Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1919-12-13
Am Unconyinciu. Document

I Is III norway surprising that the several
1 thousand words OF premises, in which arc
embraced details OF the workings OF his de-
partment for the information OF the General
Assembly. should terminate i'll the inevitable
conclusion that the State Commissioner OF
Prohibition should have an appropriation of
S125.0O0 TO insure his adequate and I'M
trammeled functioning during the next two
years.
But the commissioner has failed to make ii
clear. and it is on this point that the General
Assembly will desire to be most fully in
formed. why the same OF even better results
than those claimed for the department could
not have been obtained by local officers had
there been no Prohibition Department In
other words, necessity OF the department TO
the proper enforcement Of the prohibition
laws must be amply demonstrated ii the
state Is TO continue TO bear the burden OF its
maintenance. AS yet this has not been done.
Neither does the commissioner make 4
strong case when he argues that discontinue
ancc OF his department. by throwing dry law
enforcement exclusively into the hands OF
the Federal authorities. would deprive the
schools OF the State of the $4,000 a year
they derive from this source. 1t is not con-
ceivable that there would be any change in
the enforcement methods or the trial of cases
except that law observance would be en-
forced by local officers in cooperation with
the Federal authorities, to the elimination
OF the commissioners constabuary. which in
many ways has made itself obnoxious. 1t is
beyond the point TO say that because the
Federal authorities cooperate with local Off
GERS in detecting violations and arresting vio-
tried in the Federal courts. Ii will require
more than that TO upset the jurisdiction of
the State courts. Not only would the State
not lose this revenue, but TO the $4,000
claimed TO have been turned over i'm excess
OF its upkeep, the State would have added the
total amount Of the departments expense had
its duties been performed, as they could and
should have been, by officers already paid TO
compel obedience 10 the prohibition as we'll
as to all other laws
No. the report is far from convincing. ex-
cept on the one point, that if the department
IS discontinued the commissioner and the
members OF his constabuary will lose their
preferred positions on the public pay roll It
IS particularly unconvncng in its plea for
sympathy because the departments agents
nave been CRITICIZED for brutally trampling
on the rights of citizens, searching their bag
gage without due process OF law, making
themselves obnoxious 10 passengers on trains
holding up innocent persons in automobiles
on the public highways and subjecting them
10 indignities. and doing hundred and one
thinas IN the alleged discharge Of their
aulics that nave outraged patient and long
suhering public Certainly the department
has been criticized for permitting and en-
conrasing these things; otherwise, its high
handed methods might have been carried 10
an even greater extreme Nor does the re-
port convince the public that local officers
nave deliberately obstructed the prohibition
agents in their work because they have de-
iayed strangers carrying concealed wea-
pons, or halted them in their wild pursuit Of
suspected bootleggcrs through city's streets
lad they not done these things they would
nave been dcrelict in their sworn duties
Again, the report is not convincing when
1t speaks OF hired prosecution" in connection
With the departments agents who killed TWO
oootlegsers in the Valley. nas.nuch as it
Is the Commonwealth that is pressing the
cases and paying both for the prosecution and
the defense.
All in all, Inc lengthy documen, falls far
snort Of its purpose which, in brief is a plea
Tor continued power and more funds. That
IL does fall short will be more in evidence
"hcn the General Assembly, in the light OF a
vastly changed public sentiment, comes 10
console! It's apnrOpTiaiions