Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-07-14
Defends Policeman
I'm Edwards Attack
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor OF The Star:
With many others / read with IN
terest your editorial in a recent issue
OF The Star, ''Hair-trigger Law En-
forcement." I also read the propa-
ganda announced by Senator Edwards
as it appeared In another evening
paper.
Every one must admit that the
chase ended with tragedy, and appar-
emily hair-trigger enforcement of the
law was the main cause of this end,
whether such enforcement can be held
as the cause of the tragedy or not.
But before we lay blame at the feet
of any one 1t appears that several
things should receive due considera-
ton.
In the first place, 1t is easy to sit
in ones room and figure out just how
you are going to apprehend your
bootlegger when he runs--for the vic
tim in this case was q bootlegger. 1t
is another thing to find out on your
beat, and without moments warn
ing, that you either have one Of them
on your hands, else you are In the
hands of one of them.
1t is then necessary to decide just
what you shall do. The first thing
to do. of course, is to command the
violator Of the law to halt. This.
doubtless, the officer did. Instead of
hating the motOrist fed.
At this point another decision must
be made by the officer. We can either
let the man go. else give chase. In
this instance the officer gave chase,
nor could he have laid claim to the
title of "officer of the law" had he
refused to do SO.
Once he had set out in pursuit Of
the vanishing automobile, it was
necessary again to make a decision
either to bring the car to standstill,
else let it ramble along.
No sane person will deny that 1t
was the officers duty to bring the
automobile to a standstill. This, it
must be granted, he attempted to do.
1t is very we'll to declare at this
late hour just how the officer should
have shot at the car without actually
shooting into it, or something to that
effect. Those who have driven
through the old Soldiers Home
grounds in broad-open daylight recall
quite distinctly the corners, curves
and turns in passing through. 1t
isn't easy for an officer, in opening
fire under such conditions, to take as
perfect aim as he might under other
conditions. A sharp bump in the road
ball 10 feet above the automobile
even though it was aimed at the gas
tank. The first shot passed through
the spare tire and the fatal one
through the rear window.
The meanwhile, however, what Is
the officer supposed to do? Simply
motor along behind the enemy in easy
shooting distance of snipers sitting in
the rear seat? And occasionally shoot
at random into the air? Unless the
answer is in the affirmative. then it
appears that this officer did his duty,
Senator Edwards to the contrary not
Withstanding.
In this liquor business there Is lot
of 'hair-trigger" work in evidence.
When the bootlegger shoots, he takes
aim. 1t requires extra courage to
trail along after one of their cars
when you know there are others in
the car besides the driver.
But what is there in this incident
that justifies Senator Edwards broad
side against prohibition? Is it a
fact that wet Senators have the inner
ent right of damning the actions of
officers Of the law when they merely
take steps to do their duty? What
right does this Senator have to vent
his spleen against the patrolmen in de.
claring that most of them are in the
bootlegging business themselves" The
results might be interesting if the Po-
lice Department of this city should ask
Senator Edwards to prove that mali
cious charge-a charge that not one
man or woman in a thousand in this
city believes. JEAN MONK.