Evening star., 1933-09-17
Repeal and the District.

One advantage which should result
from early hearings-in advance OF the
regular session of Congress-on pro-
posed liquor control act for the District
of Columbia, is that which is gained
bv time. Senator King doubtless has
this in mind The next session will be
one of the busiest in years. Members
of Congress will be largely occupied
with the national issues of the New
Deal 1t would be extremely unfor-
tunate should liquor control law for
the District of Columbia after repeal
be slapped together failing, because of
hasty consideration, to fulfill the re-
quirements inherent in such law for
this community
Should the eighteenth amendment be
repealed as early as December 6, which
Is recognized now as probability, more
than a month would elapse before the
regular session of Congress. The At
torney General has now taken under
advisement the important question of
liquor control in the District of Co.
1umbia between repeal and the passage
some difference of opinion over the
status of the national prohibition act,
the Volstead law, after the eighteenth
amendment has been repealed. In
formal opinion at the Department of
Justice is that repeal of the eighteenth
amendment would act automatically to
repeal the laws dependent upon that
amendment. That might be true for
the States, of course, but not for the
District of Columbia, as prohibition for
the District did not raise the question
OF constitutionality. Congress declared
the District dry, through the Sheppard
act, before the eighteenth amendment
was adopted and ratified. The beer
bill specifically repealed all but two
provisions of the Sheppard act. One
of the questions for the Attorney
General to decide relates to the status
of the Volstead act in the District of
Columbia after repeal, whether Con-
gress must specifically repeal the VOL
stead act in its application to the Dis
trict of Columbia.
Aside from that, the Commissioners
have authority, under the new license
law, to license all businesses in the Dis
trict of Columbia. 1t is reasonable to
believe that if there were no other
forms Of legislative control over the
liquor traffic after repeal, the licensing
law would be utilized until new legisla-
ton became effective.
If Senator King follows the course he
has outlined, early hearings on liquor
control bill would provide members of
the local community an opportunity to
express their sentiment on liquor reg
ulation after repeal. Unless there should
be a local referendum on the subject,
which Senator King considers unlikely
the hearings would afford the only
medium of expression for the disfran-
chised citizens who live in the District.
Those who speak for local residents
should be given ample time, and after
receiving their views, members OF Con-
gress should have full opportunity to
consider them.
In regulating the liquor traffic for the
District, Congress exercises the double
function of national and State Legisla-
ture,- AS a national Legislature. its
members are bound by pledges Of both
parties to prevent the return OF the
saloon. AS local Legislature, the
members of the ma ajority party, at least,
are pledged to the enactment OF such
measures by the several States as will
actually promote temperance, effectively
prevent the return of the saloon and
bring the liquor traffic into the open
under complete supervision and con-
troll by the States"
The enactment of such measure
not only preventing the saloon but one
which will actually promote temper
ance'-is the task to which Congress
must address itself seriously as State
Legislature in regulating the sale OF
LIQUOR in the District after repeal.