The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-01-13
"The Letter of the Law"

Many weird interpretations Of the law have fea-
tmed the proht lion decade
The latest is perhaps the most novel 1t is brought
forth as the doctrine Of observation evidence" by
District Attorney G. E. Johnson of Chicago.
Hereafter. johnson says, any restaurant OF cabaret
proprietor will be liable a year in jail if it can be
shown that Of his patrons used Of his glasses
to drink liquor brought into the restaurant by
patron.
The great CRY in behalf of prohibition enforce
ment is always for complete observation Of the very
letter Of the law We are warned that disobedience
Of one law breeds contempt for all law. Every good
American, therefore should yield to the prohibtory
law, though he personally does not believe in it
for prohibition is "the law OF the land
Now. assuming for the sake Of argument that
such attitude toward all law whatsoever and
whether orno is the correct ne-though this nation
would not have been founded if such had been the
attitude toward the laws of King George-how viii
we apply the philosophy to this observation evidence
proposition?
Let us follow through OF II.
In the first place, drinking in itself is not illegal
IN th.s country under certain circumstances.
The Volstead act itself legaizes the possession
and the drinking Of whisky and wines for medicinal
purposes. So does the state law OF Illinois.
Moreover, the act does not specify limit the
place or time where medicinal liquor can be con-
sumed. Directions in that regard are left to the
physician.
Neither does the Volstead act say in what kind
Of conainer medicinal liquor shall be kept carried
Such being the case, what might legally happen
to a bottle of prescribed spirits in Chicago?
The bottle bears these directions-"two ounces be-
fore meals The patient however. is not bed-ridden
He in fact is a transient, living temporarily in a
Chicago hotel lie decides to go TO a restaurant for
this particular meal restaurants having way about
them of serving meals.
Not wanting to carry his prescription in
taner that is both bulky and fragile he pours por-
ton of the contents into a metal flask No law
against that
The patient proceeds to the restaurant. There he
complies with the doctors orders. He secures glass
pours the allotted two ounces. and obeys the pre-
scription.
At the moment, District Attorney G. E. Johnson
his agent, steps forth He arrests the restaurant
proprietor and heads him for the hoosegow.
No law has been violated. Nothing in the Vol
stead act or the state law calls for restaurant pro-
prietor preventing from following doctors
orders But the proprietor nevertheless, is arrested
and thereby deprived of his liberty
Who then is violating the law? Who under that
creed of strict enforcement should be chastsedY
Certainly not the restaurant proprietor-or the
doctor-or the patient. No one of them has violated
law.
If any one We should say that that bureaucratic
gentleman G. E Johnson creator and exponent of the
unlegalized and fantastic doctrine of observation
evidence is the one who should be spanked.
For if anybody has foul of law under the cir
cumstances he has.
But, however that may be- it is certain that all
those Jealous advocates of complete subservence to
all law will not agree with this but instead will say
that the newspaper which prints it is seeking to
destroy the Constitution of these United States.
And so wagS the world along toward the tenth
anniversary of The Experiment"