BOOZE AT BOTTOM OF ALASKAN TO
U. S. Judge Is Peppery Witness at Senate Hearing.
JABS DR. WILSON.
Declares Methodist Leader Should Drop "True," His Middle Name.
by Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, March 26. -- Alaska's internal political troubles today furnished the talking point for the prohibition hubbub which is dinning the ears of Washington with increaing intensity as adjournment of congress draws near.
Judge Elmer Ritchie, of the Third federal district of Alaska, was the center of the quarrel, during which he advised Dr. Clarence True Wilson, of the Methodist board of morals, to drop his middle name. Elsewhere, in the senate, house and at the enforcement headquarters of the treasury there was activity in the way of enforcement orders, debate and bills designed to change the existing law.
The Bond Beverage Concerns.
In the day's collection of developments were a resolution by Senator Edge (Rep., N. J.), asking for a referendum on modification ; an order by the internal revenue bureau requiring cercal beverage manufacturers to post bonds; discussions in the house as to whether a farmer "likes his todya," and announcement by Assistant Secretary Andrews, in charge of prhibition work, that he is going to California to look over things on the Pacific coast.
Mr. Andrews asserted that most of the Pennsylvania manufacturers recently charged with illegal practices in handling alcohol had been dealt with before Governor Pinchot, of Pennsylvania, told Secretary Mellon their names.
The Alaskan angle of the general argument was brought about by a fight on the nomination of Judge Ritchie and the judge came to Washington to face his accuser, Delegate Sutherland.
Dr. Wilson Falsehood Retailer.
Sitting in the committee room of the senate judiciary committee, oppostie Mr. Sutherland, he said he would refrain from using ugly words but he considered Dr. Wilson, whose veracity was challenged Wednesday by Representative O'Connor of New York, to be not a falsifier but a retailer of falsehood. He resented remarks he said Dr. Wilson had made about enforcement conditions in the territory, and especially in his own district.
The committee went to great length in inquiring inot the judge's view on prohibition, the enforcement of which he said had given hijm great trouble.
Taking Drink Not Turpitude.
He asserted his belief that violation of the dry law was not evidence of moral turpitude. Then some one read into the record a statement quoting the judge as having declared that members of congress violatec the law. To this he replied that he knew of men of high standing who took a drink whenever they got a chance.
One federal judge, he said, assignmed to try liquor cases, had remarked that it was going to be hard work, and inquired as to where he could get something to "wet his whistle."
Nevertheless, Judge Ritchie insisted he had not upbraided prohibition enforcement. His own idstrict, he said, was as clean as any rural American community.
Delegate Sutherland read a letter from Sherman Duggan, former district attorney in Alaska, criticizing the judge as out of sympathy with prohibition, and making other charges, but the judge replied they were "malicious falsehoods."
The resolution of Senator Edge would authorize states and territorizes to conduct a referendum as to amendment of the Vilstead act. He said, "If the drys have no fear that public opinion has reversed itself, then it would seem they should unhesitatingly indorse this plan for a legal national showdown."
N. Y. Wets to Fore in House.
Three members of the house kept the argument going in that branch of congress. Representatives Black (Dem., N. Y.), Linthicum (Dem., Md.) and Weller (Dem., N. Y.). Mr. Black and Mr. Linchlcum talked about the high cost of enforcement, while Mr. Weller, reciting a contention htat women will smoke if they can't get liquor, added that "we have seen a lot of women smoking in the last five years." He also brought in the farmer, who, he said usually has his cellar supplied with older which gets harder and harder. The internal revenue bureau's order placing manufacturers under bond calls for bonds of $10,000 to $ 65,000. The step was taken in connection with the new revenue law, taking cereal beverages as a means of permitting inspectino by prohibition authorities to prevent high power beer making.