Enforcement 
 
 of the 
 
 Prohibition Law 
 
 By 
 
 Hon. John G. Sargent 
 
 Attorney General of the 
 United States 
 
 Press of The American Issue, Westeruille, Ohio, U. S. A. 
 
ADDRESS BEFORE WOMAN’S COMMITTEE 
 ON LAW ENFORCMMENT 
 
 [Washington, D. C., April 13, 1926] 
 
Madame the President and Members of the 
 Women’s Committee on Lazv Enforcement: 
 
 In approaching the subject before 3"0U at 
 this social gathering of the representatives of 
 your great body, I am somewhat at a loss how 
 to begin. 
 
 To me, the matter of having the law ob- 
 served, in a country under a government like 
 ours, seems a very simple thing. All that is 
 necessary is that each member of each famil}" 
 in each community in each State shall go about 
 his and her business each day with the pur- 
 pose in mind to obey the rules made by society 
 for its own guidance. But it happens that 
 there are here and there among us persons 
 who do not have such purpose ; persons who, 
 instead of trying to earn an honest living by 
 honest toil, undertake to get the means of 
 living in what they think and hope will be an 
 easier way. 
 
 We must remember that a living for all must 
 be earned by all, and each member of society 
 who does not by some useful action earn his 
 keep increases the burden of the rest who have 
 to earn it for them. 
 
 With those who are a burden from being 
 mere drones — shirks — we need not further 
 concern ourselves here ; with those who, by 
 active preying on their fellow-members of the 
 social body, undertake to get a living, or more 
 than a living — the means of luxury — we are 
 here very much concerned. 
 
 With those who undertake to set aside the 
 rules of life which we ourselves have made and 
 
 [ 3 ] 
 
satisfy their cravings of lust, of appetite, of 
 revenge, of malice by reprisals on individuals, 
 on the community, we are very much con- 
 cerned. 
 
 We make law governing the relations of 
 individuals to each other and their property and 
 we provide courts in which individuals may 
 seek redress for violations of their legal rights 
 by other individuals. 
 
 We make law governing the relations of 
 individuals to the community and provide by 
 law penalties for infraction of such law. The 
 community as a body cannot well impose such 
 penalties, and so we provide courts to pass on 
 the question of whether there has been an 
 infraction of the law and provide representa- 
 tives of the community to present in such 
 courts charges against persons accused of 
 infractions of the law — prosecuting officers. 
 
 What is the duty of such a representative of 
 the community toward its laws? 
 
 It seems to me that a prosecuting officer, 
 while and so long as he holds his place as the 
 representative of the law, ought not to take 
 the position that the law as it is ought not to 
 be the law. 
 
 The law is the will of the body politic, and 
 we are in our places by the will of the body 
 politic, put there to execute that will, and if 
 we go about declaring in speech and in print 
 that the law ought to be changed, so that acts 
 which are offenses against the law will not be 
 offenses, we thereby weaken our causes in the 
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
minds of the tribunals before whom we must 
 try them. 
 
 I notice on the letterheads of this committee 
 that the purpose of the organizations it repre- 
 sents is to encourage the enforcement of all 
 the law, with especial emphasis on the Eight- 
 eenth Amendment and the Volstead act, and 
 I have been informed by some of your officers 
 that you are particularly anxious for an 
 expression of my views on that subject. 
 
 Let me say that what my views are is not, 
 as I see it, of much greater importance than 
 what your views are. I can keep the machin- 
 ery of prosecution of violators of the law in 
 motion, but you can make the results of such 
 work effective, or to a considerable extent 
 impair its effectiveness. 
 
 At the risk of being accused of having a 
 single-track mind I wish to repeat here, in 
 substance, a few observations I have before 
 publicly made on this subject. 
 
 In this country, under our system of govern- 
 ment, the will of the people, expressed by their 
 vote, becomes and is the rule of conduct which 
 all citizens are bound to observe and which all 
 citizens or aliens must be compelled to observe. 
 That rule of conduct creates j;he duty of every 
 inhabitant of the jurisdiction doing the voting. 
 
