Evening star., 1933-03-18

Varying opinions are voiced as tc the
effect of the new orders given by the
Prohibition Bureau, leaving raids on
speakeasies to the State, suspending
purchase Of liquor for evidence, and
banishing methods of the overlapping
class heretofore employed by Federal
agents. There is discussion OF the
efficiency Of State enforcement, and as
to the wisdom of confining the work
of the prohibition enforcers to the
larger sources of supply.
The first definite retreat Of the Fed
eral Government since the national
prohibition law went into effect is
seen by the Indianapolis News. which
holds that "the principal result is
definite withdrawal of the bureau from
the field Of small sales to consumers.
The News comedies that lit means the
end of unsavory methods" and advises
that If the bureau confines its Efforts
to stopping the illicit manufacture
and transportation of quantities o. 10
toxicants it may find that 1t can do
much more toward suppression than
it ever supposed
This passing Of the buck" in the
opinion Of the Springfield (Mass)
Union, docs not seem to bode well for
prohibition enforcement" The Union
offers the conclusions as to the effect
of the new order: Director Woodcock
hopes to make the work of his bureau
more effective than it has been. Even
he, however, seems to be a bit dubious
about the results that may come from
turning over to the State the problem
of dealing with the speakeasies and
bootleggers in their midst. If the local
authorities care to assume their share
of the responsibility, he says, 1T would
seem that the restrictions Congress has,
in its wisdom, placed in the law will
effect a fairer distribution Of RESPONSE
bility than has been possible under
mere administrative action That
qualifying II Is significant, and
probably is based on Mr.. Woodcock's
knowledge Of the growing disposition
On the part Of local authorities and
various communities to wash their
hands of prohibition enforcement and
let the Federal authorities attend to it
as best they may"
The Federal Government" according
to the New York Times, for a long
time has recognized the futility of at
tempting to police the whole country
with staff Of agents wholly made
quate for that purpose" The Scranton
Times explains the situation by pointing
to the fact that the appropriation has
been cut about IS per cent" and that
this will result in a reduction of the
number Of agents" while they are for
hidden to use funds for the purchase
of intoxicating liquor which is con-
sumed by the investigator" The Gin
cinnat TimeS-Star offers judgment:
The consequences OF Commissioner
Woodcock's announcement will vary
with different sections Of the country.
In New York City, for example, 1t
amounts to the end Of prohibition en-
forcement, as far as the average citizen
is concerned. When the Empire State
prohibition law was repealed, some
years ago, the burden of raiding the
city's innumerable speakeas.es fell upon
bend their energies to damming up the
larger sources Of supply. But with
streams of supply so numerous, and en-
forcement funds so meager, their task
will be something like batling out the
Atlantic with a sieve
The new orders are criticised by the
Lincoln State Journal on the ground
that they are hardly in keeping with
the supposed hostility Of the Democratic
platform toward the saloon," for local
authorities have exercised local option
when it was left to them to act" The
Charleston Is. c. Evening Post Is OF
the opinion that "the policy to which
the bureau is now addressing itself
would very likely be the policy it would
pursue after repeal" The Hartford
Times concludes that "the spirit of Fed
eral prohibition enforcement has been
broken"
"The new regulations are logical and
sound" thinks the Omaha World Herald
with condemnation Of wire-tapping and
purchase Of illegal whisky for agents to