Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-22
CONFUSION NOTED
ON HOOvER'S STAND
President Considered as
Having Banned Specific, Not
All, Dry Law Revision.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.


The reactions of tn country about
President Hoover's stand on the Law
Enforcement Commissions report, and
about the report itself, reflect confusion
as to the meaning of importeNt portions
of both. The CONTRADICTORY mt rpTete-
lions of the Presidents attitude arise IN
connection with his position, or his
refraining from taking position, ON
contingent future revision OF he eiPht-
zenith amendment. The commission IN
Ats report said, in part:
Some of the commission are not con-
WINGED that prohibition under the
eighteenth amendment is unenfores able
and believe that a further trial should
be made with the help of the recon-
mendsd improvements, and that i after
such trial effective enforcement is mo-
secured there should be revision OF
the amendment"
This suggested future and conditional
revision of the amendment was alluded
to by the President in his letter After
saving that he was ain accord with" the
commissions opposition to repeal, and
''in unity with the spirit of the report
in seeking constructive steps" ETC., the
President then alluded to the propc' cd
conditional revision. The President de-
scribed It as 1.-The commissions proposed
revision of the eighteenth amendmcLt
which is suggested by them for possible
consideration at some future tir1e II The
continued effort at enforcement should
not prove successful"
What President Said.
About this proposed future and CON-
ditional revision of the prohibition
amendment the President said: Il see
serious objections; and in expressing
his position on it he said that he must
not be interpreted as recommending" 1t.
This language of the President has
been construed as meaning that he
took a stand on the matter OF any or
all revisions of the prohibition amend
ment and that his stand was one of
opposition to all such proposals.
lawyer reading the Presidents allusion,
however. would recognize that his posi-
ton was familiar one frequently taken
by courts. namely, a position of say
ing in effect: "Since the proposal Is
not now before us for action, we take
no position on it"
In concluding his allusion to the
suggested future and contingent re-
vision, the President used sentence
which suggests the necessary limitation
upon any one having responsibility for
administering any law. The President
said:
my own duty and that of all exec
utive officials Is clear--to enforce the
law with all the means at our disposal
without equivocation or reservation"
DiffcuIty Of Position.
Any official, high or low. charged
with enforcement Of any law what
ever, is sometimes under a limitation
not applying to persons in private hfe.-
Such a person in such a position can
not well be in the position of enforc-
ing an existing law with. so to speak,
one hand, while with the other hand
he gives public consideration to a.
change in the law.
This same limitation was felt by the
Law Enforcement Commission itself
and accounts in part for the obscurity3
in some portions of its report
The commission, as a responsible and
authoritative body, felt obliged to So
phrase its conclusions as to avoid putt
ting an impossible handicap upon the
existing law and upon the army of per-
sons engaged in the work Of enforce
nient. In seeking to express itself under
this limitation the commission fell into
some inconsistency.
Source Of Confusion.
The principal obscurity in the COM
missions report, about which there Is
much confusion throughout the coun-l
try, is conflict between the report Of
the commission as o whole and the In
dividual opinions signed by the IL
members. The report of the commits
sion as q whole, as signed by 10 of the
IL members, states as conclusion No. /:
THE commission is opposed to repeal
of the eighteenth amendment" Yet
among the IL individual statements of
personal opinion hardly one can be
said 70 take this unqualified view. Not
one can be said to express unqualified
belief in continuation Of the eighteenth
amendment in its present form as the
best method of handling the liquor
problem.
One surmised explanation can be
found by beginning with one of the
other conclusions Of the commission as
a whole, numbered IN the report. The
commission says: THE commission is
opposed to the restoration in any man
ner of the legalized saloon" This con-
clusion is unqualified. There is no dis
sent from IL or expressed qualification
Of it in any Of the individual opinions.
This particular conclusion is practically
universal, within the commission and
outside 1t, among both vets and drys.
II the formal conclusions of the
Wickersham Commission be regarded as
starting from and largely built upon
this one about the saloon, it follows
that the commission could hardly in
the same report fail to oppose repeal
OF the eighteenth amendment. The
reason Is that repeal Of the eighteenth
amendment, standing alone without
some simultaneous action, would bring
back the saloon. Repeal Of the eight
zenith amendment, standing alone with
out some simultaneous action, would
restore exactly the status existing i'm
Hediately before national prohibition
took effect. That status included. as
every one knows. widespread existence
Of the saloon and sanction of it by most
Of the States
tCopyrisht. 1917