Wickersham Commission
The Wickersham Commission, formally known as the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, was a blue-ribbon panel established by U.S. President Herbert Hoover on May 20, 1929, to examine the failures in enforcing Prohibition and other federal laws amid rising crime and corruption.[1][2] Chaired by former Attorney General George W. Wickersham, the 11-member body included lawyers, academics, and public officials who conducted nationwide investigations, hearings, and field studies over 21 months.[3][4] In January 1931, it released 14 detailed reports documenting systemic enforcement breakdowns under the Eighteenth Amendment, attributing them to inadequate resources, public non-compliance, and official graft, while concluding that outright repeal was inadvisable but stricter measures and constitutional alternatives were needed.[5][6] A landmark volume, Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement, exposed widespread police use of the "third degree"—physical coercion and torture to extract confessions—across major cities, urging reforms in interrogation practices and prosecutorial oversight despite resistance from law enforcement interests.[7] Though Hoover initially withheld the findings to avoid political fallout, the Commission's empirical revelations influenced later criminal justice inquiries and underscored the causal links between unenforceable moral legislation and institutional decay, without yielding immediate policy shifts before Prohibition's 1933 demise.[8][9]Establishment and Mandate
Creation by President Hoover
President Herbert Hoover established the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement on May 20, 1929, amid mounting concerns over the breakdown in law enforcement and the proliferation of organized crime linked to the Prohibition era.[1] The initiative responded to widespread reports of corruption, ineffective federal and state policing, and public dissatisfaction with the enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment, which had banned the production and sale of alcohol since 1920.[10] Hoover, a proponent of Prohibition, sought an impartial investigation to identify systemic failures without committing to repeal, framing the commission as a tool for strengthening the rule of law.[9] The commission's creation was enabled by the Supplemental Appropriation Act approved by Congress on March 4, 1929, which allocated funds for a comprehensive study of criminal justice administration across the United States.[11] Hoover personally selected George W. Wickersham, a former U.S. Attorney General under President Taft known for his legal expertise and progressive reform views, to chair the 11-member panel comprising lawyers, judges, and academics.[3] This body, informally dubbed the Wickersham Commission after its chairman, was tasked with examining not only Prohibition enforcement but also broader issues in police practices, judicial processes, and penal systems.[6] Hoover's decision reflected first-hand awareness of enforcement challenges gained during his tenure as Secretary of Commerce, where he observed federal agencies' struggles with bootlegging networks and urban vice.[12] By May 28, 1929, Hoover convened the commission's inaugural meeting, signaling urgency in addressing what he described as a national crisis in law observance that threatened public order and governmental authority.[13] The establishment marked a pivotal effort to apply empirical scrutiny to policy shortcomings, prioritizing data-driven recommendations over ideological commitments.[1]Official Objectives and Scope
President Herbert Hoover created the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement on May 20, 1929, charging it with investigating the enforcement of federal laws, particularly the Eighteenth Amendment prohibiting alcohol, amid rising organized crime and public disregard for Prohibition.[5] The official mandate emphasized a thorough inquiry into causes of lax law observance and enforcement failures, extending beyond Prohibition to encompass the broader criminal justice system, including federal, state, and local practices.[14] Hoover directed the commission to determine facts on disobedience of law, abuses in enforcement, and the growth of criminal organizations, aiming for constructive recommendations to restore public respect and support for legal authority.[14] This included analyzing attitudes toward law generally, rather than isolating specific statutes or jurisdictions, with an emphasis on factual analysis over hasty judgments.[14] The scope encompassed comprehensive surveys of policing, prosecution, judicial processes, penal institutions, and crime prevention strategies, marking the first federal effort to systematically evaluate the U.S. criminal justice apparatus.[1] Funded by a $250,000 appropriation under the Supplemental Appropriation Act of May 28, 1929, the commission produced 14 reports detailing enforcement challenges, police misconduct, and policy reforms, though its Prohibition-focused findings notably avoided outright repeal advocacy despite documenting widespread violations.[11][5]Membership and Organization
Selection of Commissioners
