pay of special assistant attorneys for the current year is made available to the amount of $200,000.

Mr. HUSTED. When did special items for the enforcement of the prohibition act first appear in the appropriation legislation?

Mr. HOLLAND. Following the enactment of the Volstead Act and as part of that act itself.

Mr. HUSTED. Have special items been included annually since the Volstead Act was passed?

Mr. HOLLAND. No; they have not.

Mr. HUSTED. When did these special items first appear in any appropriation bills?

Mr. HOLLAND. They appeared in the estimates of 1921.

Mr. TINKHAM. Will you give me the philosophy of why there should be a special item in relation to prohibition as a crime and no special item in relation to such things as the narcotic act, for instance, if that is true?

Mr. HOLLAND. I suppose the answer to that is that this law is new and its enforcement is a very serious problem confronting not only the department but the country in general; and by reason of that it is called especially to your attention at this time. The regulations of our department are necessarily to some extent in the formative period.

Mr. TINKHAM. I was talking with the Solicitor General when you were explaining what these employees were to do. I assume that that has been explained. Will you tell me shortly and briefly what the experts, clerks, and other employees in the District of Columbia and elsewhere are to do, specifically?

Mr. HOLLAND. Well, by reason of the additional work which has been thrown into our department in connection with this prohibition enforcement law, it is necessary for us to have additional clerical help in the department; also, when we put special attorneys in the field to try our cases they must have help. There is no use putting them out unless we can give them the necessary assistance which they need in the way of clerk hire, stenographers, expert witnesses, chemical analysts, who inspect the samples introduced in the course of testimony, and all those additional things with which the attorney must necessarily be armed in the prosecution of his case.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, it would appear as if it were necessary to establish a special bureau, as it were, in the Department of Justice for this class of crime.

Mr. HOLLAND. It almost amounts to that at this time.

INCREASED NUMBER OF CASES UNDER ACT.

Mr. TINKHAM. Can you say anything about the increase of cases under that act?

Mr. HOLLAND. I can give you the exact data on that.

Mr. TINKHAM. I think it would be very valuable.

Mr. HOLLAND. I think there were 31,000 cases, but I can get the exact figures for you. In round figures, there were 31,000 cases for the year just ended, as against 8,000 cases for the preceding fiscal year. In other words, there was an increase of something like 23,000 cases.

94584-22-PT 26

Mr. TINKHAM. From the returns, if you have any, is there an indication that those cases are increasing now?

Mr. HOLLAND. What do you mean by the word "increasing"?
Mr. TINKHAM. For the last fiscal year.

Mr. HOLLAND. For the last fiscal year ?

Mr. TINKHAM. Since then, have you any data?

Mr. HOLLAND. No; we have not. That information is not available to us at this time.

Mr. TINKHAM. Will you have inserted in the record the report of the number of cases since the Volstead Act has been in effect that have been brought in various ways to the attention, officially, of the department, by years, up to your latest figures ?

Mr. HOLLAND. We will be very glad to do that, but I think our register closes with the fiscal year 1921. In other words, if we should get it down as nearly to this date as possible we would have to circularize all of the district attorneys, and it would require, perhaps. three months' time to get it--two months' time, anyway.

Mr. HUSTED. If this item is carried in the bill, will any other funds be drawn upon by the department in the enforcement of the prohibition act?

Mr. HOLLAND. They certainly would. This does not include the item of specail assistants that we are employing in connection with the enforcement of the national prohibition act. If I remember correctly, we now have 32 assistants employed especially in that, and, as a matter of fact, there are really more so employed. That is for this reason: We find the time of the regular assistants to the United States attorneys taken up in handling prohibition matters. They make demand on us not for the appointment of some one specially to try prohibition cases, but to try other cases which have to be neglected because the regular force is engaged on prohibition enforcement cases. Consequently, this showing is not a correct showing, because there are some of these other special assistants that would not be on our pay rolls but for the fact that the time of the regular assistants is taken up in prohibition matters, notwithstanding that we have 32 special assistants now actually working on those cases, assigned specially on them, and as the Attorney General said this morning, we estimate that we should have 25 more at this time.

Mr. TINKHAM. It seems to me, too, at this point in the hearing that it might be well, although it is contained in the Attorney General's report, after you have given the full tabulation of these cases and disposition-what data you have for you to make a short summary of all of the cases identifiable by character in the department during the last fiscal year. You undoubtedly have that in the Attorney General's report. I think it would be well to have it in this hearing.