The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-08-14
Hoover On Dry Law

An interesting line of speculation presents itself
In connection with that part of Herbert Hoover's
acceptance message which deals with the abuses I'M
der prohibition and with the subject of modification
Hoover says:
common sense compels us to realize that grave
abuses have occurred-abuses which must be remedied.
An organized searching investigation of fact and
causes alone determine the wise method of cor
rectng them. Crime and disobedience of law not
be permitted to break down the Constitution and laws
of the United States.
Modification of the enforcement laws which would
permit which the Constitution forbids is nuli
fcation. This the American people will not counte-
nance"
Especially significant is the sentence-"modifca-
zion of the enforcement laws which would permit that
which the Constitution forbds is notification"
How much modification might be possible, under
Shat?
The old question of what is intoxicating arises.
The Eighteenth Amendment prohibits the
facture sale and transportation of intoxicating liquor
1T leaves with the Congress and the individual States
the job of passing appropriate enforcement
The present congressional expression to what is
appropriate legislation is in the Vostead act That
fixes one-haf of per cent as the limit of alcoholic
content.
But the Congress that created the act has the
power to change it.
Suppose it we're amended to make three-fourths
of one per cent or one per cent two or four or
fifty per cent as the legal limit. Where would the
point of absurdity he reached?
Is three-fourths of one per cent intoxicating9 Sci
entists say no.
Some scientists say the same thing about two
and three and four per cent and five per cent.
Beyond five the tendency of science to declare that
the intoxicating effects obvious if the beverage is
consumed in any quantity.
Iii cahO1 The INIT for
ton beer Other beers less in alcoholic content,
Beyond five per cent light wines, heavier wines,
whisky, brandy and liquors.
What would happen if the percentage raised
by Congress to four per cent? Would that be nulif-
cation? The test would quickly. An arrest
would be made and the drys would contend four per
cent to be intoxicating. The vets would oppose And
the courts would decide.
Where would the President be during the contro-
versy? He probably would busy himself with other
things-and would be content to abide by what the
courts said 1t would then be his clear duty to stand
for enforcement of whatever had been determined to
be the law.
That in substance is the Hoover position when he
says that modification of the enforcement laws which
would permit that which the Constitution forbids is
notification
But it is up to the judicial not to the executive
department of the Government to determine what
tually would constitute notification
Since under the Constitution States have concur
rent rights to pass laws vtalizing the Eighteenth
Amendment 1t is even possible that Congress could
fix a certain percentage as, say, four per cent as
Intoxicating and that sustained by the Federal
Courts and that State could go farther and fix
half of one per cent as the limit. That would be State
"option."
In our opinion the ultimate solution Of the whole
question will not be confined to modification of the
enforcement laws, but instead will involve an attempt
to repeal the whole Eighteenth Amendment then
leaving it up to the States and the various local
muntes within the States to fix their percentages.
That would be local option in the broadest sense.
On that as already pointed out in a previous edi-
torial Hoover has made himself clear and has taken
the question out of the field of fanaticism by saying
that the right to work for repeal is nquestoned and
that citizens are not subject criticism for exercis
ing the right.
But it is not unlikely that the first move in the di
rection of changes will be in Congress through mod
ifcation of the alcoholic stipulation.
Whether that move or any other will succeed is
certainly debatable question, the answer to which
we believe is largely matter of whether the orgy OF
graft and crime that has attended prohibition up to
now continues.
Il it does, change is inevitable. On the other
hand should Hoover be elected and should he be able
to perform the miracle of real enforcement that no
else in ten years has been able to perform it is
possible that the issue would die and change in the
law would be brought about
We don't believe Hoover or any one else do it.
We think that a change is the only way out.
But we do believe that Hoover, in approaching the
subject with open mindedness and common sense, in
the characteristic Eoover manner, engineer and
not a politician, is likely to get farther toward
sane and final solution than any other man that the
Republicans yet have put forward.
Women Find Better Jobs