 The Eighteenth Amendment is the law of 
 the land. 
 
 The Volstead act is the law of the land. 
 
 Both by constitutional command of the 
 
 [ 5 ] 
 
whole people and by legislative enactment of 
 their representatives in Congress it has been 
 decreed that traffic in intoxicating liquor shall 
 cease. 
 
 There is no room for discussion as to what 
 the voters of the country have said. 
 
 There is no halfway place in the command 
 they have laid upon their servants chosen and 
 appointed to administer the law. 
 
 But, notwithstanding that the law is as it is, 
 notwithstanding the will of the people is that 
 this traffic— and, of course, the drinking of 
 alcohol — shall cease, a considerable number of 
 persons insist they will not obey the law and 
 persist in the traffic to supply drink for them- 
 selves and others who are willing to reward 
 them for the chances they take. 
 
 Those who engage in the business, those 
 who furnish the business by buying its wares, 
 and some who do not wish to either sell or buy 
 liquor, undertake to excuse the violators by 
 saying over and over that this law is an 
 infringement of personal liberty. 
 
 They declare that since the prohibition law 
 went into effect it has never been practically 
 in effect ; 
 
 That it has been a disastrous, tragic failure ; 
 
 That the federal government is powerless to 
 enforce it, because, they say, “the instinct of 
 personal liberty is very strong,” “man cannot 
 be made over by law” and “thousands of the 
 best citizens of the country have been brought 
 into contact with the bootlegger and have no 
 
 [61 
 
compunction whatever about violating the 
 law.” 
 
 Let us examine these propositions briefly : 
 
 Though some of those who make these 
 claims and arguments may not — do not — have 
 in mind a purpose to make the thing prohibited 
 easier to procure and less dangerous to make 
 and sell by those who would provide it, never- 
 theless such is the effect upon the execution 
 of the law. 
 
 Personal liberty to do what? Anything 
 except to facilitate the making, sale and use of 
 intoxicants? Why? Any reason except that 
 the use of them may not be interfered with? 
 
 What other result can follow the constant 
 declaration that the law is not binding on the 
 consciences of those who do not favor its 
 provisions because they say it interferes with, 
 personal liberty, and the instinct of personal 
 liberty is very strong. What other result can 
 follow than that juries will hesitate to convict 
 on charges of violation of the law? 
 
 What other result can follow than that those 
 contemplating engaging in the traffic will be 
 encouraged by the thought that probably, even 
 if detected and arrested, conviction will not 
 follow? 
 
 No compunction about violating the law? 
 Violating it how? What for? Anything except 
 to provide intoxicants for somebody to drink? 
 
 No. 
 
 Such contentions, when made by those who 
 do not want liquor for themselves, who would 
 
 [ 7 ] 
 
not intentionally put obstacles in the way of 
 enforcement of the law, must be made without 
 realization of the efifect of their position. 
 
 That effect can be and is only to weaken 
 public sentiment in favor of any law enforce- 
 ment and to encourage violation of all law. 
 
 It is only a step — and an easy one — for the 
 man of loose moral fiber who hears and reads 
 that men of education, of standing and influ- 
 ence, aver and urge that he is not in conscience 
 bound to give allegiance to one provision of 
 the Constitution, is not in conscience bound to 
 observe one statute, because it interferes with 
 his liberty to do as he pleases in that matter, 
 to come to the conclusion that he is not in 
 conscience bound to observe another law, and 
 then another, which interferes with the liberty 
 he would have to do some other act but for 
 the law, and when he is told that many of the 
 best citizens violate a part of the law without 
 compunction, what conclusion can he reach but 
 that he may violate any part of it without 
 compunction ? 
 
 The difference between civilization and bar- 
 barism is in the presence or absence of law. 
 
 The very idea of law in a community carries 
 with it the surrender of individual freedom of 
 action for the good of the whole body. 
 
