The Birmingham age-herald., 1923-08-19

] same OffenSe, once by the state and again by the federal government. This contention has been used by those opposed to prohibition until it has become threadbare. Why the prohibition laws were singled out for such contention seems somewhat dif- ficult to understand in the light of much similar lgislation as preceded the passage of those laws. There have been so-called double jeopardy laws on state and federal statute books for many years, but it re- mained for the opponents of prohibit ton suffering" in silence for gen. erations under the operation of host of other double jeopardy" laws, to raise the point of injustice
 To those who are fearful of "dou- ble jeopardy in the case of prohibit tion, I wish to point out the same Identical peril with respect to the following high crimes
 Anarchy, assault offenses against the banking law, bribery, adulterat- civil rights, sending threatening let. ters, conspiracy. fraudulent stock promotion, forgery of bills of lading eXtortton and blackmails mailing of obscene matter, cruelty to animals, offenses against chastity, Kidnapping, forgery of public records required by the law of the United States, larcenS. | lawfully wearing uniforms or insigna of the United States, conversion of military property, perjury, suborna- tton to perjury, embezzlenent and robbery
 Where were the men who now see double jeopardy" as a menace dur ing the days when these laws were being considered?
 Supreme Courts Decision.
 But to revert to the main theme, the supreme court of the United term concurrent power" declared n. its decision in the national prohibit tion cases:
 The declaration in the prohibition amendment to the federal constitu- tion, the concurrent power to. enforce this article by appropriate legisIa- tion,' does not enable Congress or the several states to defeat or thwart prohibition, but only to enforce 1t by appropriate legislation"
 Mir Chief Justice White, in his concurring opinion, said
 T take it that if the second sec- tion of the article did not exist, no one would gainsay that the first seo- tion, in and of itself, granted the power and imposed the duty upon Congress to legfslate to the end that the amendment would become fully operative.
 This being true, it would follow if the contentious under consideration were sustained, that the second sec tion gave the states the power to nullify the first section, since a re- fusal of a state to define and sano- ton would again result in no amend ment to be enforced in such refusing State.
 of the prohibition did not define the intoxicating beverages which it prohibited in the absence of any thing to the contrary, it clearly, from the very fact of its adoption, cast upon Congress the duty not only of defining the prohibited beverages, but also of enacting such regulations and sanctions as were essential to make them operative when defined"
 Obligation Of The States.
 If such obligation would have rest de upon Congress, wherein would if fail to lie also upon the states. es- pecially named in the article?
 The answer, of course, is that such obligation does lie upon the states; and all, save three, regard 1t and they have no state enforcement law. In each of the other 45 states. includ- ing the two that refused to ratify the amendment, state enforcement laws-coneurrent lesislation-haVe been enacted
 The highest courts of many states have ruled upon questions presented by their enforcement laws. In Rhode Island the supreme court has held that "a state law to enforce prohibition may be more drastic than the Volstead act.P The supreme court of Massachusetts-in which common wealth there is no state enforcement law-has handed down the interest," ing decision Gin Jones vs. Cutting 130 N. E. 271) that:
 "No law of the commonwealth of