A letter from the Attorney General is appended herewith setting forth the urgency of the matter:
Hon. EDWIN Y. WEBB,
Chairman Committee on the Judiciary,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D. C., March 14, 1918.
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: The Department of Justice is confronted with what has become a very serious problem which seems to call for some action by Congress. I refer to the dispo sition of large quantities of intoxicating liquors now held by the United States court officials and which are rapidly accumulating in almost every dry district in the United States. Most of these liquors have been taken from persons violating the Reed amendment. That law does not provide for confiscation or forfeiture. The liquor is simply taken and held for use as evidence on the trial. After the trial it is rarely claimed, since to do so will generally bring the owner in conflict with the State laws.
Some liquor is seized under section 240 of the Penal Code. This law provides for confiscation and forfeiture to the United States. The procedure is for the court to order the liquor sold and the proceeds turned into the Treasury. This, in dry States, presents the question whether a Federal court should order liquor sold in a State whose laws forbid such sale.
Under the Reed amendment enormous quantities have been seized and are still being seized. In a number of districts several thousand gallons are now on hand. The law gives no authority to dispose of them, and at the present rate of accumulation the capacity of our public buildings to store them will soon be exhausted. The department is almost daily in receipt of letters from United States attorneys and marshals begging for instructions and calling attention to conditions which have become intolerable in the public buildings, but the law gives me no authority in the matter. I am, therefore, calling your attention to the facts in the hope that you may secure from Congress the much-needed relief and enable me to get rid of this stuff. You will see what is needed is a law that will first enable us to get rid of what is now on hand, and, second, provide a regular method of proceeding in the future. This is the same matter about which a representative of this department conferred with you recently, and, in accordance with your suggestion, I am inclosing a tentative draft of a bill intended to put into effect the views you then expressed.
The first section is intended to enable us to get rid of the stock now on hand where the cases have already been disposed of, leaving the liquor in the possession of the officials, and also in cases to be hereafter disposed of where, by reason of failure to apprehend the offender or for other reasons, there is no conviction and the liquor is left unclaimed. The provision, in cases already disposed of, gives the owner 60 days within which to claim his liquor and then directs its destruction, and in cases hereafter disposed of without a conviction, gives the owner 30 days to claim his property. This, I think, meets the idea suggested by you, in which I concur, that it will not be safe to order the destruction of liquor seized before the passage of this act without giving the owner an opportunity to claim it.
The second section provides that hereafter, in cases of conviction, the judgment shall order the destruction of the liquor, with a proviso that where the seizure has occurred before the passage of this act, the order to destroy shall be conditioned upon the owner not claiming it within 30 days.
The third section applies to liquors seized under section 240 of the Penal Code, and simply provides that, in dry States, they shall be destroyed instead of sold, as now provided by law.
The fourth section is intended to give the Government the right to use these liquors for nonbeverage purposes instead of destroying them, if that course is found to be advisable.
If any further data is required for your use or on any hearing before the committee, I will be glad to furnish it.
T. H. GREGORY, Attorney General.