Mr. BOIES. You are merely trying to get a new system which would reduce the likelihood of those illegal cases?

Mr. BRITT. I maintain a bureau would possibly be in a position to lessen the quantity diverted.

The CHAIRMAN. Now your contention that getting a new bureau would lessen the chances of these violations, as I understand, is dependent upon the character of the men you would get in under civil service?

Mr. BRITT. You mean I am basing the results on that, Mr. Chairman? Not all the results, no.

The CHAIRMAN. What else?

Mr. BRITT. I am basing the main results on improving the personnel through the civil service.

The CHAIRMAN. The main results?

Mr. BRITT. But there are other results that I think are quite important; that is, it brings the administration up nearer the higher authorities of the Government. The head of the Executive is the President. Moving the unit from a unit up to a bureau is carrying it a step nearer to the higher authorities responsible in the advisory councils of the Government..

The CHAIRMAN.. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the head now, is he not?

Mr. BRITT. He is the bureau head.

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of the Treasury is over him?
Mr. BRITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the President is over the Secretary?

Mr. BRITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if this prohibition unit is created, the Commissioner of Prohibition would be the head of that unit?

Mr. BRITT. You mean this bureau?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the head of that bureau.

Mr. BRITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of the Treasury would be over him? Mr. BRITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the President would be over the Secretary of the Treasury?

Mr. BRITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How would the bureau, then, be brought any higher or nearer than it is to-day under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue?

Mr. BRITT. Just in this way

The CHAIRMAN. To increase its dignity?

Mr. BRITT. Just in this way, Mr. Chairman, that because of the numerous subdivisions of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, one of the most heavily-crowded bureaus in the whole Government, in practice the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is compelled to give practically the entire administration to a unit manager. It would pass from the status of a bureau instead of the status of a unit.

Mr. FOSTER. In that connection, as it is now, if a person is to be employed or discharged, legally the head of the Prohibition Unit has nothing to do with either, does he?

Mr. BRITT. Legally, appointments, promotions, and discharges are made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; but it would

not be correct to convey the impression that either would be done. without the advice and agreement of the Prohibition Commissioner.

Mr. FOSTER. I understand that. In other words, the head of the Prohibition Unit may or may not be able to hire or discharge, so far as the law is concerned?

Mr. BRITT. Legally speaking, that is true, sir.

Mr. FOSTER. And the person immediately over him, without any reflection on him, as I know Mr. Blair-but by virtue of his office, he can not keep in touch with the Prohibition Unit in such a way as a head is supposed to act.

Mr. BRITT. He can not directly and physically supervise it.

Mr. FOSTER. Is not that the reason you understand Mr. Mellon, who is over all of them, recommends this sort of legislation, in order to place the responsibility at the head. And then, if you had the civil service, with your whole force under civil service, with your one head, with that force under a responsible head, and he under Secretary Mellon, that would be a better working unit as you believe and as Secretary Mellon suggests to the committee?

Mr. BRITT. Yes.

Mr. PERLMAN. Practically, who makes the appointments?

Mr. BRITT. As has just been said, they are made legally by the Commissioner of Internal Revnue; but practically they are made advisorily by the Prohibition Commissioner and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. They advise together and decide what should

be done.

Mr. PERLMAN. Do you know of any case where the Commissoner of Internal Revenue himself made an appointment of his own accord of a prohibition inspector?

Mr. BRITT. Of a prohibition inspector?

Mr. PERLMAN. Yes.

Mr. BRITT. So far as I know the appointments are made as a result of the joint conclusions of the Prohibition Commissioner and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Mr. PERLMAN. Who takes the initiative?

Mr. BRITT. They are generally made on recommendations through the various channels through which recommendations come.

Mr. FOSTER. If I am in the Prohibition Unit to-day and I am discharged, my discharge comes from Mr. Blair?

Mr. BRITT. Yes.

Mr. FOSTER. Never from anybody else?

Mr. BRITT. Nominally; no.

Mr. FOSTER. And if Mr. Blair wants to follow the recommendations of the prohibition head, he can or may not, as he sees fit.

