No concurrent legislation to enforce i
I the federal prohibition amendment t
will he passed by the general assent- ,
Idy at ftiis session. The amendment :
provides that congress and the state
i shall have "concurrent power" to etc !
force it
,
we iwn t concur Decause we nave
tolhing wilh which to concur and will
lot have until congress possess legis
ntion" II 11. Spooner, secretary of
lie Connecticut Temperance ITiion, Is
looted as saying by a Hartford nows
uiper. We shall have to wait until
■ongresM passes a measure of enforce
ment and tlien we will concur in that
nensure with similar legislation
As cong’i-ss cannot possibly puss
egislation id' this sort before tile gen
■ral assembly adjourns, which will
probably lie early in May. Connecti
nt will have no state measure of on
oreeinent
Mr. hpooner's statement places a
new light, so far as the state is con
cerned at least, upon the much dis
cussed meaning of the phrase, “con
current power." His idea and that of
other prohibitionists seems to be that
ihe "concurrent power" of the states
is to he simply a rubber-stamp power,
a process by state legislation approv
ing whatever congress passes. And
this is based upon the belief that con
gress will pass enforcing legislation
lor ihe amendment which will be ao
i eptable to the prohibitionists and
which will not allow the manufacture
uni sale of beverages with a compara
tively large alcoholic content.
Mr. Spooner ami the assembly ju
t’ieiary committee have been working
together on the problem. The conclu
sion readied was to wait until con
gress acted, so as to have something
with which to concur. No action will
be taken by this state, therefore, un
til the general assembly meets in 1921.
