The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1921-04-09
"The National Crime"
Public Opinion Blamed. But What
is the Pubic's Opinion?

YOU READ YESTERDAY we assume, The Stars
l.. detailed account of what one Star headwriter
has dubbed "The National Crme"-bootcggng.
Some interesting questions raised These qucs-
tons cannot be answered decided in editorial
sanctum. We pass them on to readers
We would like to hear from the people OF the North
west just what they think of the bootlcgging question
of the failure of prohibition, of the wide
spread and open defiance of the dry laws and the dry
agents. of the judicial decisions that protecting
the sancty and invioability of the Great American
Home, also make the tasks of the prohibition officers
more difficult.
The generally accepted excuse for non-enforce-
ment of the prohibition laws Isl Public opinion isn't
behind it,"
Are we to accept that a true and valid excuse!
Or is il merely that the public opinion with which law
enforcement officers come in contact not behind pro-
hibition but that there is another public opinion,
greater altho silent public opinion, that DOES want
the dry laws enforced and that would like to vo-
lators of the Eighteenth amendment placed in cells,
matter what their station in life wealth provo
cation2
Was the Eighteenth amendment mistake?
Not long ago a learned minister Of the gospel,
whose heart had been in the prohibition movement,
declared in Seattle that prohibition had come too sud-
deny that had it come more gradually, il would not
have made q nation of criminals.
If extreme prohibtonist feels that way, what
do the millions of other citizens in this country feel?
Another minister almost prominent as the first,
recently said to the the writer of these lines: rm
your efforts react against the liquor traffic, I'm not
with you. have home brew in my own garrett"
TT HAS LONG BEEN OUR THEORY that the op-
ponents Of prohibition were not as numerous as
the volume of their protest would Indicate
There are believed, millions of quiet, industrf-
Gus, home people, who believed in the prohibi
ton law, and wanted il enforced-who may have
used beer wine in the old days." but preferred to
foreso their beverages in the hope that SHINE one
might be benefited.
The public opinion Of the downtown streets, the
cafes the hotels, the railroad trains plainly did not
support prohibition-but how about the public opin
ion of the HOMES? That was what the police, prose-
cutors and prohibition agents seldom heard. That
the quantity that seemed likely to support law
forcement, no matter how unpopular the law might
The remark of the minister-"I have home-brew in
my own saret"-came therefore, something of =
After ALL prohibition il like any other law; il needs
premature.
Thousands are in the bootlessins business in this
country. Add to these millions who deal with the boot
leggers.
Il is nearly three years since the national prohibi-
ton law went into effect Il 10 more than FIVE years
since state prohibition became law.
Who can say that it has been complete success?
Might it not have been pore practical to have
reached for the prohibition goal by graduated steps
than By one sudden jump?
WHAT SHALL BE DONE ABOUT 1T?
AN UNENFoRcED LAW i. dangerous. There
10 question about that. II breeds contempt
for law and laws 1t makes lawbreakers out Of mil
lions who not criminals. Il brings strange ALI
ances.
The prohibition law is not enforced, and the official
excuse is that public opinion isn't behind it."
The Star challenges that statement. II seems true
enough that the most audible public opinion isn't be-
hind the prohibition law-but what about the uncon-
suited millions?
Il their lack Of interest to be taken permission for
fragrant law violation? :.
| Does silence give consent?
Do the people want prohibition?
| They have the law. Do they want the fact? i
| Do they want the statutes flouted and Knocked?
| WHAT DO THEY WANT?
| The Star would like to know.
| feo inside the patient
The