Mr. BRITT. I want to say I do not know of any serious divisions of of opinion there; there has been quite harmonious action. There have been different viewpoints, as there always are, but quite harmonious action. Legally speaking, the discharge would be made by Commissioner Blair, just as you said.

Mr. FOSTER. I am asking whether you know of cases where Mr. Blair has not done as the head of the Prohibition Unit suggests. I am not going to press it at this time.

Mr. E. C. BROKMEYER (counsel for the National Association of Retail Druggists). May I ask Mr. Britt a question?

Mr. BROKMEYER. The purpose of my question is not to impugn the integrity of the statements made, but simply to bring out an explanation to correct a possible misapprehension created by a statement from the member of the committee from Ohio. I wish to ask Judge Britt whether or not the violations referred to in his statement in the nature of diversions of alcohol withdrawn, pertain exclusively to the misuse of the alcohol in the manufacture of medicine? The member of the committee from Ohio referred exclusively to medicines.

As I

Mr. BRITT. No; I did not refer exclusively to medicines. stated in the beginning, the list was picked out at random and promiscuously, and, while I can not say what the files are in each case, I assume they cover the entire category.

Mr. MONTAGUE. These violations you have mentioned there grew out of the misuse of alcohol, did they not?

Mr. BRITT. Yes.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Do the facts in every case show that that alcohol that was misused came from legalized distilleries, or could it be gotten from illegal distilleries-bootleg liquor?

Mr. BRITT. Well, originally the alcohol came from a legal distillery. Mr. MONTAGUE. Illegal?

Mr. BRITT. A legal distillery, originally. There are distilleries reported that redistil alcohol and remove the denaturant and make a form of potable liquors.

I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that in nothing I have said have I meant to reflect upon the gentlemen who have presented arguments in opposition to the bill. The way I came into it I have already explained. I am convinced of the views I have expressed here from actual experience. It is for that reason I have expressed them.

I wish to say also that it is my judgment that the enforcement of prohibition and the service generally would be improved by the passage of the bill and that no harm would come to the alcohol interests from it.

Mr. BOLES. Before you take your seat, I want to clear up the record a little as to the method of appointing these prohibition

agents.

Mr. BRITT. Yes.

Mr. BOIES. Is it not a fact, when a State prohibition enforcing officer needs help, that he recommends some one to the commissioner, and then the commissioner asks for the advice of the Congressman representing the district in which the man lives who wants the job? Mr. PERLMAN. Now, I might answer that.

Mr. BOIES. I want him to answer-and, so far as the Congressman knows, no other recommendations are made, and the State prohibition enforcing officer or the Congressman has no communication with any revenue officer?

Mr. PERLMAN. That does not apply in my county; it does not apply to New York, in my own district.

The CHAIRMAN. It does not apply to my district, I am sure.

Mr. BRITT. May I answer the gentleman's question? I am not an administrative officer and do not know these details. I assume

when it is proposed to appoint an officer that there is advice from different quarters, but in some instances it may be upon the independent action of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Prohibition Commissioner. I could not state with definiteness about that, not being an administrative officer.

Mr. BOISE. I have not inferred that is all the information that goes to the commissioner. I think that is the ground work in some sections.

Mr. HICKEY. I want the record to show that in the thirteenth Indiana district, that policy is not followed.

Mr. PERLMAN. For the whole city of New York, I want to say it is not the policy-for every district in the city of New York.

Mr. BOIES. If you gentlemen have a better machine, your system ought to go into the record.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Judge Britt, may I ask you: Was there any effort made at the time of the first prohibition act, or any amendments thereof subsequently, made, to introduce the feature of civil service in the selections for those appointments?

Mr. BRITT. There have been attempts at different times. I am not prepared to detail them, but others could.

CLOSING STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS C. CRAMTON

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to present a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee from the counsel of the United Medicine Manufacturers of America, expressing their attitude toward the bill and either to insert it or to have the clerk read it, if you will. The CHAIRMAN. I think he has been reading enough. We will simply insert it in the record.