President Herbert Hoover established the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement—commonly known as the Wickersham Commission—through executive action on May 20, 1929, shortly after assuming office.[1] Hoover personally selected the eleven commissioners, drawing from prominent figures in law, academia, and government to form a panel perceived as impartial and expert-driven, aligning with his campaign pledge to address systemic failures in Prohibition enforcement and broader criminal justice issues.[10] [12] The appointments emphasized individuals with established reputations, avoiding direct political appointees to enhance credibility amid public skepticism toward federal initiatives.[6] George Woodward Wickersham, who served as U.S. Attorney General from 1909 to 1913 under President William Howard Taft, was appointed chairman for his extensive legal experience and prior role in shaping federal policy.[15] Other key members included Newton D. Baker, former Secretary of War during World War I; Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School and a leading legal scholar; Ada Comstock, sociologist and president of Radcliffe College; and federal judge Paul J. McCormick.[1] [6] This composition reflected Hoover's strategy of recruiting "recognized experts" from diverse professional walks to conduct thorough, evidence-based inquiries rather than ideologically driven reviews.[12] The selection process lacked formal congressional oversight or public nominations, proceeding as a unilateral presidential prerogative under executive authority to convene advisory bodies.[11] Critics later noted the panel's predominantly establishment-oriented makeup, with limited representation from enforcement practitioners, potentially biasing toward theoretical rather than operational perspectives on law observance.[16] Nonetheless, the appointees' collective stature—encompassing former cabinet officials, jurists, and academics—underscored Hoover's aim for a commission that could command respect and produce actionable recommendations grounded in professional insight.[6]Internal Structure and Leadership
George W. Wickersham, former U.S. Attorney General under President William Howard Taft from March 5, 1909, to March 5, 1913, served as chairman of the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement.[17] In this role, Wickersham directed the overall investigative agenda, coordinated the work of commission members, and oversaw the compilation of findings into multiple reports submitted to President Herbert Hoover.[4] As a distinguished corporate lawyer and advocate for legal reform, Wickersham emphasized empirical analysis of enforcement challenges, though internal debates among members sometimes challenged unified leadership.[18] The commission's internal structure comprised 11 members, each appointed to head one of 11 specialized committees tasked with examining distinct facets of the mandate, including Prohibition enforcement, police misconduct, and judicial processes.[11] This decentralized organization allowed parallel investigations but relied on Wickersham's chairmanship to synthesize results and maintain focus amid varying member perspectives, such as those from legal scholars like Roscoe Pound and judicial figures like Paul J. McCormick.[3] Committees operated semi-autonomously, drawing on expert advisors and field inquiries, with central staff support for research and logistics.[19] Leadership dynamics reflected the commission's ad hoc nature, with Wickersham exercising authority through plenary sessions while deferring to committee heads for substantive work; however, no formal vice-chair or executive committee was established, leading to reliance on informal consensus.[1] This structure facilitated comprehensive coverage but contributed to delays, as committees submitted findings independently between 1930 and 1931.[6]Investigative Process
Methods of Inquiry
The National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, commonly known as the Wickersham Commission, organized its inquiry through a decentralized structure of 11 specialized subcommittees, each chaired by one of the commissioners and tasked with examining discrete facets of law enforcement, such as Prohibition compliance, police administration, and the causes of crime. This subcommittee framework facilitated targeted investigations, drawing on staff researchers to compile data from federal, state, and local agencies, including arrest records, conviction rates, and operational reports from prohibition enforcement units.[11] Field studies formed a core component of the methodology, involving on-site examinations of police departments in major cities to assess enforcement practices, citizen interactions, and institutional challenges like political interference in policing. These efforts produced empirical insights into operational failures, such as inadequate detection of criminals and short tenures for police chiefs, without relying on public hearings but instead prioritizing direct observation and confidential consultations with practitioners.[12][20] To supplement primary data collection, the commission engaged academic and legal experts as consultants, notably commissioning analyses from Harvard Law School faculty for reports on issues like the "third degree" interrogation tactics, which involved reviewing case files and historical precedents to evaluate systemic misconduct. Quantitative methods included aggregating national crime statistics and cost estimates, enabling a data-driven evaluation of enforcement efficacy across jurisdictions.[1][7] This approach emphasized evidentiary rigor over partisan debate, though internal divisions among commissioners later influenced report interpretations; the process spanned from June 1929 to early 1931, culminating in 14 volumes synthesizing findings from diverse sources without formal adversarial proceedings.[11]Key Investigations Conducted
