Milford chronicle., 1932-07-08
THE AMENDMENT PLANK

When Postmaster General Brown
gave out a statement a few days be-
fore the meeting of the Republican
National Convention that a plank on
the liquor problem would be framed
which would be satisfactory to ev-
erybody," the statement met with
pretty universal jeers, especially
among the bright newspaper para
graphers who were unanimous in
insisting that the thing just couldn't
be done.
But that is just about what seems
to have been done, the jeers to the
contrary Notwithstanding. Efforts
are being made, to be sure, to Gre
ate the impression that the liquor
plank in the Republican National
Platform is a straddle and that it
is unintelligible. But these efforts
are as unconvincng as they are la
borious. Here are certain facts with
which those who framed this plank
had to deal when they began their
deliberations.
ID Conditions under prohibition
are unsatisfactory.
(2) Conditions before prohibition
were unsatisfactory.
(3) Some plan must be devised
which will deal with the liquor
problem in such a way as to minim-
ize the evils which have grown up
under prohibition without a return
to the worse evils which prevailed
before prohibition was adopted.
(4) Any particular states which
choose to remain dry must be pro-
tected from wet invasion and the
evil of the open saloon must not re-
turn to either wet or dry states.
The longer it is studied the more
it must be admitted by the fair
minded that the Republican liquor
plank met those problems fairly,
frankly and effectively.
This plank asserts that the people
should have an opportunity to pass
upon a proposed amendment of the
18th Amendment which by its terms
shall allow the states to deal with
the Qiquor) problem as their clti-
zens may determine. But subject
always to the power of the Federal
Government to protect states where
prohibition may exist and safeguard
our citizens everywhere from the re-
turn of the saloon and attendant
abuses" Certainly there is nothing
unintelligible about that, nothing
hazy or confused. It is clean cut
and definite. 1t means precisely
what it says.
To the extent that national pro-
hibition mas failed, the failure is due
largely to the refusal of the states
to accept their responsibility in its
enforcement. When the amendment
was adopted concurrent police pow
ers were given to the Federal Gov
ernment and to the states with the
expectation that the Federal Gov
ernment would take care of the en-
forcement of the law to the extent
of guarding interstate transporta-
tion and protecting the country
from the importation of liquors. 1t
was expected that the states would
police their own territory, protect
ing their people against the viola
tion of this as of other laws. But
the states have not lived up to this
implied compact. Several of them,
the great state of New York,
have actually repealed such laws as
they had on their statute books un-
der which violations of the prohibi-
tory law might have been prevented
or punished, leaving to the Federal
the entire responsible
ity of local enforcement. OF course
that is flatly impossible. The Fed
eral Government can not police the
entire territory of the United States.
And so the proposal embodied in
the Republican liquor plank is that
the states shall resume their respon-
sibilities in the matter of controll-
ing the liquor traffic while the Fed |