The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-08-19

is nullifled.
For instance, a few years ago the
attention of the department OF JUS
tice was sought by interested citi-
zens because information had come
to them that the New Jersey state
police had seized flfty-f1ve men and
half-million dollars worth OF
liquor in that state, the men re-
leased by city magistrates on incon-
sequential bonds of $500 or less sub
sequently disappearing from sight.
Can't Police IS States
The federal government simply
can not be the policeman for forty
eight states, and prohibition will not
and never can be enforced that way.
In New York state, where the
legislature during the adminiStra-
ton of Governor Smith repealed the
state liquo- enforcement laws, leav-
ing the job solely to the federal gov
eminent, there are between 1000 and
5000 state police, and there are more
than $1,000 city police; there are 113
supreme court state judges and 81
county prosecutors.
All these agencies might be en-
listed to reduce the crime and law
Iessness that flow from disregard Of
the prohibition law, but they are
now and have been inactive as to
prohibition, since New York state
repealed its own enforcement act.
Certainly a few hundred federal
agents and nineteen federal judges,
with four United States attorneys,
can not hope to enforce the prohibit
ton law with any great degree of
success, in a state containing about
oue-tenth of the nations population,
with practically no help from the
sheriffs, the policemen, the state
prosecuting officers, or the state
courts.
New York Wringing Wet
The metropolitan newspapers,
therefore, are entirely correct and
truthful in telling their readers of
the "wringing wetness" of New
York, and other states which have
lodged enforcement responsibility,
such as Maryland, Montana, Wis
consin, Nevada, and New Jersey.
But they are all wrong in editorially
using the facts about wetness to
prove that prohibition is unenforce-
able" 1 do not deny that there is
bootlegging on a vast scale in New
York City and New York state.
But the responsibility is not solely
that of the President of the United
States nor of the attorney general.
It is the responsibility of the people
of New York. They get just the
same kind of prohibition enforce
ment that they get of state law en-
forcement.
No one blames the federal govern
ment for the lack of enforcement in
New York of the penalties against
murder. Yet notorious gamblers, not
subject to federal jurisdiction, are
shot down from time to time, and
the nurderers go unpublished. And
the number of murders exceeds
those of all England
There is graft in the sale of in
toxicating liquor, prohibited by fed
eral law-and there likewise is graft
in the letting of contracts for sewers,
authorized under state laws.
Cites Night Club Trial
The celebrated night club hostess
who joked with the judge and the
jury and tried to make her trial into
a vaudeville show was not any more
contsmptuouS of the authority of
the United States government than
she was of the people of New York
state and New York City.
Because the New York newspapers
have been giving so much publicity
TO the "wetneSS" of the city and
state, the situation there has come
to be regarded by many honest, law
abiding people as proof of the I'M
enforceability of the prohibition law.
But let's see what the situation in
New York was long before any one
even seriously thought that there
might sometime be a national law
against the sale of intoxicating
liquor. Let's use as a witness a man
whose truthfulness and credibility
never were questioned. In other
words, let lis see what Theodore
Roosevelt said about the New York
liquor situation in 1895, years before
adoption, of the eighteenth amend
ment. He said:
All our cities have been shame
fully misgoverned in times past.
and in New York the misgovern-
ment has been perhaps more flag
rant than anywhere else. The
most wealthy saloon keepers have
possessed so much influence with