 In a state of barbarism one may walk or 
 drive where he please, unless the “personal 
 liberty” of another stronger than he interferes. 
 
 In Washington one must drive on the right- 
 hand side of the street. Why? Because the 
 
 [ 8 ] 
 
community has decided that the welfare of the 
 whole, of which he is a part, demands that he 
 be deprived of liberty to drive where he please 
 and compelled to go on the right-hand side. 
 
 Does anyone contend that “man cannot be 
 made over by law” in this matter? 
 
 Does anyone contend that because “the 
 instinct of personal liberty is very strong” he 
 has a right to endanger the safety of every one 
 in the street, including himself, by asserting 
 his personal liberty and driving on the left- 
 hand side? 
 
 What is the difference between insuring the 
 safety of travel by depriving men of their 
 personal liberty through compelling them to 
 drive on the right side and compelling them to 
 be sober when driving through depriving them 
 of the means of getting drunk? 
 
 The real source of the embarrassment to the 
 enforcement of the law is, not that the law 
 interferes with personal liberty — any law 
 which has any effect upon the conduct of the 
 individuals composing society does that and 
 must do that — -but that so many well-inten- 
 tioned persons, thoughtlessly, or following 
 some process of unsound reasoning, join hands 
 with those who intentionally violate the law 
 and give them aid and comfort in attempting 
 to justify their unlawful conduct. 
 
 There is no right of personal liberty to 
 perpetuate an institution which the law con- 
 demns. 
 
 In this country that the liquor traffic shall 
 
 [9] 
 
be exterminated is established by solemn reso- 
 lution of the electorate. 
 
 That it ought not to exist is admitted by 
 those making the arguments and claims I have 
 been discussing when they say, either by way 
 of preface or conclusion to every discussion, 
 “We do not desire to bring back intoxicating 
 liquor,” “There is no intention ever to bring 
 back the saloon.” Those who say this honestly 
 surely cannot have thought out the result to 
 which their arguments tend. 
 
 The rest “do protest too much.” 
 
 Again, if it be true that “the prohibitory law 
 has never been practically in effect,” that “it 
 has been a disastrous, tragic failure,” that “the 
 government is powerless to enforce it,” in 
 what way does it interfere with the personal 
 liberty of those who would drink intoxicants? 
 
 The answer is, as everybody knows, that by 
 reason of the existence of national prohibition, 
 by reason of its practical effect, by reason of 
 the exertion of the power of the federal govern- 
 ment, the traffic in liquor is becoming day by 
 day more and more difficult and dangerous to 
 carry on. 
 
 As the application of the federal power 
 grows more strict and the manufacture within 
 the country and importation from without 
 become more restricted, as the business 
 becomes more difficult and dangerous, the 
 price of the goods dealt in rises, and right 
 there the shoe pinches; right there is the 
 evidence which cannot be controverted, that 
 
 [ 10 ] 
 
the federal government is not “powerless to 
 enforce” the law. 
 
 I maintain that to show the law — any law — 
 is violated, is not to show that it is not being 
 enforced or that it cannot be enforced. 
 
 If that argument were sound, then because 
 crimes of murder, rape, robbery, smuggling, 
 stealing, embezzlement continue to be com- 
 mitted, we must say the penalties against 
 them cannot be imposed. 
 
 No one thinks that. 
 
 As the amount of liquor available for con- 
 sumption decreases and the price of liquor rises 
 and the profit per quart or per gallon increases, 
 new and keener wits and ingenuity are 
 attracted to the business, new and complicated 
 and skillful schemes are devised for evading 
 the law and constantly increasing watchful- 
 ness, activity and study required for their 
 detection. Many of them go on for a time 
 without detection. But ways of meeting and 
 overcoming them are found — and can be found 
 for all of them. 
 
 Recently some one made an argument that 
 the great increase of cases in court for violation 
 of the prohibitory law is an indication that the 
 law is not being and cannot be enforced. 
 
