever we have had a branch of the service administered under civil-service rules, as compared with a branch. that is not administered under the civil-service, the work being somewhat similar, the favor has always been with that bureau administered under the civil service laws. In other words, the advantage has been in its favor.

Mr. MONTAGUE. That is, it has been better administered?

Mr. BRITT. Yes, sir. It is better administered under the civil service, speaking generally, than it is under the noncivil service. That would be a distinct advantage in the administration of the prohibition laws. In my judgment, there is no other branch of the public service that so distinctly and imperatively demands a complete civil-service status as the administration of prohibition laws.

Mr. DYER. It could not be any worse than it is now, could it, Judge?

Mr. BRITT. I would not say that.

Mr. DYER. I mean, the enforcement of the law and the stopping of liquors being brought in here from other countries.

Mr. HERSEY. Do you mean the civil service law or the prohibition law?

Mr. DYER. I say, if you change it and put it under civil service it would not be any worse. If anything, it would be an improve

ment.

Mr. BRITT. There would be an improvement. Not all conditions are satisfactory, it is true, Congressman. No one would contend that for a moment. I think the civil service would improve the condition wherever it is brought into it.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Mr. Britt, would it require higher pay?

Mr. BRITT. I was going to address myself to that in a moment, if I may, at another point. The bill, as now projected, with some slight changes as proposed by Congressman Cramton, puts the new bureau under the present civil service law, without and reservations at all. It would, as I interpret the law, leave the Commissioner of Prohibition excepted, his secretary and a few attorneys that are excepted under the general policy of civil service. such as in the Department of Justice and in the various offices of the solicitors of the other departments, but it makes no other exceptions.

Mr. DYER. Do you not think that we could eliminate that to advantage?

Mr. BRITT. Eliminate what, Congressman?

Mr. DYER. Any exceptions. Let the commissioner take the examination as well as the others. If it is good for some, it ought to be good for all.

Mr. BRITT. I would make no objection to the fullest civil service for the Prohibition Bureau. I have no objection to any civil-service requirement that might be imposed. nor the extent to which it might be carried. I am speak ng for myself.