VOLSTEAD ACT.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19610, 4 May 1929, Page 8

VOLSTEAD ACT.

IRRITATION IN U.S.A. SENATORIAL SMUGGLING. (FBOM 0T73 OWS COKMSPOKDSHT.) SAN FRANCISCO, April 4. Almost everybody in "Washington is wondering whether the current Volsteadian happenings presage that long heralded national reaction against the attempt to regulate human habit and custom by law. Wondering with new hopefulness are the ireta; with ill-con-cealed apprehension the drys. For more than a fortnight accounts of the excesses of Prohibition enforcement and popular revulsion therefrom, of the. spreading repugnance to sumptuary law and of public disgust with the hvpocrisy of lawmakers who vote dry and drink wet have crowded the front pages of the American newspapers. Altogether Volsteadism is now under fire to a greater degree than at any time in the decade sinee the Demon Eum was officially cursed with bell, book, and candle. By nothing have the drys been more startled than by the public reaction to the killing of Mrs de King by a Prohibition enforcer at Aurora, Illinois, the sinking of the Canadian steamer I'm Alone by a United States rum chaser with the loss of the life of a French sailor, and the charges of smuggling liquor into the United States made against two Congressmen who voted for the Jones Act —Eepresentatives M. Alfred Michaelson, Republican of Illinois, and Representative William M. Morgan, Republican of Ohio. The foregoing is part of an article broadcast over the country from Washington from the facile pen of that wellknown American observer at the capital, Arthur Sears Henning. "It is apparent," he wrote, "that the brutal excesses of zealotry involved in the two killings and the hypocrisy involved in the accusations of the dryvoting Congressmen are influencing public opinion to a marked degree. "Freedom of the Port." "It has been notorious for years that both 'the freedom of the port,' and the 'courtesy of the port' have covered the smuggling of large quantities of liquor by Senators, Representatives, and other officials.

"The amount of liquor smuggled in by officials under these immunities is estimated to rank respectably with the amount brought in by Ambassadors and Ministers of foreign countries under the diplomatic immunity they enjoy. "It has been common gossip in Washington for years that the proper amount of political influence obtains the freedom of the port for any person. The pressure to obtain this privilege has been enormous since the national Prohibition law went into effect. Among the favours which some Republican national committeemen have professed the power to dispense is that of freedom of the port for returning travellers. "One of the Congressional darlings of the Anti-Saloon League from a northwestern State brought half a truck load of liquor from Haiti to Norfolk and possessed sufficient influence to get it brought to Washington on a navy boat. "One of the pathetic tales is of a politically dry Senator who carefully conveyed a truck" load of Scotch all the way from Panama to the Washington Navy Yard, where he brought it in under the freedom of the port, only to suffer its loss by theft on the dock.

Much Unrest. "Outside of the depraved East not much attention was attracted by the rout of the drys in the New York Legislature, who endeavoured to restore the State Prohibition Enforcement Act, which was repealed in 1923. "When, however, Illinois, in the heart of the (politically) dry West, made a serious move late in March toward the repeal of its State Prohibition Enforcement Act,.the East pricked up its ears. The dry organisations are thoroughly alarmed. What they fear more than anything else is the opening wedge of the repudiation of Prohibition, as Prohibition has suffered in every other country that has tried it, with the exception of Finland, up to date." After commenting on the situation prior to an election in Wisconsin, which resulted in a staggering defeat of the forces by more than 150,000 majority, Mr Henning added: "A large crop of referendums on Prohibition is expected in the election next year. There have been numerous State referendums in the last four years with mixed results. "In 1926 New York and Illinois voted for modification of the Volstead Act to permit States to define non-intoxi-cating liquor. Wisconsin voted in favour of 2.75 per cent. beer. Montana repealed its State enforcement law and last November refused to enact the Volstead Act in place of it. Nevada officially pronounced Prohibition a failure and called on Congress to amend the Eighteenth Amendment. "California refused to repeal its Enforcement Act. So did Missouri. Colorado voted against a proposal to allow manufacture and sale of liquor when not in conflict with Federal law. In 1927 Massachusetts voters, by an overwhelming majority, memorialised Congress to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment. Last year North Dakota voted against repeal of the Prohibition clause in the State constitution." Massachusetts on the last day of March launched a two-year campaign for the repeal of the State Volstead Act, the movement being described as "the greatest anti-Prohibition drive ever launched in the State.