The Washington times., 1931-01-20

whose duty it was to enforce the
prohibitory laws. Concerning the
failures of cooperation, the re.
port says:
1--WE have a long tradition Of
independence of administrative
officials and systematic decen-
traliZing of administration. In
consequence diSinclination to
cooperate has pervaded our
whole pOlity, local, State and
Federal; and for historical rea-
sons, since the civil war, there
has been more or less latent,
or even open, suspicion and
Jealousy Of Federal admins
trative agencies on the part of
many Of the States. Concur
rent State and Federal prOhi-
bitiOn has shown us nothing
new. 1t has repeated and reca-
pitulated in q decade the ex-
perience Of 140 years of admin
iStratiOn Of nationwide laws in
dual government"
Lawyers everywhere depIOre,
as one Of the most serious ef-
fectS Of prohibition, the change
in the general attitude toward
the Federal courts. Formerly
these tribunals were of excep-
tiOnal dignity, and the efficiency
and dispatch of their criminal
business commanded wholesome
fear and respect. The prOfes.
SiOnal criminal, who sometimes
had Scant respect for the State
tribunals, was careful SO to con-
duct himself as not to come
within the jurisdiction of the
Federal courts. The effect of
the huge volume of liquor prose
customs, which has come to these
courts under prohibition, has
injured their dignity, impaired
their efficiency, and endan-
gered the wholesome respect
Tor them which once obtained"
Courts Are Suffering
Injurious effects upon. the ad
ministration Of the machinery
OF the courts have been equally
apparent" the report goes on to
say:
instances Of difficulty in
procuring execution of warrants
by United States marshaIs,
scandals in the carrying out of
orders for the destruction of
seized liquors, failure to serve
orders in paddock injunction
cases, and carrying on of illicit
production and distribution un-
de1 protection of q marshal or
his assistants, in many places
have brought the executive arm
Of the Federal courts into dis
respect, where until recently its
efficiency was universally be-
heved in"
Under the heading of "The In
Vltat1on to Hypocrisy and Eva
sion Involved in the Provisions
as to Fruit Juices" the report
says in part:
IF these are not 1iOuOr'
within the act, It Is hard to see
why the provision was needed.
II they are, and the provision so
suggests by saying that the pen
altleS for the manufacture of
liquor shall not apply to them,
there Is q discrimination be-
tween beer of lower alcoholic
content, which certainly Is not
q fruit juice and wine of dis
tinctly higher content.
Discrimination Cited
Moreover, the failure to fix
the meaning Of 'nOn-intOxicat-
ing in this connection, leaving
1t q question Of fact to be
passed on by the jury in each
case, in effect removes wine
making from the field Of practi-
cable enforcement.
why home wine-making
should be lawful while home
brewing Of beer and home dis
tilling Of spirits are not, why
home winemaking for home use
Is less FeprehenSible than max
ing the same wine outside the
home for home use, and why
1t should be penal to make wine
commercially for use in homes
and not penal to make in huge
quantities the material for
winemaking and set up an elab-