Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-12-29

Washington, D. c., Dec. 26.-The
president of the United States. to-
gether with his cabinet, and many
members of both houses of congress
and other government officials are
giving a good deal of thought to the
moral by-products of the prohibition
amendment to the constitution. Mr.
Harding announced recently that prac-
tically the whole of that days cabinet
session vas devoted to a discussion OF
the public attitude toward prohibition
This has been true of other cabinet
days and in addition many lawmakers
and administrators of the law al
Washington are spending much time Il
earnest discussions of the effect Of
the 18th amendment.
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
through the spectacle of wholesale and
continuous violation of the Voistead
act? Will the effect Of violation OF
this law bring other laws into disre'
pute?
Prohibition has been a vehicle fol-
the whole gamut of jokes which can be
attached to such laws and fundament-
ally to the idea of intoxicating liquor
This had aided m%easurably in build
ing up in the minds of many Ameri-
cans the opinion that prohibition it.
self is q humorous matter. What wor-
ries the officials here is that it is pos
sible for the people to persist in the
joke view of any law, no matter what
it's subject. They are worried because
theirs is the task. first, of making the
law, and. second, of enforcing them
and if a situation develops where pub
lie cooperation is lacking, the bust
ness of government will become ex-
tremely difficult.
While prohibition is the most per-
picking problem Immediately before
the administration, the moral attitude
which the president has defined has
extended already to other statutes
the judiciary recently had a discus
sion of the astonishing relaxation in
the public mind on the subject of per-
jury.
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. To swear
to q falsehood is heavily punishable
and the old-fashioned American re-
coiled from the crime almost as strong
ly as from murder. A anvas of the
situation in the courts Of the United
States made in the discussion by the
members of the judiciary committee
revealed that perjury is getting to be q
common thing and, furthermore, often
goes wholly unpunished.
One member of the committee
pointed out what he regarded as q
curious moral twist in the minds of
modern perjurors. They We're, ne
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 a man who would recoil from
telling a lie to his neighbor or in
business or in any of the usual affairs
Of life. thinks nothing of making oath
in court to a statement of which he
may not be at all certain and some
times knows to be untrue. In a word,
the court oath has come in the minds
of many citizens, the members of the
committee discovered, to mean nothing
more than n matter of technical court
routine. The solemn function of
placing the right hand on the Bible
and pronouncing the oath has de-
generated in many cases into the
making of a gesture and the mumbling
of q few words.
It can readily be understood that the
men who are charged with the making
and the enforcement of laws are aghasf
at such a development. What the
president and his advisors fear is that
this attitude gradually will creep into
the opinions of the people regarding
the whole body of law.
The ~favorite anecdote used by stu
dents of this curious situation Illus
trates this attitude of mine forclDly.
A man was receiving a call from d
bootlegger. He asked the ~bootlegger
what kinds of liquor he could furnish.
The illicit vendor named over his wares
gin. whisky. wine, ct cetera. can
YOU get me some absinthe?" asked the
customer. "Why of course not. the
b~ootlegger replied. Don't you know
it is against the law to sell absinthe &
This anecdote is getting to nave a
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
SuDc0nSclOuSi! dic
themselves the laws of the land
and are making a difference between
what laws they are willing to obey and
what laws they cheerfully violate
without any feeling of conjunction.
Line Between Legal and Moral Wrongs
The serious point which is so deep
" concerning the lawmakers is that the
line between legal wrongs and moral
wrongs is being obliterated. The equal
" blithe violation Of the Nolstead act
and of the laws against perjury IS an
illustration Of how sight is being lost OF
the fundamental difference in laws.
A prohibition law is a sumptuary
law. It long has been recognized by
the great legislators Of the world thai
there is a sharp difference between
that which Is wrong because there is a
statute forbidding it and that which is
fundamentally wrong as a moral prop
osition.
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 declare suct
goods and pay a tariff on them. How
ever. it is not. of itself, morally wrong
to bring goods across an imaginary
line or take them ashore from a boat
without payment. 1t is wrong only be-
cause it is forbidden by law. There
is a law against murder, but it is an
| entirely different sort of law. Every
body. from the most unlettered savage
to the most polished scholar. knows il
- ,rropu m commit n murder. It is