New Britain herald., 1930-01-14

this report finally facilitates such
 action it will :. have done something practical after all other stimuants have failed.
 The heart of the report unques- tionably is embodied in the follow. ing paragraphs:
 "A statute providing that in
 prosecutions . . . the district at torney may, in case of casual or
 slight violations, prosecute by com
 plaint or information, and in such
 eases. when so prosecuted, the
 penalty for each offense should be
 q fine Of not to exceed $500, or inn
 prisonment in jail without hard Ia bor, not to exceed six months or
 both. would obviate the long delay. unnecessary expense, and needless keeping in session of grand juries, which are demanded by the presen: state Of the law. . . Speedy con yictions and certain imposition Of penalties are important considerd-
 tions, and are more likely to De clficacious than threats of severe punishment rendered nugatory by congcsted dockets overpa ssing any possibilities Of trial in the manner constitutionally appointed for crime Of such magnitude.
 If 1t is objected that wide discretion is ,put on the district at torney by the proposed legislation, the answer is that he has that dis cretion already in effect, simply ex- ercising it. not i'll the beginning by the mode in which he prosecutes but later by including any particular prosecution in the wholesale disposi- ton on some bargain day"
 Thus few simple legislative en- actments are, in the opinion of the commission, all that is necessary to strengthen enforcement Of the na- tional prohibition law.
 There is still room for pessimism. All efforts to increase enforcement possibilities have so far failed. The Jones law, which sought to inflict astonishing punishm ent, has scarce ly interfered with infractions oi pro- hibition. One is forced to doubt whether any kind of new enforce ment will attain better ends. There are states in the Union which are 'bone dry" and which supplement- ed federal enforcement with very stringent state laws and state en- forcement. These should be models of prohibition enforcement. Whether they are or not is not even matter of opinion in face of the facts.
 The government can paddock places where liquor is sold. and the purpose of the law is to help en- force prohibition. But where wet sentiment is strong there is no astonishing amount Of padlocking being done any more. The Jones law, depending upon jurios, has no chance where wet sentiment is like ly to be well represented upon juries. The government can confis cate automobiles carrying liquor, and where it is done the loss is credited i to operating expenses. The commis- sion admits there are thousands Of roads of infection around continental United States and they can scarcely be patrolled ! unless by an army of 500,o0 men in | army. tanks or gunboats on the seas.
 The Hoover commission has made | an academical effort in behalf of | prohibition. It contributes theories that federal bureaucratic control should be strengthened at time when there is d striking public tendency to regard states rights as that must be subject to less interference.
 The report will solace the drys | and probably engender allegations by | the vets that the viewpoint is one of | special pleading for and in behalf of ''the noble experiment. To those who are not fanatical in either di- rection the report is chiefly interest ing for the manner in which ii i tackles an acute legal problem. I