Los Angeles herald., 1910-01-09
LAW ENFORCEMENT

kkIN HE Enforcement of Law" is the
title of a most impressive and
- timely article IN the January
Forum. The writer is Theodore Roose-
welt. 1t is a reprint of an article
Colonel Roosevelt wrote years ago.
when the question of a rigid interpre-
tation and enforcement of the excise
law was causing much controversy and
not little excitement in the nations
commercial metropolis.
Theodore Roosevelt, at that time
police commissioner, was assailed for
enforcing the Sunday closing law.
Until Roosevelt appeared on the scene
the officialdom of New York was COM
posed Of free and easy politicians, who
believed laws ought to be interpreted
and administered along lines which
would bring most votes, most offices
and most power to the political party
which controlled the police work of
the city.
Roosevelt's attitude from the first
was one Of uncompromising recognition
of the spirit and the letter Of the law,
in Jot and little, article and particle.
"If the law doesn't suit you" he
said to his critics mend 1t. But don't
find fault with me for insisting that
a law should be obeyed."
In reply to the numerous ferocious
and splenetic attacks provoked by his
good American attitude, Colonel Roose-
welt asked ''the privilege of the floor,
in the Forum, and wrote the follow
ing, which holds good in Los Angeles
and every other American city today:
1.-THE question at issue in New York
city just at present is much more i'm
portant than the question of a more
or less liberal Sunday excise law. The
question is as to whether public Of
fcials are to be true to their oaths of
office and see that the law is ad-
ministered in good faith. The police
board stands squarely in favor of the
honest enforcement of the law. Our
opponents of every grade and of every
shade of political belief take the posi-
ton that government officials, who
have sworn to enforce .the law, shall
violate their oaths whenever they
think it will please a sufficient num-
Der of the public to make the viola
tion worth while. 1t seems almost in
credible that in such a controversy it
should be necessary to do mora than
state in precise terms both PROPOSE
tions. Yet it evidently is necessary.
Not only have the wealthy brewers
and liquor sellers, whose illegal busi-
ness was interfered with, venomously
attacked the commissioners for en-
forcing the law, but they have been
joined by the major portion of the
New York press, and by the very large
mass of voters who put the gratifica-
ton Of appetite above all law. These
squarely and fairly. They have tried
to befog it and to raise false issues.
They have especially sought to change
the fight from the simple principle of
the enforcement of law into a contest
as to the extent of the restrictions
which should properly be placed on the
sale of liquors. They do not deny that
we have enforced the law with fair
ness and impartiality, but they insist
that we ought to conniye at law
breaking.
ION entering office we found what
indeed had long been a matter of COM
mon notoriety-the various laws. and
notably the excise law, were enforced
rigidly against people who had no
political pull, but were not enforced
at all against the men who had a
political pull, i. or who possessed suf-
ficient means to buy off the high Of
ficials who controlled or had influence
in the police department. All that we
did was to enforce these laws, not
against some wrongdoers, but honestly
and impartially against all wrong
doers. We did not resurrect dead laws;
we did not start a crusade to enforce
blue laws. All that we did was to
take law which was very much alive,
but which had been used only for pur-
poses Of blackmai, and to do away
entirely with the blackmail feature by