The critic., 1891-01-07
SALOONS ANp LICENSES.


TIM Crirn is disposed tn take the most
favorable view of amy action by the Dis
trict Commissioners. Wchavc thcutmoSt
respect for the character and the greatest
faith In the sincerity uf Mcssrs DuyGLts.,
Ross and RnBUpr. What they do, after
mature dcibcraton, We are prepared to
believe has been done with the purc,t aud
mcst patriotic OF motives But IL doc, not
seem clear to- utl- HAT thcir cour4, in the
matter of the liuuor business is wi~cor that
il will he fruitful Of good.
The moral condition of Washington is
not likely to he improved 10y merely re-
lucing the number Of saloons. Men who
want to drink will not lose the desire be-
cause ssloon here and there may have
disappeared. With them it will be only a
question of walkinga few steps farther
aud getting what they want. Take the
ease of Wclckcr's restaurant. 10 what
extent will the cause Of morality be
promoted 10y -uspcuding the business
of that establishment II is most
excellent and orderly place, great
convenience to the hundreds of business
and professional men in the ighborhood,
and most elegant and popular resort for
the transient public. Do the Commits
sioncrs imagine that their refusal of It
license To Mr.. FElTEH will have any
effect other than that OF iniuring him
in business? With the Ebbitt aud Will
lard barrooms Just around hccorncr, and
half dozen others within two minutes
walk how is il supposahlc that liquor
drinking is to be checked by such policy?
The same may bc said of SHoou,KERs
place near the National Theatre 1t is
perhaps the most respectable and care
fully conducted saloon in the whole city
certainly it is second to none in these
respects. Why should it he closed and
,lozcm others within block left free to
run? What good will that do? What
useful or worthy purpose will it promote?
We cannot see the drift of the Commits
sioncrs policy. In their views rs to u
high licensc-taX We heartily concur. We
favor the suppression of the innumerabc
little doggeries which dispense cheap
AID poisonous compounds to disorderly
constituencies. But when il comes to re-
sltttable establishments, conducted in an
,rdShly manner by responsible citizens
ne fal to perceive the justice or cNpcdi-
tncy Of surpressing one and authorizing
another. So long as there are tn be any
alccns at all, il is not their number but
their character that constitutes the qucs-
tion Of interest To Il civilized community.
TiE Critic has no desire to go into the
temperance controversy. According TO
our philosophy, Government has no right
to say that man shall not drink any
more than il has To- say tina, girls shall not
chew gum or that women shall not dis
play their nccks and boSoms at dinner
parties. There is no more disgusting OBJ
iect than drunkard wallowing in gut
Ter, but there is no more pestifcrous tyr
amy than that which leads to laws
against drinking. such q field of lcgisla-
ton, once entered, widens beyond the ut
most horizon of the imagination. We
have neither the time nor the inclination
to participate in the discussion of the pro-
hibition proposition. Nor as we under
stand them, do the commissioners propose
10 take il up themselves. The matter un-
eicr consideration is the granting of a
license 10 one iirst-class saloon and the re-
fusal of license TO another equally de-
serving and reputable. And it is here that
we fail 10 follow the Commissioners ar to
ste To what good end their policy points.