New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-07-21
THE GTST OF THE MATTER.

II may not be amiss, in the midst or the
hullabaloO which one or two newspapers are
making concerning a matter which the mass or
citizens are not at all excited over, to inquire
first. what 1t is about; second, who Is hurt. ana
how much: third, who hurt them, and fourth
what remedy they propose
The first question is easily answered The
hulabaloo is an attempt to stir up excitement
enliven dull term and increase newspaper
sales by an cutlery against the enforcement OF
law. Not, to be sure against any enforcement
of law. but against the enforcement Of a single
feature of the Excise law. Is 1t a new law or
new feature? BY no means. The same pro-
vision has been In existence these many years
Why then this sudden outburst against 1t? Sim
ply because the officials whose sworn duty 1t IS
have given notice that they will do their duty
and enforce It. "Ah, them says the earnest
searcher into causes. and serious inquirer after
truth. ut has not been enforced hitherto But
the searcher and inquirer Is in error there. 1t
has been enforced, as the Police Court records
show What, then. is the troubleT will be his
next inquiry. Why Just this. honest citizen,
that the officials intr,Isted with that duty have
given notice that hereafter the law will be en-
forced upon all offenders with absolute fair-
ness and impartiality. On whose BEHALF then,
IS this complaint made? Easily answered. On
behalf of men who have been In the habit or
buying the privilege Of violating one law and
thereby undermining all law by corrupting those
who are intrusted with its enforcement That's
what's the matter
Who is hurt and how much? Not the labor
ing men who stand behind the bar or serve at
the tables six DAYS in the week, and are entitled
10 few hours rest as much as any other class
Of workingmen. The Sunday closing provision
is boon to them. They are not complaining.
Nor are the laboring men generally, who. as
rule are sufficiently endowed with the domestic
virtues 10 discriminate between the family circle
with It's home comforts and the wide-open saloon
with It's allurements TO excesses. They Know
that though the gains OF the seller may he In
some degree diminished by the Sunday restrc-
ton the savings Of the buyer are by just so much
increased They may feel momentary incon-
yeniencc but they are not hurt so much as to
make an outcry Who Is hurt. then? why, the
wealthy brewers and liquordealers, whose
profits are diminished. they say. by the enforce
ment OF a law which puts them on an equality
with all other tradesmen with but Few excep-
tons. How much are they hurt? BY loss. they
say. In Sunday sales Of 100000, Of which, per-
haps, one-half Is represented by beer. That 10,
the profit on 100000 worth Of liquor Is the cost
to them Of obeyng the law. And this calcula-
ton. II will be observed, proceeds upon the as
sumption that those who have heretofore con-
sumed 100000 worth Of liquor on Sunday would
not take the precauton to supply themselves on
Saturday but would absolutely go dry But
every one Of these customers has just as much
money to spend for liquor Saturday night as he
has on Sunday. Why can he not with reason
able forecast for the twenty-four hours supply
himself? Or does the dealer count upon the
special indictments to excess offered by the
saloon and It's associations TO increase his Sun
day profits? Is It worth while to offer immunity
for violation Of law to a specially favored class
in order that they may have the increased mar
Gin of profit on sales not required by comfort or
convenience, but simply generated by and provo
cative of excess?
Who hurt these men by the restriction COM
planned of Certainly not the officers Of the law,
who have no alternative but to enforce It, and
who cannot In honor or conscience or self-respect
do anything but enforce it impartlally. If they
are hurt. 1t is by the law itself. Who passed III
Why. the Legislature Of 1892 Did they know
the effect Of it? certainly. According 10 the
statement Of the Editor Of THE Wine and
Spirit Gazette 1t was fully discussed Governor
Flower said squarely that he could not approve
an Excise law containing Sunday opening
clause and Governor Hill had already said that
such a provision "would ruin the Democratic
party In the State" SO with the consent Of the
persons who are now asgrieved by It's enforce
mcnt the law as II stands was passed. Why.
then, all this sudden pothcr by newspapers
which supported both Governor Flower and
Governor Hill and helped elect the Legislature
which enacted the lawY Is 1t So then, that the
Republicans must not dare enforce law which
Democrats did not dare refuse to pass? What
sort Of dilemma Is that for an intelligent COM
munity 10 put itself n2 And what IL the remedy
which these newspaper jumping Jacks propose
for the hardshlps which they say are imposed
by the enforcement OF the Sunday-closing pro-
vision? Why, II Is to turn out the party that
honestly enforces 1t and bring back the party
that dishonesty enacted It, The proposition Is
too ridiculous TO be seriously discussed. II the
present law works Inconvenience or hardship,
the only remedy Is to repeal or modify 1t after
calm and reasonable discussion OF the matter In
all It's bearings. 1t certainly does not help toward
correct solution Of the question to thrust in
unmerted abuse of officials who as everybody
knows and no intelligent person will deny. are
only doing in manly and straightforward way
their simple duty.
LONGEVITY.