The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1923-06-14
WON
OPPOSE SHIP
Rum BAN
Cabinet Fears Friction With u.
S.-Comnons Behind
/ Government.
Continued from First Page,l

Continued from First Page,l
world capitals. actually there Is
very little likelihood that the
treaties proposed by Secretary
Hughes ever will be undertaken, ac-
cording to high diplomatic opinion
in Washington.
The attitude OF the world powers,
as CLEANED from diplomatic sources.
apparently may be summed up as
follows:
why should we scrap an i'm
portant part OF international law
that has existed for ages simply in
order to help the United States en-
force q domestic law which we CO
not approve of and never have had
any sympathy for?'
1t was pointed out today that
French resentment against n
American prohibition law has al
ways been keen--not only on the
part of the French government, but
on the part OF the French people
as well. The wine industry Ii
Frances greatest industry, and the
American market was her greatest
market after the collapse of Russia.
French public opinion would not
sanction the proposition, even II the
French government were so inclined,
1t was said here today.
Great Britain and British public
opinion Is to very large extent the
same, as Indicated by Britain's pres
vious refusal to discuss extension
Of the three-nile limit, and by the
progress attained by a bin now In
the House of Commons, making II
compulsory for ships entering Bri.
fish ports to carry liquor.
Point to Court Ruling.
The foreign governments also take
the view that the dilemma in which
the Administration finds itself with
respect to the dry seas ruling 10
largely one of its own manufacture.
They contend that the Administra-
ton does not necessarily have to en-
force the dry law, affecting foreign
ships, as literally as 1t ID attempting
to, and they back up this contention
by citing the decision of the United
States Supreme Court.
They contend that the Supreme
Court did not lay q mandate upon
the executive branch of the Govern.
ment to enforce the VUlstead law to
the letter within American terri.
tortal waters, but only held that
the Government could enforce 1t, If
1t so desired. They point out the
language Of the court:
OF course, the local sovereign (n
this case the American Government
may, out OF consideration of public
policy, choose to forego the exer.
ton OF its jurisdiction. or TO exert
the same in a limited way, but this
is matter resting solely in it's
discretion"
There, according to the bulk OF
diplomatic opinion in Washington.
the Supreme Court itself has pointed
the way by which the Administra-
ton can find It's way out Of inter-
national complications. The court
has set the seal Of It's approval on
the governments using it's own
discretion as to how far to 60 in
enforcing the Volstead law.
Therefore. the diplomats here have
pointed out to their respective for
eign offices, why 10 a treaty nee.
eSSary when the Administration has
in its own hands a ready-mado
remedy for the condition complaint
of?
See Politics In It.
In more than one quarter, official
and diplomatic, the opinion was
hazarded today that there is a good
deal Of domestic politics rather than
international complications at the
base of the Hughes treaty proposal.
AS the dry" party in American
politics, and on the platform of law
enforcement" so vigorously laid down
by President Harding in one of his
last messages to Congress, 1t has de.
veloped upon the Administration to
make a bold stand for literal enforce.
nent Of the Volstead law By 40
doing, it was pointed out. the party
can escape any criticism on the part
OF the dry forces that II was negli.
gent in it, efforts to advance the
cause Of prohibition.