The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1931-05-01
the evils of the liquor traffic by the enforcement Of

the evils of the liquor traffic by the enforcement OF
such statutes by state officials.
But the governors statement is correct AS we
have already pointed out in these columns, II the
Illinois prohibition act should be repealed Illinois
sheriffS police and other peace officers would not be
under official obligation to enforce the Eighteenth
Amendment and the national prohibition law, and
consequently prohibition law volators could not be
effectively apprehended and prosecuted.
The proposition that officers of the state have an
official duty to enforce the federal law is not sound.
Federal laws are enforced by agents of the United
States and the laws of the states by the agents OF
the States and agent Of either is under any legal
obligation to enforce the laws of the other This was
declared to be the law in the case of Gouis Judge
of District Court 246 Massachusetts Reports page l.
The soundness of this decision has never been cues
toned.
In consequence of this principle it is not within
the power of congress to impose such obligation
upon state officers would make them guilty OF
neglect Of duty if they failed to enforce the federal
laws.
Further, the federal statutes do not purport to
confer upon peace officers Of Iinoise any direct au-
thority to arrest for violations of the Volsead law
For example, the Vostead law, section &C. which IS
cited by the Tribune available purports to give
any officer Of the law power to seize vehicle I'M
lawfully transporting liquor, to arrest the offender,
and bring proceedings for the forfeiture or the We
hicle But the supreme court of the United States IN
the case of Gambino v United States, 275 u S. 80.
held that the expression "any officer of the law as
used in this statute referred only to federal officers
and does not include state officers The fact is if the
Illinois prohibition law should be repealed there
would be statute giving any state officer the right
to arrest run-runner whom he found transporting
liquors the highways of the state, and to search
for and seize the liquor.
Section 1914 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States is also cited by the Tribune 1t authorizes GER
tain state magistrates, including judges (but not po-
ce) to arrests for violations of federal stat
uteS. judge, unless he arrests personally, must
issue warrant before arrest can lawfully be
made. No police officer act under the section eX
cept authorized under such warrant. Further
more recognized clearly in the opinion of the
Massachusetts, supreme court in Goulis V. Judge of
District Court, 246 Mass. l. the judge is not obliged
to act in the case but may do not as he peases
The Tribune suggests that 'the governor appar-
emily has not read the National Prohibition (Vol-
Stead) act. There is nothing in the governors mes
sage to Indicate that he didn't read and carefully
consider the national prohibition law and other fed
eral liquor statutes. He said that if the repeater
should become a law state officers named could not
under state I01D interfere with the sale of liquor to
school children, or the operation of trackerS in q-
uorS near schools and colleges If the writer of the
Tribune editorial himself had read the National Pro-
hibition act he didn't take any pains to learn the
legal effect of the sections of the statutes which he
referred to.
Yes, the federal government has provided that
statutes, but it can't compel them to act. If the
of employees whom it could not compel to discharge
their duties, but who could refuse to obey it's orders
with impunity how long would it be before it would
be bankrupt institution? jill. G.