The Washington times., 1928-12-12
Prohibition Enforcement Act
For District Of Columbia
e, nNnREss il to have belore L measure provo
Heavv Cost to Taxpayers for enforcement Of strictly
Federal Law.

= oNcREss is to have before it providing q
- prohibition act District Of Columbia which would
rive enforcement powers all city policemen and make ne
local police responsible for satisfactory
81 the national prohibition law here
paoIv all Federal statutes are enforced BY the police
arent and all policemen have powers make arrests
ner them This IS not the to enforcement OF ne
rational prohibition law The Internal Revenue Bureau un
erook to enforce the law and regulations here maue
miserable failure although local policemen cooperated WIN
the Federal agents
resnonsbities Of enforcement then shifted to
the washington department About twenty eight policemen
were clothed with the authority Of Law agsn
astsnnts Is make washington dry though hampered On
all sides BY legal technicaiites
nr Doran prohibition commissioner and dry members
nf Congress term conditions here quite bad
a II II uroposed To pass law that will make al police
sn narticnants IN the prohibition enforcement game,
g the detail e many 0f them e ,psGsa o1sr
snt and saving the Federal Government much money anu
trouble.
The majority Of the people Of Washington favor
local enforcement act and the pungg q the wnoe ponee
department into the dirt graft and corruption connected with
the bootleg Industry Our people laWabdng and epouse
the cause 81 order and obedience to laws.
yet there quite serious doubt whether even feeling as
they do washington people want their policemen
actively mixed in the foul atmosphere surrounding bootleg
there Il grave doubt whether our people, unustly treated
by Congress in fiscal relations affairs with mounting tax
rates want to see the added expenses which would inevitably
sre are twetyerht policemen now detailed to the liquor
rae Their salaries paid by District taxpayers the
force required full responsibility here close 70
ons hunred policemen viii be necessary special squad
Besides that all other policemen viii have instructions 70
assist Ii the suppression Of boOtlegging
that Is roing to heavy additional expenses TO District
taxpayers for the Of national act costing
the nation approximately onequarter Of billion dollars
each year.
Th Is federal City. Prohibition IS Federal law The
expense Of enforcement Washington should be largely upon
he of
oton Congress viii probably not hesitate to put the burdens
of cost upon Washington people
we are have stringent enforcement Of prohibition
here let Congress fix the responsibility where belongs on
Federal agencies.
There heavy expense to prohibition enforcement beyond
salaries Evidence must be bought through formers
line and oil supplied to automobiles with dozens Of other
costly items Taxpayers of Washington not the ones
to bear this extra burden
The Federal Government ought not to acknowledge that II
cannot enforce Of its laws in its Federal City
with its enforcement agencies.
it cannot clean up It's National City with its own
officials why try evade its responsibilities and shift them
Washington policemen at big cost to local taxpayers?