Evening star., 1923-09-14

whether an emergency existed au
tnorlziRs their use, Both questions
were answered in the negative nv
Mr. Daugherty. -swho cited several
Jaws ana supreme Court decisions as
pTecedentS. -
Il am of th.s.,oninion." he said. that
you have no authority 10 use the
naval forces In the enforcement of
TIE national prohibition act when no
emergency exists" "
Declaring there was no emergency
l9g6fying call upon the Navy, the
There can be no emergency author
lSins the President to call out the
ndNsi forces to<entorce' the civil and
criminal laws until the courts and the
civil departments of the geVernment
are no longer able to enforce them.
No ObstIuctIOn of Courts.
lille there have been numerous
violations of the national prohibition
act. both on land and within our ter
Titorial waters there have been no
unlaWful distractions of the func-
tons of the courts or restraint of
th6ir processes, or of the coast guard
the division of customs. the prohibit
tton unit. nor OF the marshals and
their deputies of the Department of
Justice. All the departments of the
government are functioning and maxi
irg a steady advance against iawless
clements.
~ general the pTOniDlTlOn act IS
being enforced. There are stubborn
exceptions in congested localities in
some OF which local support has not
been rendered There are places
whore public opinion is unfriendly
and the enforcement of this law is
difficult. But I cannot believe that
such isolated cases constitute a ma
tional emergency within the meaning
of the act of Congress.
u am. therefore. of the opinion
OhgfTnH-
tions, combinations or assemblages
or persons. or rebellion against the
authority of the government of the
United States in the enforcement of
the prohibition statutes, such as rem
der il impracticable to continue to
enforce these laws by the ordinary
course of executive and judicial pro-
eeedlngs."
No Appropriations Available.
Congress has made no appropria-
tions available for prohibition en-
forcement work by the Navy, Mr..
Daugherty ruled, adding that only in
one instances in suppression of slave
been called upon In time. of profound
peace to aid in making. effective
criminal statutes. Some laws exist,
the opinion said, authorizing the
President to use the Navy under cer-
tain circumstances, such as execution
Of court processes. when federal Of
ncers have been obstructed; quaran-
tine laws, neutrality prociamations
and other measures.
However none of these special
statutes" said the opinion, "confers
the authority for the use of the naval
vessels to enforce ordinary civil and
criminal statutes, such as the ma
tional prohibition act and the rev.
enue laws"
Constitutional Provisions Cited.
Constitutional provisions relating
TO the maintenance and duties of the
Navy were cited, together with ap-
preparation and other laws, from
which, Mr. Daugherty said, "it would
therefore seem that Congress did not
consider that the President possessed
the power to use the naval forces
In time of peace for the execution of
civil or criminal laws without its ex-
pressed authorization"
Instances where naval vessels have
been sent to protect national rights
and American citizens In foreign
countries and to perform relief serv-
ice were referred to in the opinion.
with the comment that In such cases
express congressional provision gen
orally had been made.
Not Unforeseen Contingencies.
Enforcing the civil and criminal
laws OF the United States can hardly
DC tldSSeu as unforeseen cOntlnSen-
cies." said the opinion. 1T has been
suggested that the President by ~vir-
tue of his combined constitutional
powers, as commander-in-c chief of
the Army. Navy and militia when in
the service of the United States, and
the duty that rests upon him to see
that the laws are enforced, may use
the Navy to enforce the eighteenth
amendment and the national prohi-
hilton act without our territorial
1.-THE clause of the Constitution au-
tAorizing Congress to provide and
maintain navy confers on 1t the
power of determining when and for
what purpose the naval forces of the
United States may be used. IT follows
that the constitutional provision con-
stltuting the President the command
er-in-chief of the Army. Navy and
militia, would not give-power to use
the Navy in a manner other than as
authorized by Congress"
Also Applicable. To Array.
The opinion was regarded as ap-
plicable to the Army as we'll as the
Navy, precluding also the use of mill
tary forces in assisting prohibition
enforcement, although it dealt specif-
ieaily with the Navy.
Secretary DENLY and other Navy
officials, who have been opposed to
diversion of their forces to prohibi-
tlon work, were sustained by the At
oFney General.
Prohibition Commissioners Haynes
declined to comment; but prohibition
headquarters officials were quoted as
taking the view that the ruling would
not change the enforcement situad-