New Britain herald., 1930-03-28
STATE VOLSTEADISN

When Connecticut refused 10 ratify the 18th Amendment consist ency would have demanded that it were equally adamant regarding the passage Of state enforcement measure.
 When the Legislature refused 10 be locked into ratifying the federal police law which was placed into the Constitution, it represented the prevailing sentiment throughout the state. It was later that the Legisla- ture. lulled into a feeling that be- cause the amendment was ratified it was the duty of the state to concur" in it's enforcement. that the state Nolstead act was passed.
 Although the prohibition amend ment gives to the states concurrent powers to enforce the act, there is no compulsion and it is left to the
  states to decide whether they pre- fer to permit the Government to at tend to the enforcement of its act or whether there should be state as- sistance.
 Dry workers naturally held that it was the duty" of the state 10 pass enforcement legislation and adopt the concurrent powers of enforce ment principle Strangely enough, there has been no apparent need for states 10 pass concurrent enforce ment legislation regarding other important federal statutes, such as the prohibitions against the sale of narcotics, the laws against inter- state white slavery, and the like, Prohibition from the first was held up to be somethin., special, needing different treatment than any other federal statute. Perhaps the Anti Saloon League was somewhat far seeing in anticipating certain diff cuIties.
 Now the pendulum regarding the duties of states to help enforce the , national prohibition act is swinging the other way. Four states have re- pealed their state enforcement acts a Massachusetts-is in line to follow suit, and now the move | ment has started in Connecticut. | Men who never before gave much 1 thought 10 such a possibility are said 10 be aroused 10 the advantages Of divorcing state enforcement from prohibition legislation, and we have no doubt that the idea will receive widespread support.
 One object of the repeal Of the 1 state enforcement act is to take en- l forcement out of the state courts and center them in federal courts In the case of federal law of this nature, that is where such enforce ment belongs. If the federal courts become glutted with prohibition en- l forcement cases, that manifestly is | something for the government tc solve, if it can If every moderately wet state in the Union were withou state enforcement act the fedora courts would be damned with tn, liquor cases which the state court! in most Of the states at pres> Ut tr, 10 help enforce at considerable pub lie expense.
 The prohibtionists naturally would declare that such methods would amount 10 notification. In sens this would be true. But surely, con siderins how the prohibition amend ment was put over upon the Legis  laturos Of many of the states, II many instances through the brazei activities of an aggressive minorit. and through the machinations Of re forming organizations making business Of having their hands il bringing about the noble exper ment," it is not unreasonable 10 citizens in such commonwealths t' adopt a hands off policy and giv 10 the national administration ful leeway to enforce its prohibition law. Particularly is this tho case il Connecticut which refused to assis in ratifying the amendment,