Evening star., 1923-06-25
Law Enforcement.

In the cleareSt terms, which appeal
to all who have thought on the sub
ject, President Harding today at Den
Yer. discussing the question of law
enforcement" goes to the heart of the
question of the prohibition issue. The
real issue, he points out, is that of
l~w observance and enforcement. 1t
is complicated by problem of concur
rent jurisdiction between the states
and the federal government. This is
not a new problem, he says. brought
to US with the eighteenth amendment,
but is as old as the federal govern
ment.
The prohibition amendment is the
basic law of the land, and, says the
President, those who believe that 1t
will ever be repealed are a small and
a greatly mistaken minority. The
general policy of the states is to sup
port the prohibition program, but some
of them are disposed to abdicate their
own police authority in this matter,
and to turn over the burden of pro-
hibition enforcement to the federal
authorities" This is in the nature of
notification, and on this point the
President has that to say which should
give pause to the advocates of the non
enforcement policy in the states:
1t is a curious illustration of loose
thinking that some people have pro-
posed, as a means to protecting the
fullest rights of the states, that the
states should abandon their part in,
enforcing the prohibitory policy. That
means simply an invitation to the
federal government to exercise powers
which should be exercised by the
states. Instead of being an assertion
of state rights, it is an abandonment
of them: il is an abdication; 1t
amounts to a confession by the state
that it doesn't choose to govern itself,
buts prefers to turn the task, or con-
siderable part of il. over to the fed
eral authorities. There could be no
more complete negation of state
rights. The national government has
been uniformly considerate of the
sensibilities of the states about their
rights and authorities. but when
the powers which the Constitution ex-
pressly confers on ii il obviously
commits itself to the policy of null
1fying state authority. the end OF
whichwe are RELUCTANT to conjecture.
The policy of notification has never
appealed strongly to the American
people. There are some historical
records regard ing efforts of states to
nullify national policies but the spec
tacle Of a state nullifying it's own
authority and asking the national
sovereignty to take over an important
part of its powers is new. When the
implications of this strange proposal
are fully understood by people and
parties devoted to preserving the
rights of the states, the new nulltfi-
cationists, I venture to say, will dis
cover+hat they have perpetratIed what
is likely to prove ore of the historic
blunders in political management.
Thus is presented in plain terms an
aspect of the non-enforcement policy
of some of the states. notably New
York. that will, indeed, arrest those
who by their impetuous attempt to |
nullify the prohibition law would carry |
far over the line of safety and public |
security. Already a reaction has been
evident from the course pursued in !
New York. In other states where /.
similar attempts at notification !
through repeal have been made wiser |
second thought has prevailed. In New !
York the political stake of commit |
ting one of the parties to the "wet" |
view of the question has been realized. |
1t is evident now to political leaders |
that the repeal act of the New York |
legislature, signed by the governor,
was a definite and serious political |
blunder.
The Presidents statement of the |
enforcement question is one of the |
strongest that has been made. 1t puts
the question squarely before the peo-
pie. 1t leaves no chance for dodgifg !
or compromise. The law must be en-
forced.