15 JUNE 1929, Page 14


While Sir Esme Howard's action in renouncing his right to import liquor is criticized by some papers like the New York Evening Post, as taking sides on an American political question, and thus making himself a subject of controversy, conservative sentiment in the country recognizes in this act a praiseworthy respect for American institutions. How- ever one may object to Prohibition, it is embodied in the constitution of the United States. While foreign diplomats are immune from punishment for any offence violating the Eighteenth Amendment, this is just as much a violation of law as it is to commit forgery or burglary. Though the State Department has been accustomed to issue liquor permits to foreign diplomats, there is reason in the statement that such permits are intrinsically illegal. The New York World expresses a widespread opinion in saying that " the State Department will feel the pressure of resentment from millions of Americans, who are bewildered that they should be required to obey the law when the State Department openly violates it." At any rate the State Department has brought no pressure to bear upon any of the foreign embassies and the act of Ambassador Howard has accord- ingly gained for him additional popularity. The personal nature of the act has but enhanced its quality.

* * * *