The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1915-01-06
No iThifo5rrnlIii enforcement.

Tnere appears to-be no untfOrm en- :.
lforcement OF the prohibition law Of
this state. Its enforcement has been
locally established at various points
only by court Injunction, or rather
the prohibition of liquor shipments
has resulted from court injunctions,
(which. within themselves. do not spec
ificaily state that 1t is unlawful to
lship liquor into the state. Most OF
these intuncttons in general terms
command common carriers to use due
diligence and to act in good faith,
leaving 1t to the carriers to interpret
the law and run the risk OF punish
lment for violations as the courts may
tgee II. Resulting from such injnnc-
lions wherever issued, common car
riers have ceased to carry liquor
lsimply because of the fact. that they
desire to run no risk, or because Of
the yagueness OF the wording Of In
functions. Such injunctions, how
ever, when receiving the attention OF
federal Judges. are declared invalid.
For instance, in the eastern portion
LOT the state, a state injunction has
been declared wrong by a federal
Judge, and 1t is claimed that liquor
shipments can be made into that sec
ton OF the state, while in other sec
lions where federal court action has
mot been taken on local injlnctions
liquor is not received
! Conditions vary In different parts
lof the state and there Is no Uniform
enforcement. II this situation Is to
keep up, those who want absolute
Iprhoibition can readily see how i'm
lportant 1t is to have federal law on
the subject, a law which possibly can
mot exist without an amendment to
1.-The. constitution OF the United States
The Hunt ton Advertiser In the fol-
flowing, editorial discloses conditions
in that part of the state, which Inn
press one with the lack OF uniformity
iof enforcement Of the prohibit ton law :
| 1t ID stated that, during the holiday
season, four carloads OF booze day
were shipped from Catlettsburg into
dry, West Virginia. And this is from
but q single border shipping point
No account is taken Of the similar
quantities shipped from 1ronton, from
Portsmouth, from Cincinnati, from
lPocahoptas, from Roanoke, from
lRichmond, from Washington, from
Cumberland, from Baltimore, from
lEIagerstown, from Pittsburg, from
Marietta, from the; other towns and
cities near the border which are help
ling to quench the thirst Of dry
West virginians. ..astfi * IL
When such enormous quantities Of
lintoxicants are shipped into the state,
lit cannot be denied that state wide
prohibition law fails very materially
of the purpose for which 1t was enact
led.
X Many of the opponents Of national
lprohibi tionS declare that prohibition
| Is purely. a state matter, and that 1t
should be left to the states, without
national interference. The trouble Is
that the nation, so to speak, will not
fIet the states enforce prohibition when
they desire to do so. 1t is the shin
ment Of intoxicants! into dry states,
under the Interstate commerce law,
that initiates so strongly against the
enforcement of dry laws IN states in
which the voters have signified their
desire to DO away with; the sale and
use OF intoxicants. No state prohibi-
tom. law will be really effective. so
long as the interstate shipment Of
iintoxicants Is permitted to nu1lify the
state laws. .s z,
1 II is claimed by some that, under
the Webb.K Kenyon act. the prohibition
states have the power to prohibit
shipments from other states, but fed
| eral courts haye been very siiesitant
about upholding this right. and It is
lcertainly open TO- doubt whether such
prohibition Is not IN scontraventiori
to the provisions Of the federal con-
lstitution. !. < E !, g.
| AS a. matter Of fact, prohibition,
even. within state, cannot become
1.-THE effective. force for good that 1t
should be until there rs interstate, or
national prohibition. as well.