PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

Otago Witness, Issue 3610, 22 May 1923, Page 19

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

NEW YORK ENFORCEMENT REPEAL. NEW YORK, May 16. Arising out of the repeal by the N ew York State Legislature of the Prohibition enforcement law, which the Governor lias not yet signed, Mr Harding has written a letter replying to requests made to him that the Federal officials should take immediate action to enforce the iaw should the State officers be i red of the duty by the Governor’s signature. Mr Harding admits that the repeal of the State’s enforcement statutes is like 1 y to result in a conflict between the State and Federal authorities, but he adds—- “ The nation deliberately, after many years of consideration, adopted the present policy, which is written into the Eighteenth Amendment. It is the law of the land and of every State within the Union. So long as it remains a national policy there is only one course for the National Government to pursue, and that is to use every means to make the iaw effective. To do this will be the unquestioning policy of the present Administration. The nation’s Executive, equally with the State’s Executive, ip sworn to enforce the Constitution. It s difficult to believe that public approval will ever be given to any other policy.” On May 5 the New York State Assembly passed a Bill repealing the State Prohibition Enforcement Law by 77 votes to 71. The repealed measure provided -more strict penalties than were provided in the Federal Volstead Law, broad powers being vested in the civic police, such as search and arrest without a warrant. The new situation meant (it was stated at the time) that prohibition enforcement in New York State would be left largely to the Federal authorities. The Federal Prohibition Bureau at Washington declared, in reply, that apart altogether from the repeal of tlie New York Enforcement Law, the police and State officials were sworn to uphold the Federal Constitution, of which the Eighteenth Amendment was part. It was stated furthermore that the city authorities would-demand a continuance of the enforcement. BRITAIN INSTITUTES INQUIRY. LONDON, May 17. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr Ronald M'Neill) announced that the British Ambassador at Washington (Sir Auckland Geddes) had been asked to prepare a report for submission to Parliament on the effects of Prohibition in the United States. LAW TO BE OBSERVED. NEW YORK, May 18. Sir Ashley Sparkes, general director of the Cunard Line, announces that the Cunard and Anchor Lines will follow the American Supreme Court s prohibition ruling to the letter. The company’s liners, when westward bound, will only carry liquor as far as the three-mile limit, and will there throw overboard what remains. Eastwardbound vessels will carry no liquor. Sir Ashley Sparkes declares that the recent London shipping conference was < E opinion that the United States’ decision was an infringement of the liberties cf other people, and hoped that the two Governments would get together in order to arrive at a decision to modify the Volstead Act so far as foreign ships are concerned. PROVISION BOATS SEIZED. NEW YORK.. May 8. Restrained by the new decision of the Supreme Court from attacking the liquorrunning vessels on the high seas, officials of the United States Prohibition Department this morning opened battle against the boat connections ashore. One tug and a motor-launch laden with delicacies ranging from spinach to beat

steaks, which were intended to Ire sold by auction down the line of anchored rumrunners, were seized as they attempted to steal across the three-mile limit. ATTEMPTED COUNTER BLAST. LONDON. May 10. A counterblast to the recent American decision making ships “dry'’ in American ports was provided in the House of Commons, which, by 184 votes to 128, allowed the introduction of a Bill promoted by Mr G. L. Courthope (Cons.), providing that all passenger ships m British waters must carry a reasonable quantity of liquor. He declared that ne did not wish to interfere or to criticise the domestic concerns of other countries, but when one of them threatened to impose her domestic restrictions on the world’s ocean-going traffic on tlie high seas, it was time tor the British Parlia ment to act.—(Ministerial cheers.) Mr J. M. Kenwortliy (Lib.) declared that the Bill, if regarded seriously in America, would bo taken as a very childish and foolish attempt at reprisal The Bill would enable the rich to get drunk within the three-mile limit, but would not help the poor, thirsty emigrant to drown his sorrows.—(Labour cheers.)