Mr. HICKEY. Does it give the names of the parties?

Mr. CRAMTON. Not the names of the members of the organization. The organization consists of 196 manufacturers of patent medicines, including some of the largest in the country and is entirely an indorsement of the bill or, at least, a statement that they do not fear any undesirable interference with legitimate business under the prohibition commissioner.

Mr. HICKEY. But the names are not disclosed by the letter?

Mr. CRAMTON. Not the names of the members. There are 196. I could secure those and put them in if the committee desires it; but I feared it was a pretty long list.

(The letter above referred to is as follows:)

HON. GEORGE S. GRAHAM,

Chairman Judiciary Committee,

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 2, 1924.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: As a representative of the United Medicine Manufacturers of America I do not share the fear that has been expressed in this hearing concerning the effect of this measure, H. R. 6645. I am sure that all of the producers of alcoholic preparations, patent and proprietary medicines, who are dealing in legitimate products, want the law enforced honestly and effectively. Our experience in dealing with the enforcement department has been satisfactory and we have no reason to believe that if the enforcement activities were put under one responsible head there would be any change in their policy. I believe it eventually would make for efficiency to have these activities combined in one bureau. We could then, if there were any misunderstanding, failure or unreasonable policy promulgated, locate the responsibility.

The various producers of alcoholic preparations which are represented in our organization in my judgment have not been unduly hampered or delayed in securing the alcohol that is needed to make legitimate preparations. If there should be any difficulty we could secure our rights more speedily when these activities are all combined under one head than when they are separated and there is dual responsibility.

As a practical administrative problem it must be apparent to any one who has had experience in departmental matters that divided responsibilities and, possibly, diverse policies, inevitably result in confusion and defeat of the very ends sought. It is becoming more generally recognized now that the proper administration of the manufacture, distribution and use of industrial alcohol is the essence of the enforcement of national prohibition in the United States. This has always been apparent to a few who have made a close study of the situation and who recognized that the large whisky stock was only a passing factor. Without taking up any question of proper administrative functioning in the field it can be stated as axiomatic that the person to whom is delegated the function of enforcing the National Prohibition Act should be given control of the permissive features of the same Act, care being exercised at all times to see that proper discretion is exercised. guarding against both officials who dwell only on the permissive features as well as officials who dwell only on the prohibitive features.

Very respectfully yours,

CLINTON ROBB.

Mr. CRAMTON (continuing). In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, understanding that this completes the hearings, I do not desire to take any particular time of the committee, but just for a few moments to summarize. I think I should take this opportunity to call the attention of the committee to the fact that, in the case of one organization that is opposing this measure, and I think it is the only one that is opposing it of which that could be said, information quite inaccurate as to the purposes and progress of the bill is being given a wide circulation throughout the country. It chances that that organization, the National Association of Retail Druggists, is the one which has a membership most widely spread and in the districts of all Members of Congress, and to what extent such inaccuracies might cause the mail of various Members of Congress to become overbur dened, I do not know. In the issue of the N. A. R. D. Journal of March 6, in the first article headed "A dangerous measure," cluded this statement:

Recently, however, forces have been at work endeavoring to gain support for the measure by various offers of compromise, the latest of which is the proposal to establish the office of industrial alcohol commissioner to whom shall be assigned the duty of supervising the use of alcohol for industrial purposes. We understand that this proposal meets with favor in certain quarters. Whatever others may do or say regarding this sop that is offered to gain support for the Cramton Bill, we can only say with considerable emphasis that the retail druggists of the nation are not willing to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. I understand the hearings do demonstrate that there has been a very material sentiment for compromise in some quarters. Most of the gentlemen who have appeared urging or opposing amendments have taken that position. I desire to say, however, that neither I nor anyone else that I know of. who has been particularly interested in the passage of the bill, has either sought or indicated the possibility of considering such a compromise as is suggested. Again, on pages 952 and 953 of the same issue, under the head "Legislative news of the National Capital," it is said:

The only possible chance to defeat the Cramton bill lies in members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and all other Members of Congress, being made to understand that if it is proposed to make national prohibition