Search, Smell, Seizure

When, in the course of human events, one age yields to the next, distance lends enchantment to bygone scenery. Andrew J. Volstead is no longer a contemporary symbol. He belongs to the past.

Out of the heart of the Nation, out of Indiana has arisen a new and lustier figure. His name is Wright.

Last week, the Wright Prohibition Enforcement Law went into effect in Indiana. Thousands violated it; scores were arrested; hundreds were about to be arrested. The Wright Law for Indiana o'ertops the Volstead Act for the U. S. in the following chief particulars :

1) It is a crime to possess liquor. This does away with the "rich man's" excuse that his is "preWar stuff."

2) It is a crime to advertise any formula, ingredient, apparatus for the making of liquor.

3) A container which smells of liquor is sufficient evidence to incriminate a man on the charge of having possessed liquor. This does away with the ruse of emptying liquor into a sink when a policeman raps on the door.

4) Apparently, officers may enter and search a man's house without a warrant. If so, this does away with conventional Anglo-Saxon red tape.

Most of these crimes incur a fine of $100 to $500 and from one to six months in jail. Transporting liquor by vehicle can cost up to $1,000 and two years incarceration. In nearly all cases the second offense is costlier. Purchasing liquor is as criminal as selling it.

The Christian Science Monitor, ardent dry, was informed that "the new line of attack will make Indiana really dry."

The New York Times, moderate, pointed out that the Wright Law did not go far enough : "It makes the mistake of not forbidding fermentation."