The Wickersham Commission conducted extensive field studies and data analyses into the enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment, identifying primary sources of illegal alcohol such as foreign importation, domestic illicit distillation, and diversion from medicinal and sacramental allowances, alongside rampant corruption among federal agents and local officials that undermined compliance efforts.[21] These investigations, spanning 1929 to 1931, revealed that economic incentives from bootlegging profits—often exceeding legitimate business returns—fueled organized evasion, straining federal resources with over 172,600 still seizures reported in a single year by the Treasury Department, yet minimal impact on supply.[5] The commission evaluated enforcement machinery, including interagency coordination failures and judicial overload from alcohol-related cases, while assessing alternatives like statutory revisions or outright repeal.[21] A parallel investigation targeted systemic misconduct in policing, focusing on the "third degree"—coercive tactics such as physical beatings, prolonged incommunicado detention, threats to family, and torture to extract confessions—which violated due process and personal liberty rights.[7] Staff examined practices across 15 cities, reviewing state statutes, documented brutality cases, and municipal responses, finding widespread prevalence of such methods as of 1931, with courts frequently overturning convictions reliant on coerced evidence.[7] Appendices compiled geographical data on incidents, highlighting how these abuses eroded public trust and perpetuated cycles of law evasion, particularly in vice and prohibition-related arrests.[7] Broader inquiries encompassed national criminal statistics to quantify crime trends and causation factors, including economic disparity and urban migration, as well as prosecution workflows to diagnose delays in case handling from arrest to trial.[22] These efforts involved compiling data from federal and local agencies, consulting criminologists, and analyzing judicial bottlenecks, revealing inefficiencies like overburdened dockets and inconsistent evidentiary standards that hampered overall law observance.[22] The commission's methods emphasized empirical review over anecdotal testimony, drawing on Treasury and Justice Department records to substantiate claims of enforcement shortfalls.[5]Findings on Prohibition Enforcement
Evidence of Enforcement Failures
The Wickersham Commission's Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws detailed systemic failures in implementing the Eighteenth Amendment, attributing them primarily to corruption, insufficient resources, public disregard, and the economic incentives fostering organized illicit operations. Enforcement efforts yielded limited results despite increased federal appropriations from $3.1 million in 1920 to $14.9 million in 1930, as illicit alcohol production and distribution persisted on a massive scale.[5] The report highlighted that federal Prohibition agents, often underpaid and poorly trained, numbered only about 1,786 in the field force by fiscal year 1930, facing opposition from tens of thousands involved in bootlegging backed by billions in annual revenues.[5] Corruption permeated enforcement agencies, with 1,604 Prohibition Bureau personnel dismissed for causes such as bribery and extortion between 1919 and 1930, alongside 148 convictions of officers and employees for crimes from 1920 to 1926.[5] Local police forces frequently colluded with bootleggers, as evidenced in Philadelphia where a 1928 grand jury revealed officers depositing sums exceeding their salaries, indicative of graft from protecting speakeasies.[5] Federal agents were similarly compromised, with the report noting continuous corruption cases in the Prohibition administration and substantial indictments against personnel who accepted bribes to overlook large-scale distilleries and smuggling.[5] Such malfeasance extended to judicial leniency, as in Missouri where only 4 of 487 liquor defendants were imprisoned in 1926, with 96% of fines stayed or reduced.[5] Public non-compliance exacerbated enforcement breakdowns, particularly in urban centers where widespread drinking occurred in homes, clubs, and events, often with indifference or hostility toward the law.[5] The report observed that large segments of law-abiding citizens patronized illegal liquor, rendering federal efforts futile without state cooperation; eight states, representing one-fourth of the population, had repealed or lacked supportive enforcement laws by the late 1920s.[5] Home production, including wine-making, proliferated due to legal ambiguities and cultural resistance, while organized crime capitalized on high profit margins—estimated at $2-3 billion annually from illicit traffic—to corrupt officials and expand operations like "beer rings" and smuggling syndicates.[5][23] Enforcement statistics underscored the disparity between actions taken and outcomes achieved. In fiscal year 1930, federal authorities handled 52,706 criminal cases involving 72,673 defendants, resulting in 44,484 convictions, yet seizures captured only a fraction of production: 16,180 distilleries, 8,138 stills, and 4,152,920 gallons of malt liquor, against estimated illicit outputs of 683,032,000 gallons of malt liquor, 118,320,300 gallons of wine, and 29,950,000 gallons of alcohol.[5] High personnel turnover at 39.78% annually in the enforcement branch further hampered effectiveness, compounded by inadequate border patrols—initially just 280 officers for smuggling hotspots like Detroit.[5] These metrics illustrated that Prohibition's structure incentivized evasion over deterrence, with bootlegging profits funding "murderous criminal organizations" that operated with relative impunity.[5]| Fiscal Year 1930 Enforcement Metrics | Value |
|---|---|
| Criminal Cases Filed | 52,706 |
| Defendants | 72,673 |
| Convictions | 44,484 |
| Distilleries Seized | 16,180 |
| Stills Seized | 8,138 |
| Estimated Illicit Malt Liquor Production (gallons) | 683,032,000 |