"Villainy wears many masks, none of which are more dangerous than virtue."- Sleepy Hollow

While searching the Livermore Heritage Guild microfilm Livermore Herald database for useful information, I came across many useful articles due to their meticulously cataloged indexes. I figured these articles may give me a general sense of what was going on: outrage, support, or distaste for Prohibition. But when I began reading an article from page three of the Herald from October 16, 1920, I saw that there was also conflict going on within the various government agencies.

The article was titled, "Wine-making at Home is Now Permitted," with a subtitle stating, "Revenue Department Makes Ruling on Manufacture of 200 Gallons." Apparently, Justus Wardell, the head collector for the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) of the San Francisco district is not terribly fond of Prohibition. After interpreting "certain provisions" of the Prohibition Act he announced that it is legal to make up to 200 gallons of dry wine for family use without being taxed. The article expresses public sentiments by wondering whether or not this interpretation will be backed up by the prohibition enforcement agents, who may take a different view.

The government was putting forth conflicting statements. This shows that not only were there many people in positions of power not supporting the 18th amendment, but the government was not supporting its own laws. Below is the aforementioned article, following an excerpt. You will notice that below the article is an advertisement showing voters how to vote No on Prop 2, which was a Prohibition Enforcement Act.

"PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT. Submitted to electors by referendum. Defines intoxicating liquor as that containing over one-half per cent of alcohol; with certain exceptions relating to religious, medicinal and home use, prohibits the manufacture, possession, receiving, serving, gift and transportation thereof, and also the advertising and soliciting the sale thereof, for beverage purposes; declares nothing therein shall authorize anything prohibited by any Act of Congress, nor limit the power of any city or county to prohibit the manufacture and sale of such liquor; regulates the dealing in intoxicating liquor for non-beverage purposes; and describes penalties."

Just a month previously, on the front page of the September 4, 1920 Livermore Herald, it was announced that Justus S. Wardell was lawfully instituting policies taxing activities that were unlawful. The excerpt is below, followed by the actual article:

"'Declarations of Intention' to make wine at home will not be accepted this season by the Internal Revenue service, it was announced this week by Justus S. Wardell, Collector of Internal Revenue at San Francisco. It was unlawful [sic] last year, under wartime prohibition, to make wine at home, nevertheless the revenue service made up a form of declaration which was signed by 25,000 residents of Northern California and Nevada. Each paid $5 penalty.

But this year, according to Justus S. Wardell, Collector of Internal Revenue, the department is only concerned with tax-collecting on liquors, incomes, luxuries and the like, and is not interested in the enforcement of the prohibition law. If any liquor is made, at home or elsewhere, however, Wardell will see that the tax is paid on it."

I mentioned this article to my boyfriend, since I had to read over it about 5 times to make sure I understood exactly what it was saying. When I asked him to help me interpret it, he got it immediately and told me it was like the tax on cocaine stamps in one of the fifty states that he heard about on the radio a few years ago. So, I looked it up, and in Kansas the Department of Revenue has a policy of taxing illegal substances that requires drug dealers to purchase drug tax stamps. While the stamps do not make drug possession legal, it does mean that tax evasion can be added to charges against those caught for possession. If you would like to read further into the Drug Tax Stamp of Kansas, feel free to click on the blue link.

It is kind of ironic that the government tries to tax citizens for something illegal. Obviously if someone is using, selling, or in possession of an illegal substance, they are not going to want to be taxed for it, because it can be lead back to them. So if they get caught they get tax evasion added to their already substantial penalty.