South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1919-07-13
PUBLIC POLICY AND THE POLICE
AS INVOLVED IN THE ZIMMER AND
DAMBACHER LIQUOR TANGLE

70 decide which way the should hold
There is generally sides a lawsuit, ard quite
generally findings OF law TO support both.
As a rule there are enough lawyers the legisla-
lures. these packing the judiciary committees.
to bills finally passed capable OF
any number OF interpretations The courts then. in
making those interpretations. always choose the
keeping with the judges concept OF a desirable
public policy with reference the particular
there you have it. the conflict judicial
clsions for and against most any legal proposition
you may 10 advance
II is on this basis due to this set OF conditions
that modern thousRt conscious Of the fact that
judges arc only human. with minds possessed Of
none Of the infaIIibnity ascribed to them in less
progressive ages insists that the rule laid down
least in words s far back Blackstone and Holt
and Kent that where a law is capable Of two inter-
pretatons. righI public policy-the best
% the publc,-and the most likely intent OF the
legislature IN harmony herewith. should govern.
Courts and judges may agree with us on what
Is right public policy-they cannot even agree
with each other number Of things,-and
appeals and injunctons. and writs Of prohibition.
ratified about like dice in hat-box. in an ef-
fort to get set aside another's orders.
Discussion OF public policy. then. must be a mat
Of public property. lest Prussia had nothing
in its system OF sutocratic dominance and public
opinion value a sham.
Take the local Grht between the prosecuting at
torney behalf of the state Indiana. the
chief of police, the preservation Of evidence
in the thinner Dambacher liquor cases. Assum-
ing that the prosecutor is wrong in his contention
and that the superior court judge has been wrong
in his findings. then what? Understand that we are
only assuming for the sake of argument that they
may be wrong; public policy. and the evident in
tent of the statutes involved. from viewpoint. at
least uphods them But higher courts may not
with US with them. which case we will
have to concede until that finding he reversed.
that such courts are at least right on the aw-and
then what the effect?
Indiana has prohibition law It has furnished
ali the incentive mo all the power that has been
exercised in these thinner and Dambacher cases
either directly approximately; the purpose being
To enforce the law the hand-and from a
certain point TO prevent enforc the appai-
eat purpose. the other hand. The purpose Of
that law is to prevent the manufacture and traffic
liquor. The police took the liquor from thinner
and Dambacher under that pretense. The prose-
cutOr caused thei- arrest with that design. The
superior court ordered the liquor brought aithin
the Jurisdiction Of the for use as evidence
the trials. this TO prevent its destruction or its
loss. through theft evaporation change quality
mystic powers with which the police are pretty
well known TO be endowed.
Now when the prohibition law was before the
legislature a counter act was brought before that
body. TO have the state take over the handling of
iiquor-as before tried in the state-some-
thing after the Holland system, but the legislature
threw it out and adopted existing law instead.
Evidently the legislature dill not believe police
departments in the various cities ut TO control or
supervise the dspensation of liquor in the state.
or even prohibit it, and thereupon conferred UNI
usual powers upon the prosecuting attorney and cit
izenry Of the state. in aid of the police. or in
spite Of them. Did the legislature by omission.
therefore intend constituting the police of the va
rious cities band of legalizcd 'bootlegeers" re-
sponsible TO one even the courts. empowering
them to take liquor under the prohibition law and
hold it. or dispose of Will. without prosecution
of the state offenders as attempted in this case?
Under the Holland law they would at least have
been responsible to the state.
Understand The legal question is not settled.
The injunction and prohibition proceedings only in
woke delays their worst enjoining the state and
protecting police department an irresponsible
''blnd-tiger" until that other question. the power
of the court superior TO preserve evidence in such
cases before IT, can be decided The disappear
ance OF liquor from the city hall and change Of
content. whether omission or commission on the
part OF the police, has become too proverbial 10 en-
dow them with any other title than "sty of blind
pigs" II omission" ii seems intentional because
haotuaI and the unwllingness to surrender its
hold on latest booty-what there is left of it,
is only another frmation.
II remains to be seen whether the legislature
which said the courts shall have power make all
proper judgments. sentences. DEGREES orders and
irjunctions. and 20 issue ali process and do such
other acts may be proper carry into ef-
:ect the same" viii be held by the them
selves intending grant them the power
10 protect the trials before them. against
'boot-leegers' OF the city hall variety.-defant OF
the efforts OF the state bring offenders of the pro-
hibition law justice That all there IT, II