Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1919-11-11
SCHAFFER EXPLAINS
CONCURRENT LAWS
Where National and State
Liquor Statutes Differ More
Drastic Prevails, He Says
DlSAGREES WITH B0NNIWELL

W tlSVNU'TV 10 lllhNP HulloHdl pI"HlUl- .
tion effective
He says there can ho no conflict roe.
ognizable in law between state and ma -
tional prohibition enforcement lcgisla d.
tiou.
lie says that whore ono form of law
Is more drastic than the other. whether
the more drastic law be of the state or
nation. the moro drastic law must pre-
vail.
This is Attorney General Schaffcr' s
answer to Judge Eugene Bonniwcll's as.
scrtion that "the state Of New Jersey
and the state of PENNSYLVANIA would be
obliged to adopt the provisions Of the
Volstead bill to legally enforce the pcn
altics in either of these statcs.
Judge Bonniwcll writing on the sta
tionerv of The Municipal Court Of which
he is n member, sent communication
to the EVENING pCBr1C EDGER No
vemher :. in which he developed at
length the argument that Governor
elect Edwards lof New Jersey is not
only standing upon his legal rights
when he declares that he will not aid
the enforcement Of the federal statute.
but he is doing his duty as an executive
of n sovereign state in protecting tho
uhorties Of thc pcoplc Of New Jersey
against the intolcrahlc interference of
bigots and fanatics--a duty. by the
way. in which the Governor Of Penn
svIyania has abjcctly failed in this re-
lation."
Bonniwell Wrong in His Law
Judge Bouniwcl's communication
was nrintcd on the editorial page of tho
EVENING PUBLIC LEDGER November
Z II was shown to Mr.. Schaffer. and
thc states chief law officer commented
on its salient points as follows
Judge Bonniwell SAYS: " the
word Concurrence means anything, u
means similar and. Identical. 1t would
therefore. follow that one of two prop
ositions is correct: First, either the
nation and state may each adopt such
LEGISLATION as they please. with the in
termirablc conflict which such a vari-
ancc would create: or. secondly. the
federal legislation must remain inopor-
ative as relates to the state of New
Jersey. as we'll as the state of Penn
sylvania. until concurrent legislation is
adopted.
In his law Concurrent, as legal
term, does not mean what he thinks
II means. He hasn't looked up his
law books.
" Concurrent jurisdiction is legally
defined as that of several different
tribunals. each authorized TO deal with
the same subject matter.
"What Judge Bonniwell has in mind
is that some action would be required
by the state Legislatures to make the
federal prohibition law effective,
This is not the case. 1t has been
hnll tbot thnrp
conflict between the laws of two juris
dictions. the law which is the more
restrictive in its character must pre-
vail.
"Hence. if Pennsylvania were to
enact n law that the alcoholic content
of beverages must not exceed / per
cent this law would come in confiic-
with the federal law that they must
not exceed one half of ! per cent in
alcoholic content. In such case the
federal law. being the more restrictive.
would prevail. 1t would prevail in
every case where a man was brought
before a federal court for infraction of
the law.
"This is where Judge Bonniwell is
wrong on the proposition. The federal
law would be supreme and no lawyer
would dare advise his client TO the
contrary because Uncle Sam has an
extremely long arm.
Judge BOnniwell, in his letter,
speaks of the 'ill-considered and un-
tenable opinion expressed in the veto
by the Governor of Pennsylvania of the
Ramsey act to the effect that the Con
gress have already decned that where
federal and state legislation is in con-
flict, the federal legislation operates
THE Governor of Pennsylvania was
right in vctoing the Ramsey act, for the
reason that it attempted to set a stand
ard alcoholic content which cont1icted
with that set by the federal govern
ment.
II am certain that if Judge Bonni-
we'll would step down from the bench
and take his place among us practicing
lawyers he would never advise his
clients to go against the federal law.
IF the states enact legislation to
enforce the eighteenth amendment, there
will be no conflict between the states
and the federal government. because a
man tried in the federal courts will
have the federal law measured out to
him, while a man tried in the state
courts will be tried according to the
requirements of the state law.
LAS a practical matter. persons will
observe the more drastic of the two
laws.a because they would be afraid 10
be brought before the federal courts il
the federal law were the more drastic /:
before the state courts if the state
law were the more drastic. The fed
eral law provided an alcoholic content
of one-h half of l per cent In some
states it is proposed that no alcoholic
content whatever be permitted. In
states where this more drastic state
provision becomes the law persons could
not sell beverages containing even as
much as one half of l per cent of alco-
hol. If they did they would be arrested
by the state officials and punished un.
der the state law.
''There is no danger that the gov.
ernor of New Jersey will not aid in
the enforcement of the law, as | see he
is quoted in an interview as saying
shat he will enforce the federal enact
ment provided it is not held to be uu-
constitutional.
Mr.. Schaffer was asked what he
thought of the propriety of a member
of the bench issuing statement such
as that made by Judge Bonpiweu.
1.-THE question Of the propriety Of a
Judge on the bench making such state
ment," Mr.. Schaffer answered, "re.
solves itself into question of good
taste. As in all matters of good taste,
a man simply has to reconcile it with
himself.
VAInMFMyn huJ 4 q nnnbATrn