The Washington times., 1923-06-25

at this point. A good deal OF
testimony comes to Washington
that some States are disposed to.
abdicate their own police author
ity in this matter, and to turn
over the burden of prohibition en-
forcement to the Federal authori-
ties. 1t is a singular fact that
some States which successfully en-
forced their, own prohibition
statutes before the Eighteenth
amendment was adopted have
latterly gone backwards in this
regard.
Communities in which the pol
icy was frankly accepted as pro-
ductive Of highly beneficial re-
suits, and in which there. was no
widespread protest so long as 1t
was merely State concern, re-
port that since the Federal Gov
eminent became in part RESPONSE
BILE there has been a growing lax
ity on the part OF State authori-
ties about enforcing the law.
Doubtless this is largely due to n
misconceived notion, too widely
entertained. that the Federal Gov
eminent has actually taken over
the real responsibility. The. fact
is quite the contrary. The Fed
eral Government is not equipped
with the instrumentalities to
make enforcement locally effec-
tive. 1t does not maintain either
a police or a judicial establish
ment adequate to or designed for
such task. If the burden of en-
forcement shall continue to be
increasingly thrown upon the Fed
eral Government, 1T will be neces-
sary. at large expense, to create
Federal police authority which in
time will. inevitably come to be
regarded as an intrusion upon
and interference with the right of
local authority to manage local
concerns. The possibilities of dis
aster in such g. situation hardly
need to be suggested. Yet it is
something that we must recog1ize
as among the menaces in this sit
uation.
Local Enforcement.
The Federal Government ought
to perform, in connection with the
enforcement of this policy, those
functions which are obviously
within its proper province. These
are compliance in all its aspects
as it relates to international COM
merce. the importation and expor-
tation of liquors, the collection OF
Federal revenue. the prevention of
smuggling, and in general the en-
forcement of the law within the
proper realm of Federal authority.
But the business of local enforce
ment. by States and cities, ought
to be in the hands of the State
and local authorities. and it
should be executed in all sincerity
and good faith. as other laws are
presumed to be executed.
What / am saying must not be
construed as indicating any relax
alton of the National Govern
ment's purpose to do it's full duty
in this matter. I have no doubt
that If the burden is cast, in un-
due proportion, upon the national
authority, the Federal Govern
ment will, not only under this Adj
ministration but under whatever
others may come in the future,
assume and discharge the full OBJ
legation. But l am pointing out
that this ought not to be made
necessary. Tie national policy
+ ouE1lI " DC Suppol lOu 10y ELLtC
lie opinion and the administrative
machinery Of the whole country.
For myself, I am confident that
we are passing now through the
most difficult stage of this mat.
ter, and that as time passes there
will be a more and more willing
acceptance by authorities every
where of the unalterable obliga-
80
country and the nation will not
made a byword.
Pledges Enforcement.
The issue is fast coming to be
recognized, not as an issue be
tween vets and drys, not ques
ton between those who believe IN
prohibition and those who do not
not contention between those
who want to drink and those who
do not; it is fast being raised
above all that, to- recognition as
an issue of whether the laws OF
this country can be and Will be
enforced. So far as the Fedora
Government Is concerned. and
am very sure also, so far as con
Germs the very great majority OF
the State governments and the
local governments, 1t will be en-
forced. A gratifying, indeed 1t may
fairly be said an amazing, pro
gress has been made in the last
few years toward better enforce
ment.
1t Is a curious illustration Of
loose thinking, that some people
have proposed, as a means tc
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. 1t is
an abandonment Of them: 1t Is an
abdication; it amounts to a con
fession by the State that 1t doesn't
choose to govern itself but prefers
to turn the task, or a considerable
part of it, over to the Federal
authority. There could be nc
more complete negation Of State
rights.
Modification to Fail.
The National Government has
been uniformly considerate OF the
sensibilities OF the States about
their rights and authorities. But
when State deliberately refuses
to exercise the powers which the
Constitution expressly confers on
1T, 1t obviously commits itself to