 I submit that that increase in cases in court 
 is an index of the activities which have resulted 
 in whisky being unobtainable except at an 
 expense many times as great as before those 
 activities were exerted by the federal govern- 
 ment. 
 
 [ 11 ] 
 
And as the work of detection, seizure and 
 arrest resulting in such cases in court goes on, 
 the extinction of the traffic draws so much 
 nearer. 
 
 That this traffic may be declared an evil 
 thing and may be abated under the provisions 
 of the now existing law is firmly settled by 
 judicial decision of the highest court. 
 
 What remains in the way of its complete 
 abatement? 
 
 The temptation to make money in the traffic, 
 created by those who either willfully or 
 thoughtlessly disregard their highest obliga- 
 tions to their country and themselves and offer 
 and pay for violation of the law a bribe large 
 enough to offset the danger of prosecution, fine 
 and imprisonment. 
 
 To those “thousands of the best citizens of 
 the country who have no compunctions what- 
 ever about violating the law” I address the 
 question ; Upon reflection, having called to 
 ycur attention what your action really means 
 and is in paying an outlaw for violating the 
 law of your country in order to furnish you 
 the means of gratifying your desire for drink, 
 don’t you think it better to refrain from such 
 bribery in the future? 
 
 Don’t you feel that, unless you so refrain, 
 there may be some doubt about your being 
 longer entitled to the designation, “best citi- 
 zens of the country?” 
 
 Can you afford to endanger your property, 
 your safety, your lives, and the property, 
 
 [ 12 ] 
 
safety and lives of your wives and children by 
 teaching and practicing the doctrine of pur- 
 chasing the commission of crime? 
 
 Laying aside for the moment any considera- 
 tion of your duty as citizens, does not your 
 interest lie the other way? 
 
 To those who, after considering the char- 
 acter and consequences of their acts, persist 
 in promoting and fostering the violation of the 
 law, I say that the hand of punishment shall 
 fall as often and as heavily as those now 
 charged with the duty of administering the law 
 can cause it to fall. 
 
 To you, the women of this country, I say, 
 you can by your influence and your votes 
 secure the election and appointment of honest, 
 faithful administrative officers and the dis- 
 charge and retirement of those who prove to 
 be dishonest, unfaithful, inefficient. 
 
 More than this ; 
 
 Remember that the business of making, 
 transporting and selling liquor is not entered 
 upon from the motives which incite the com- 
 mission of most other crimes — jealousy, re- 
 venge, sudden anger, ill will toward society 
 generally — but only for profit. 
 
 The market for the goods is the whole 
 foundation of the great cost in money, time 
 and effort of suppression of the traffic. 
 
 You can see to it that at no social event in 
 your charge shall your tables be disgraced by 
 the presence of unlawful liquor. 
 
 You can, if you will, make the serving of 
 
 [ 13 ] 
 
unlawful liquor at social functions of your 
 acquaintances so unpopular that it will cease. 
 
 Will you do your part? 
 
 I notice further on your letterheads, “Alle- 
 giance to the Constitution” on the one side 
 and “Observance of Law” on the other side. 
 
 With two such supporters staying up its 
 hands, enforcement of the law must win. 
 
 “Then came Amalek and fought with Israel 
 in Rephidim. 
 
 “And Moses said unto Joshua: Choose us 
 out men and go out and fight with Amalek; 
 tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill. 
 
 “So Joshua did as Moses had said to him 
 and fought with Amalek, and Moses, Aaron 
 and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 
 
 “And it came to pass, when Moses held up 
 his hand that Israel prevailed: and when he 
 let down his hand Amalek prevailed. 
 
 “But Moses’ hands were heavy ; and they 
 took a stone and put it under him and he sat 
 thereon : and Aaron and Hur stayed up his 
 hands, the one on the one side, and the other 
 on the other side ; and his hands were steady 
 until the going down of the sun. 
 
 “And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his 
 people with the edge of the sword.”