LIQUOR SMUGGLING

Evening Star, Issue 19351, 10 September 1926, Page 12

LIQUOR SMUGGLING

BRITAIN AND THE VOLSTEAD ACT ; 1

General Andrews, tho chief Prohibition Enforcement Officer of the United States, has been in conference during tho last few days in London with British officials on tho question of British co-operation in the prevention of liquor smuggling (says 1 The Times,' in a leading article, in which it reviews the relations of the British and American Governments in the matter of the Volstead Act). The conference h the result of an invitation extended by the Foreign Office last March, it was felt that a series of personal interviews with the different Government departments concerned would be the best way of enabling tho American authorities to understand both what are tho powers and limitations of the British Administration and what information and assistance it needs from the United States to make its co-opera-tion as valuable as possible within the limits assigned to it. The present discussions are, therefore, of a technical character. They are not intended fio raise any fresh principle, or to lead to any extension of the facilities already offered by this country and accepted by tho United States. Nevertheless, the distinction between defining the methods of carrying out _ existing understandings and extending the, scope of those understandings is a fine one. and it is appropriate at this moment to pass in review the agreements as they stand to-day, and tho considerations behind tho British attitude. From the first beginnings of National Prohibition tho British Government found itself called upon to show a friendly or an unfriendly attitude towards the now difficulties ol the American administration. The British Isles were the source of most of • tho smuggled liquor; British islands in tho West Indies were a chief base for the smugglers’ activities; most important of all, the British Hag was the one under which the great majority of tho rum-running shins carried on dioir unlawful trade. That this trade was universally condemned by all decent British public opinion was obvious, but that was not enough. The official British attitude became a matter of great importance to the American Government. A punctilious insistence upon ’national rights, a refusal to meet new conditions, would have intensified tho already overwhelming difficulties of the. enforcement authorities, and caused a succession of incidents highly prejudicial to the friendship of the two countriesThere was, indeed, some danger of this in 1923, when tho American Government seized the liquor supplies of English liners, though those supplies w,r;re only intended for the return journey from New York. This action led to a full discussion of the question; and early in 1924 with general appiovnl Mr Baldwin's Government, concluded a treaty whose chief article allowed tho American authorities to stop and search and seize vessels within an linur’s steaming of tho American coast. la return for this largo con(■ssinn tho American Government allowed British ships in their harbors to retain their liquor under seal. Unfortunately, both halves of the Treaty produced difficulties. The American shipping industries did all they could, though without final success, to upset what they considered the unfair arrangement which enabled their competitors to offer an additional amenity between New York and England. On the other hand tho privilege of search which that concession had bought has been nullified by a ruling of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, since Congress has not carried out the formality of extending the operation of Customs and Prohibition laws beyond the three-mile limit of territorial waters. Furthermore, the West Indies, as an ideal base, remained unaffected. The problem of enforcement has become a bitter and dominating political topic, and among the other forms of the Dry demand for “More Prohibition” has been one for more assistance from Great Britain. President Coolidgo on assuming office in his_ own right, made efforts for stricter enforcement, and addressed requests for onr fuller co-operation, particularly in the West Indies. These requests resulted in several concessions. . Specified United States cutters wore given the right to enter the harbors of the Bahamas without other notice than a first visit to the Bahaman Commissioner at Bimini. Extreme care was enjoined upon registrars of shipping in the West Indies to prevent dishonest transfers. In more than ono case British owners have been prosecuted for failing to disclose that they had sold their vessels. A ship carrying whisky from Antwerp to Halifax was detained at Dover for technical breaches of the Merchant Shipping Acts, which would normally have been overlooked. The British Government further offered to prosecute for false declaration of destination if the United States Government provided sufficient evidence. In other words, the Government has made it plain, both by word and act, that it is willing to enforce to the letter all existing legal checks upon deception, and to prevent tho misuse of tho British flag. The present conference is to explain fully tho nature of these existing chocks, and the steps the American authorities must take to reap full advantage from them.

The attitude of the British Government is altogether friendly. It has a somewhat difficult double duty to perform. It must protect from molestations and annoyances, like arbitrary search, bona fide British merchants and shippers, in the West Indies as elsewhere; but it must make it plain that it docs not connive at the British flag being used as a cheap and easy shelter for persons of any nationality or of none, who are enriching themselves by eluding the laws of a friendly country. For many reasons the policy of responding obligingly and even generously to these American requests is as wise for the future as it is agreeable in tho present. To have met all reasonable expectations of support in the past is the strongest ground from which to refuse extravagant demands in the future, and there are signs that in a further campaign for intensified enforcement such claims may be made. There are parties in America whoso own credit is so much involved in the effectiveness of Prohibition that they favor very extreme demands upon tbe active co-operation of other countries, on the ground of the special moral character of the Prohibition law The parallel which Senator Borah attempted to draw last year between Ru««ian support of Communist propaganda in Great Britain and British support of British rum-runners is deprived of oven elementary plausibility by the clear offer of our Government to prosecute for fal'e declarations if the United States will furnish sufficient evidence. We cannot be expected to accept tho doctrine of special obligation to a moral crusade when it is the non-acceptance of that doctrine by so many of the Americans themselves that is the very reason we are asked to accept it. The matter must remain for us on the more prosaic level of smuggling. It is not our business to make a. distinction between smuggling to defraud the revenue and smuggling in violation of a social policy, but to give our neighbor such i„ checking smuggling as we should expect ourselves. The revela-luh.-i at tae investigation by Congress showed very clearly how acute and almost desperate the problem of enforcing, the Volstead Act has become. A larger and larger appropriation has to be made each year for enforcement, and is now some 30,000,000 dollars. It is agreed that the'present position is a scandal, and it is evident that tho next few years will establish whether any effective control pan be devised.

or whether the nineteenth amendment like the fourteenth, declaring racial equality, will become a dead letter throughout those regions where public opinion fails to give it adequate support. Whatever the issue, it is supremely important—especially at this moment when mischief-makers in both countries are busy—that Great-Britain shall be seen in retrospect to have acted throughout with justice and neighborly consideration. [A cable message published on July 29 stated that Prohibition officials were highly elated over tho British agreement resulting from General Andrews’s mission, the main features of which were stated to be: (1) Exchange of smuggling intelligence between 'Britain and the United States; (2) stricter British Registration of ships, and closer scrutiny of ships’ papers before clearance is granted; and (3) authority for the United States coastguard boats to pursue runners into British territorial waters around the Bahama Islands. Mr Loc-ker-Lampson, Under-Secretary for Hoine affairs, stated in the House of Commons that tho object of the conference was the establishing of a close working liaison to deal with rum-run-ning. The liaison when established would enable both sides to assist each other to secure a strict observance of the law, and thus reduce ,thc causes of complaint and misunderstanding There would be no extension of the right of search or interference with legitimate trade.]