The Topeka state journal., 1922-12-30
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC J. HAsKIN. Direcssr,
WaShingbon, d. q
MORAL BY-PRoDUCTs OF
PROHIBITION.

and other government officials, are
giving a good deal of thought to the
moral by-products OF the prohlbltlon
amendment to the constitution Mr..
Harding announced recently that
practically the whole of that days
cabinet session was devoted to a dis
cussion of the public attitude toward
prohibition. This has been true OF
other cabinet days and in addltlon
many lawmakers and administrators
OF the law at Washington are spend
ing much time in earnest discussions
of the effect of the eighteenth amend
ment.
The problem which is worrying the
president and other officials is: Are
the American people in danger OF los
ing their innate respect for law thru
the spectacle of wholesale and con-
tinuous violation Of the Volstead actE
Will the effect of violation of this law
bring other laws into disrepute?
Prohibition has been a vehicle Tor
the whole gamut of jokes which can
be attached to such laws and tuhda-
mentally to the idea or intoHlcatiiig
liquor. This has aided measureably
in building up in the minds OF many
Americans the opinion that prohibi-
tion itself is humorous mater.
What worries the officials mere Is thAe
it is possible for the people to per-
sist in the Joke view of any law, no
matter what its subject. They are
worried because theirs is the tsSh'
first, of making the laws and, second
of enforcing them, and if a situation
develops where. public cooperation is
lacking the business of government
will become extremely difficult
While prohibition is the most per-
picking problem Immediately peIore
the administration, the moral attitude
which the president has defined mas
extendeR already to other statutes.
Members of the house committee on the
Judiciary recently had n discussion or
the astonishing relaxation in the pup
lie mind on the subject of perjury
Perjury Held Less Serious
In the British law, where most of
our laws find their springs, perjury
was considered a very serious crime.
In this country, until recently, the
same opinion has been held 10
swear to a falsehood is heavily pun
ishable and the old-fashioned Ameri-
can recoiled from the crime almost as
strongly as from murder. A canvass
of the situation in the courts OF the
United States made in the discussion
by the members of the judiciary COM
mittee revealed that perjury is getting
to be a. common thing and, further
more, often goes wholly unpunished-
One member of the committee
pointed out what he regarded as a
curious moral twist in the minds OF
modern perjurors. They were, he
said, inclined to regard perjury in
court as a sort of technical crime
rather than a high moral crime. Per
jury, it appears, is not an index to the
ordinary honesty of the perjuror.
Many g. man who would recoil from
telling a lie to has neighbor or in
business or in amy of the usual af-
fairs of life. thinks nothing of making
oath in court to a statement of which
he may not be at all certain and
sometimes knows to be untrue In a.
word, the court oath has come in the
minds of many citizens, the men,
-. 20
mean nothing more than a matter of
technical court routine. The solemn
function of placing the right hand on
the Bible and pronouncing the oath
has degenerated in many cases into
the making of a gesture and the
mum bling of few words.
1t can readily be understood that
the men who are charged with the
making and the enforcement of laws
are aghast at such a devel apment.
What the president and his advisers
fear is that this attitude gradually
will creep into the opinions of the peo-
pie regarding the whole body of law.
The favorite anecdote used by stu
dents of this curious situation illus
trates this attitude of mind forcibly.
a man was receiving a call from
bootlegger. He asked the bootleggeF
what kinds of liquor he could furnish.
The Illicit vendor named over his
wares. gin, whisky, wine, ct cetera.
Cant you get me some absinthe o.
the customer asked. why, of course
not" the bootlesger replied. Don't
you know it is against the law to sell
absinthe?"
This anecdote is getting to have
serious significance in Washington.
Lawmakers see in it an index to the
attitude of the public mind They see
in it the revelation that Americans
subconsciously are interpreting for
themselves the laws of the land and
are making a difference between what
- -n,aN
laws they cheerfully violate without
any feeling of compunctiop.
Line Between Legal and Moral
Wrongs
The serious point which is so deeply
concerning the lawmakers is that the
line between legal wrongs and moral
wrongs IS being obliterated. The
equally blithe violation of the Vol
stead act and of the laws against per-
jury is an illustration of how sight is
being lost of the fundamental differ
ence in laws.
A prohibition law is a sumptuary
law. 1t long has been recognized by
the great legislators of the world that
there is a sharp difference between
that which is wrong because there fs
a statute forbidding it and that which
is Fundamentally wrong as moral
proposition.
Two good examples are the customs
law and the law against murder. 1t
is unlawful to smuggle dutiable goods
into the United States because the
statutes say that all persons must de-
clare such goods and pay tariff on
them. However. 1t is not, of itself,
morally wrong, to bring goods across
a imaginary line or take them ashore
from a boat without payment. 1t is
wrong only because it is forbidden by
law. There is a law against murder
but 1t is an entirely different sort of
law. Everybody, from the most un-
lettered savage to the most polished
scholar. knows il is wrong to commit
a murder. 1t is not wrong merely be-
cause the law says IL is wrong; it is
morally wrong as a fundamental fact
The analogy drawn by officials at
washington is that there appears to
be a danger, that people will lose sight
of these differenceS The customs law