The Washington times., 1929-10-15
LO0KS.L|kE.
THE. LAST
STRAW
ay GEORGE R. HOLMES


The Sheppard bill to make
The buyer of bootleg liquor
equally guilty with the seller
has split the vets, the drys,
the judiciary and the consti-
tutionalists in Congress wide
open.
No single question that has arisen
In connection with the many-sided
prohibition controversy has caused
such a wide divergence of opinion
among both friends and foes of Vol
steadism, a survey disclosed today.
There will be a battle over it
when Congress convenes in regular
session in December that Is going
to reveal some strange political bed
fellows.
Logical Step
Two Federal district courts have
held that the man who buys an
illegal drink Is equally guilty of
felony with the man who sells it.
The circuit court of appeals, Second
district, has held he Is not.
Senator Sheppard CD of Texas,
the so-called father Of prohibition"
regards his new bill as the logical
concluding step in the enforcement
Of prohibition. DR.. A. J. Barton,
prohibition pillar for many years, de-
plores the Sheppard bill and doubts
its legality or its wisdom.
The drys are split wide open
some, like Sheppard, contending that
1t is the logical next step. and
others, like aBrton. fearing that it
will cause such a revulsion of feei-
ing and arouse SO much opposition
as to seriously menace the main
flamenco Of Vo1steadism on the stat
ute books. They fear it is so
drastic that "the country won't
stand for it."
The vets are split equally wide
open-Sonre cynically hoping that
the measure will pass because they
sincerely. believe it will kill .prehi.
bition,' and others -contending that
1t will merely extend the evils Of
the present system"
The constitutionalists Of the SEN
ate reflect this patchwork of diverg-
ent opinion. Their opinions were
sought and obtained by International
NEWS service To-Day ana sQ1SClOSeu
some unusual differences.
"It is a very close question" said
Senator William H. Borah (R) of
Idaho, who is a dry among drys, re-
ferring to tke constitutionality of
the measure.
Congress naturally cannot go be-
yond the Constitution, but the Con-
stitution prohibits the sale of liquor
and there cannot be a sale without
q. purchaser. 1t Is a very close cues.
ton, indeed. Undoubtedly, the Su.
preme Court will have to pass on
it."
II think it is constitutional" said
Senator Thomas J. Walsh CD of
Montana, another outstanding dry,
1T would be a means Of prevent
Ing the sale Of liquor which the
Constitution forbids.
Opposite View
after ALL Congress is authorized
TO pass any legislation which is
necessary to prevent the sale of
alcoholic liquors. II Congress be-
lieves that a specific act making
it illegal to purchase liquor. would
help prevent its sale, then such
an act in my opinion would be con.
st1tutional. The man who buys
liquor is aiding in making a sale
and therefore can be punished"
A directly opposite view was, Ie.ken
by Senator King CD Of Utah, an.
other constitutionalist of the SEN
ate, and also dry.
II have very serious doubts as to
the constitutionality of such a law
as Senator Sheppard proposes" said
King. Congress cannot create
crimes. 1t can only act under the
powers granted it by the Constitu-
ton. To make the purchase of
liquor illegal would undoubtedly
create a new crime. I do not be-
lieve Congress has that power
The Last Straw
A number of other Senators. both
wet and dry. evaded expressing an
opinion publicly on the matter, but
their opinions. privately expressed,
disclosed a wide range of disagree
ment.
Undisturbed by the clamor. Sena-
tor Sheppard is going ahead with
his plans to force a showdown on
his bill as early in December as
possible.