New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-07-01
4 CLEiN-Ct + ISSI T..

\ fLElN-tt 1881 r..
Nothing could be faircr than the issiIe which
the representatives of the German American
Reform Union presented on Saturday in their
interview with the Mayor on the subject Of the
enforcement Of the Sunday closing law. We
doubt if the gentlemen who presented it were
quite aware how fair and absolutely clcan-cut 1t
was II had the singular merit Of unnliXci can
dor without the slightest attempt AT evasion or
subterfugc. What was it? Let us see Mr.. Ed
ward Crosse. who was the first speaker on behalf
OF the organization. declared that the enforce
ment of the law would lead 10 the defeat of the
reform movement next fall; that Mr.. Hewitt had
been defeated because he was antagonzcd by
the element which opposed the strict enforce
mcnt of the law. and Mr.. Scott had been defeated
for the same reason, and that If the voters had
known that the present administration would en-
force the law 1t would never have been placed
in power. So. In Mr. Crosses Judgment. the
present administration was elected not 10 enforce
all laws. but to make certain exceptions ana
reservations in the interest OF reform. II was
all right in the abstract. he said to say that the
law must be enforced but the city Is governed
by the people. and they are opposed TO strict
enforcement Of the Sunday law. Indeed: With
out stopping To inquire by what process MI
Crosse reached his conclusion as to the scn-
ment Of the voters on this subject. we venture
TO ask If he cnunciaies il as a general principle
that whenever an officer sworn to execute law
is satisfied in his own mind that the voters in
his particular bailiwicl are opposed to its en-
forcemcnt he may at his discretion ignore or
annul it,
The question IS quite pertinent. since Mi
Crosse IS the Collector Of Internal Revenue In
one Of the wcalthicst districts in the country ard
in the exercise Of his official functions was re-
Ouircd 10 enforce the incomc-tax feature Of the
revenue law passed by the last Congress Until
It was declared unconstitutional this seemed 10
be his duty But. il is safe TO say. though the
voters had no more been poed upon the ques-
ton than upon the Sunday law. that much
larger proportion Of citizens in his district were
opposcd TO the collection of the income tax than
are opposed TO the enforcement OF the Sunday
closing law Would Mr.. Crosse on that account.
in case the income tax had been adjulgcd con
stituional. have felt himself authorized either 10
suspend its collection or annul it altogether:
And il he had, how long does he suppose he
would have retained his office: What effect does
he suppose It would have had upon President
Cleveland and Secretary Carlisle if he had in
mcnt Of the law would have made the Admins
ration unpopular? 70 come closer does Mr..
Crosse suppose that he could have taken such
course without provoking the dersion and con
tempt even Of the opponents OF the tax:
He was followed by Mr. otto kempner who
said he represented 125.0o0 people-a reduction
Of 80 per cent from the statement which had
previously been published who were gIieycd at
..1., ri. 1tv- IL. h1lI
that all the law required was outward en-
forcement by the closing Of the front doors or
saloons. and called upon the Mayor 10 cease
this asinine exercise Of official authority ana
not listen 10 the "Puritanical reform bgots."
Unless there was a change In this regard. he SAID
the city would surely go into the hands OF Tam
may Hall next fall. for The people would vel
come back an administration that gave them
liberty Mr.. Kcmpner IS nothing II not en-
phatic When he speaks Of "Puritanica REFORM
bigots" and an Jasmine exercise Of official au-
thority' he means merely that whoever diners
with him as TO the binding force OF law he
does not like is a bgot. and whoever enforces
such law Is an ass. The language IL severe,
and to the calm mind and temperate judgment
seems not altogether just. Bat the point which
both these gentlemen made and insisted upon
with great earnestness. II will be perceived. was
that the municipal authorities may at their dis
erection ignore or coniemn n statute law OF the
State il only a sufficient number Of voters -cspe
cially If they De voters who helped in the election
OF such authOrtics-arc opposed 10 It's enforce
ment They say that they and the large num-
Der Of citizens whom they represent voted for
the present administration upon the understand
ing that the Sunday law should not be enforced
and that If lis enforcement is insisted upon they
will restore the Tammany rule, because il VIII
give them liberty. Liberty to do what: Why
to violate law. And il 123,0o0 citizens may be
| permitted 10 violate the Sunday law. why may
not 5000 or 10000 other citizens violate the law
against theft, any other statute which seems
TO them Onerous or nconvcncni 10 obey?
There's n certain wlde-opcn candor in the
presentation which these gentlemen make that
cannot be too highly praised. 1t Is The first time
we have ever known the issue 10 be distinctly
made that the officers who are sworn to enforce
all the laws ought not To enforce any law which
happens to be obnoxious to a considerable num-
Der Of citizens And IT IS most earnestly hoped
that in the next election the opponents Of the
present municipal administration will go to the
people with the same frankncss with which these
gentlemen addressed the Mayor upon the issue
that the administration should not be sustained
because ii has enforced the law, but Tamminy
should be restored 10 power because under its
rule law may be violated with impuniiy. A
square vote on that question would be not only
interesting, but useful. We should know then
what the laws made for.