New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-22

ara grocars v;ctuallers. druggists-at whole
sale and at retail. by the puncheon, the bar
rel, the gallon, the quart, the pint' t"o si"''
drained over the counter. Expressmeh caii'ios
legally transport, railways cannot "''hv"'
criminality carry this merchandise into tne
country, and yet both expressmen anu ran-
ways do il constantly Liquors exposed Tor
sale. or in trnnsitu are liable to SEIZURE and
confiscation, but all the seizures and confsca-
tons are exceptions TO the rule. There is
State Police especially organized tn enforce
this law. which has proved totally inefficient,
vastly more ornamental than useful, and
much more expensive than either. The
true test of tho practical efficiency
of tho law il TO be found in
tho respect and obedience paid to 1t in the
City of Boston, because there the police are
most numerous and most thoroughly. organ
| ized5 and there the Law is most openly afar
we may Say, impudontly defed. Naturally the
friends of the law have appealed with elo-
quence Of speech, with the still greater elo-
quence of facts, to the Board of Aldermen,
which is, in reality. the highest police force
in the city. Upon this appeal hearing was
ordered, and the Rev. Messrs. Miner, Vibbert,
rhetoric upon the AldenDanic heart. The
Board was good enough to refer the whole
matter, not TO n special committee, as should
have been done, but to the Committee on
Police. Their report is one OF the most curious,
amusing. and at the same time, melancholy
municipal documents which it has cvey been
orr fortune to pcruse-and that is saying IA
great deal
In considering this matter it is necessary 10
keep constantly in view, 1. The TACT OIL
the law g. The duties of Aldermen and the
Police. If it. il MT the duty Of Aldermen to
see that all laws are obeyed, and OF the Police
TO take like cOgnizance OF gross ana open
violations OF law, then it is hard to see the
Use of Aldermen and Police ut all. The
position is just this: The hquOr-dealers laugh
st the statute; the Police see it spit upon
every day and refuse to interfere; and the
Aldermen, knowing the utter and cuipable
N Efficiency of the Police, fold their Tat hands
and say that as they haven't in any instance
INSTRUCTED the Police not to enforce tho
"law,r they really do not see why people
shonld bother them with petitions. They are
not responsible. The police are not response
BILE. Nobody is responsible; so that, as re-
mcnts of the General Court, the City of
Boston is to-day without any Government at
all. This is bad enough, but the excuse Offered
by the Civic PatrIarchs is worse still. Ii
| ' the Police" they say, "haYe failed to show
/" a. much energy in the execution OF the Pro-
" hibtory Law ~ they have shown in tho ex-
| ecution of other criminal laws, 1T is because
that law in its present form il obnoxious to
the sentiments Of the community" In the
name Of all that i eallea, government,
what an astonishing confession Is TINS!
When ever before has 1T been as
sumed that policemen, in the discharge
of their duties, are to be governed by what
they conjecture to be "the sentiments of the
community" We have yet to learn that it
will be safe TO allow the Gentlemen of the
Locust and the Badge to inquire into the pop
ularity Of law before they execute it. If
this discrimination could under any circum-
stances be properly and safely permitted, the
law makers in the State should have sent
down TO the Chief of Police to ask his advice
and consent before enacting Prohibition They
did nothing of the kind-it probably never
occurred to them that the police captains,
and sergeants, and rOundsmen possessed a
power of vetoing laws. Why, Mayor and
Aldermen and Common Councilmen and
the Chief of Police and tue Policemen
themselves are all the creatures of the Legis-
lature. They exist by no greater and no bet
ter authority than the Prohibitory Law itself
Suppose that these'legislating Policemen them
selves should become " obnoxious to the SEN
timents of the community" Suppose that
even these sagacious Aldermen should become
"obnoxious.' Where are we to stop, if we
adopt these sentimental ideas of executive
public duty If the community is to be
allowed such indulgences, why not the indi-
viduas of whom the community is composed
What in short, is to save any community
from anarchyi In view of the alarming
license, the mischievOus latitudinarianism to
which the Boston Board of Aldermen have
given official sanction, the question of Prohi-
btion or No Prohibition becomes of secondary
Importance. The matter is one of Law or of
No Law at all.
------------------