Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-06-01
'DR. DORIAN BLAMES
STATESFOR LAX|TY
Prohibition Commissioner
Says U. S. Alone Can't
Stop Liquor Flow.
Continued From First Page3

nor can it consistently be laid at the
doors of the Federal authorities.
1T is becoming increasingly apparent
to those observing the progress of the
enforcement of the National prohibition
act that clearer conception must be
had of the respective function of the
Federal and State Governments under
the concurrent clause of the eighteenth
amendment" the monograph sets forth.
I'm those States where State officials
generally put into action what they
tacitly agree is their duty under the
concurrent clause, much better results
will be achieved"
Asserting that the Federal Govern
ment must do what the States fail to
do, the statement declares that 1.-The
fact that in those States that have no
enforcement act and in some States
that do have enforcement acts the duty
is not performed does not alter the
obligations of the State enforcement Of
flcials in the least.
ITO an observer the causes of this
lack OF cooperation are quite appar-
ent. Unwholesome influences are at
WOTk 10 pTeNGIlG CLlIOTCGucIb.
The monograph states that assum-
ing peace officers we're as active in en-
forcing the law as they have the duty
and obligation to be, lit becomes at
once apparent that prohibition laws
could be successfully enforced for the
reason that upward of 100000 police
men, r1arshals, constables and sheriffs
would be actively experimenting liquor
law violators." Compared with this
estimate of zoe, 900 officers, the state
ment sets forth that only about 1000
prohibition agents are scattered over
the country.
Crowded Courts Blamed.
Another cause Of lax enforcement, it
states, is the crowded dockets Of the
Federal courts.
IF State enforcement were under
taken as earnestly as 1t Is in some of
the States and with the large body of
enforcement officers, as we have seen,
bringing their cases into the State
courts, as they may be legally, not only
would the Federal courts be relieved of
trying many police court cases, but JUS
tice would be done swiftly and surely"
Pointing out that there are 1855 Fed
eral judges in the country and about
3,100 State, county and municipal
judges, the monograph states that at
is obvious that with these courts func-
tioning only at their present rate of
speed they could easily keep abreast of
the work done by the enforcement Of
ficers If cooperation were fully ex-
tended"
TT cannot be mentioned too often"
the statement says, that national pro-
hlDltlon Is but one step beyond what
existed in 1919.
For several months after January
16, 1920, there was no marked dispo-
sition to violate the law. And then a
strange thing happened. Slowly some
citizens made furtive
attempts to violate it and found that It
could be violated with apparent i'm
munity.
Country Unprepared.
"This was due in part to the lack
Of preparedness on the part of the
United States Government to take over
the huge task Of enforcing such an Inn
portant law over such vast territory
and to the failure of State officials to
grasp the opportunity opened up to
them under the concurrent power clause
Of the eighteenth amendment. It goes
without saying that If the State forces
had proceeded promptly to exert the
power the eighteenth amendment gave
them, the country would not today be
facing the situation 1t does regarding
prohibition law enforcement"
ut now remains to be shown how
far the unfortunate events Of the first
year OF national prohibition have a
bearing on the conditions in 1880 and
what is being done to combat the forces
Of lawlessness let loose at that time.
ut may be said as general state
ment, that enforcement varies in direct
to
81. The sentiment regarding the law
In any community.
%. The clear understanding by the
Federal and State officials of their re-
spective duties and obligations.
"3. The close cooperation between
State and Federal enforcement agen-
cies."
States and q. s. Compared.
Enforcement conditions in Pennsyl-
vania, Massachusetts, and New York
are discussed in the monograph and a
comparison of State prohibition laws
with the national law are given in
detail.
Cooperation with the State and Fed
eral oficials in New England varies
from fair to excellent" the state
ment says, with q very few cities in
clined to oppose enforcement, but
these are not the largest or the most
cities by any means"
In Pennsylvania, the monograph
states, 1.-THE machinery for cooperation
is there. Where that machinery is
employed results are accomplished;
where 1t is not employed, conditions
are no better than can be brought
about by Federal activity unaided, aid
sometimes actively opposed"
Enforcement conditions in New York
City are treated separately. They are
extraordinary" the statement says. I'm
no other city are there so many forces
opposed to law enforcement. Lack OF
enforcement Is due to the following
causes:
"a strong sentiment against the pro-
hibition law, not on the part OF the
majority, perhaps, but on the part OF
large minority.
well organized bands of law VIC
lators Of all sorts. 1t is not only the
prohibition law that is not enforced.
"Close connection between the law
breakers and the local police.
Courts Inadequate. .
Complete inability of the Federal
courts to handle liquor cases when the
disposition on the part Of the city and
county officials is to bring whatever
cases they make INTO the Federal
courts, and not to handle them under
such penal laws as are on the statute
books and available for such cases.
"A tendency on the part of the city
of1cials to hamper enforcement Officers
in many obscure ways.
Occasionally there will be an out
burst of raiding by the New York police
and several hundred cases will be
thrown into the Federal courts, swamp
ing them beyond hope Of accomplish
ment."
In conclusion the statement says that
in the five States that have no enforce
ment code-New York, Maryland. Mon
tana, Wisconsin and Nevada-"it has
been proven that the State officials can
fall back on the concurrent power given
Il 70