Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-03
BY WILLIAM HARD.

The National Capital at this week end
still finds prohibition obscuring all other
topics; and 1t becomes possible to draw
some general and fundamental conclu-
sions from the debates in Congress over
the proposed $24,000,000 of additional
Federal money for prohibition enforce
ment.
The true nub of these debates is the
proper division of responsibility for pro-
hibition enforcement between the Fed
eral Government and our local authori-
ties throughout the country.
Essential to an understanding of the
whole matter, including the .$24 600, 900
new proposed appropriation, is the tes-
timony recently given by DR.. James A.
Doran, head of the Federal Bureau of
Prohibition.
DR.. Doran has testified before the APP
preparations committee of the House
of Representatives that If the Federal
Government should enter into the local
policing of the country for the enforce
ment of the national prohibition laws,
the annual cost to the Federal Gov
eminent would be some $500 200, 900.
It is manifest that the proposed new
$24, 0O0, 900 appropriation. IL designed to
further local policing, would be jocular
and ridiculous sum to throw into an en-
terprise SO tremendously vast.
We arrive then at q critical and basic
farming point In the development of the
history Of the eighteenth amendment in
practice. The administrative authorities
of the Federal Government, from the
White House down, are determined not
to undertake purely local responsibility
for what might be called home infrac-
tons" Of the eighteenth amendment
and the Volstead law. They are de-
termined that the concurrent power
given to the local authorities by the
eighteenth amendment for the enforce
ment Of national prohibition shall be
exercised by the local authorities and
shall be regarded by them not merely
as q concurrent power" but as CON
current duty"
DR.. Doran has Just returned to Wash
ington from trip to Minnesota In the
course of which he diligently endeav-
ored to establish helpful cooperation
between United States authorities and
Minnesota local authorities In prohibi-
ton enforcement efforts. He Is aiming
deliberately and earnestly at great re-
the success Of the national prohibition
experiment.
We come then to the question:
What will be the fate of national
prohibition If so strong dependence
is placed upon local authorities for Its
relatively local management?
" ~
Some light may be thrown upon the
answer to this question by the condition
Of affairs existing in the District OF
Columbia. It Is admitted on all hands
that the District of Columbia, as the
seat Of the Federal Government, should
be an example to the country. II
would also seem that If Congress seri-
cusly wants to dry up any part of the
country it would begin with the area
which 1t itself inhabits, and which Is
wholly subject to Federal control.
What, however, do we find In the Dis
trict of Columbia?
The District of Columbia has q munic-
ipal government, headed by three Com
misSiOnerS. These Commissioners are
appointed by the President and exercise
such powers-and only such powers
as are specifically confided to them by
Congress.
What powers, then, has Congress
given these Commissioners for the en-
| forcement of national prohibition
among the $4,000 inhabitants Of Wash
ington?
The amazing but entirely accurate
reply is: None.
The Commissioners of the District OF
Columbia have no local responsibility
whatsoever for the prosecution Of prohi-
oition law offenders. Their local prose-
sci of the District of Columbia, has
nothing to do with the indicting or try
ing of bootleggers. Their local Wash
ington police force, in general and In
mass, has no direct tie-up whatsoever
with any local apparatus Of prohibition
law enforcement and obedience.
y X X
All prohibition endeavors in the Dis.
trict OF Columbia are inherently not
local, but Federal Bootleggers are
tried by United States district at
torney who resides in the District oil
Columbia and who is a part of the
| Federal judicial system, represented ad.
ministratively by the Federal Depart.
ment of Justice.
This United States district attorney
does indeed get some help in prohibi'
ton cases from certain members o.
the local District of Columbia Police
Force. Thirty eight local policemen
have been sworn in as agents of thu
Federal Governments Bureau of Pro
hibition. These thirty eight men ART
the only local police officers In thu
District of Columbia who have an,
sort Of prohibition enforcement, ma
tional or local, laid especially and di
rectly upon their consciences.
In the meantime, the State Of Mary
land, Immediately to the north ant
east and west of the District OF Co
lumbia, has no local State agencies o.
agents whatsoever for assisting TIT
Federal Government in its experiment
with the eighteenth amendment ant
the Volstead law. The State Of Mary
land stands aloof altogether.
The line between the State OF Mary
land and the District of Columbit