Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-02-26
Prohibition Not the Issue

Prohibition is not the issue involved in House Bill No. II, pro-
viding a special law enforcement officer The Tribune's position on
this bill has been challenged on the ground that we are opposed
to prohibition. Such is not the case. Since the trainers OF the
constitution wrote the prohibition plank into our organic law, The
Tribune has been a supporter and an advocate Of prohibition.
It is just as strong an advocate Of prohibition today. The
cause of prohibition is not involved in House Bill No. Il. This is
just where the issue is clouded and many well intenhoned men are
being misled. The bill provides an additional peace officer to
enforce the liquor laws, thus shifting the burden from the states
attorneys, the attorney generals office, sheriff office and other
administrative officials now charged with prosecution under the
liquor laws. #
In other words we are letting down the bars 50 that Y is posi-
bic for our present peace offers to make a goat out Of the law
enforcement official.
Most emphatcaly this act is not in the. interests Of law en-
forcement, but will operate directly to the benefit Of the blind
piggers and the booteggers.
The bill in effect, although not specifically, substitutes one man
as responsible, for the enforcement Of our liquor laws and divides
a responsibility now rgidly imposed on certain officers Of the
law.
1t is unfortunate that the good men and women lobbying for
this bill fail to see that they are letting down the bars and provid-
ing weakened states attorneys and other officers an excuse for not
enforcing the liquor laws.
Every lawyer in the senate knows this to be true.
What is %everybody's business is nobody business. The theory
Of this bill carried into the administration Of our other laws would
work confusion. Why a double scheme Of enforcement for our
liquor laws and not for all lawsg
Can the advocates Of House Bill No. Il answer that question
squarely and fairly?
The lawyers in the senate know that the bill is clearly un-
OUher members VINO are not attorneys can easily
ascertain whether this law will pass the fire Of the courts.
1t is not a matter of aligning ourselves with the whiskey in.
terest in opposing this measure. House Bill No. Il should stand
the same test as other measures. Because a faction Of the prohib-
ition forces is clamoring for its passage is no valid reason why the
senate should wave all reason aside and pass what is clearly an I'M
constitutional measure. #
The issue Of prohibition or Of Rev. Watkins is not involved SO
much as the wisdom Of embarking on this class Of legislation. If
the state is going to create special enforcement officers for one class
Of laws where is the line to be drawn?
1t is a we'll known rule Of practice that where you divide
the responsibility Of enforcing law, you weaken rather than strength
en- that law.
The prohibitonists whose cause we have long espoused are
working directly against theifsinterests IN insisting upon. House
Bill II. If the law is not killed by the supreme court early in it's
life, the members Of the state W. CT. U. will realize this and be
among the first to urge its repeal
Not all the friends Of prohibition however are in favor Of this
bill The Tribune happens to agree with the thousands Of prohb-
ltlonnsts who oppose@the bill on the ground that it will lessen rather
than strengthen the enforcement Of our liquor laws.