The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-11-16
The Princeton Taproom Trouble.

BY some the Rev. Charles w. Shields,
D. D., the venerable professor of Reveal
ed Religion at the Princeton, N. j., The
illogical Seminary, will be condemned and
by others praised for severing his connec-
ton with the Presbyterian church. be-
cause the New Brunswick presbytery, to
which he belonged threatened to censure
him, for signing a petition asking that the
Princeton inn be granted a liquor license.
The Princeton inn was built by alumni
of Princeton College, so that visitors to
Princeton during the commencement sea-
son and at other times might have a COM
Portable place at which to stop. The law
of New Jersey requires that no barroom
license shall be granted to any person I'M
less he secures a petition of a certain
number of residents of the district in
which it is proposed to locate the bar
room. There was some difficulty in get
ting the required number of signers to
petition for a license to sell liquor at the
Princeton inn, the inn being located in
the best part of the residence portion of
the town Ex-President Cleveland and
DR.. Shields were asked to sign the petit
ton, and they did so without hesitation.
1t seems that there is a tap-room in the
inn where students of the college can get
intoxicating drinks, but no liquor is sold
to members of either the freshmen or
sophomore classes. Great care is also ex-
ercised in selling intoxicants to members
of the Junior and senior classes. BY the
friends of Princeton college it is thought
to be much better that liquor should be
sold to students under restrictions at
Princeton inn than that they should visit
the ordinary saloons of the town. DR..
Shields and Mr.. Cleveland evidently took
that view of it, and, besides, they may be
of the opinion that it is better to sell intox-
icants under proper restrictions than 1t Is
to encourage the sale of intoxicants sur
reptltiously by refusing to license bar
rooms.
The New Brunswick presbytery is not to
blame, probably, for its course in the
case of Dr. Shields, because 1t simply act
ed in accordance with a deliverance of
the general assembly of the Presbyterian
church made in 1877, which is as follows:
I'VE regard the signing of petitions for
license as reprehensble completely in the
sale of intoxicating liquors" DR.. Shields
either ignorantly or purposely squarely
violated this injunction of the church to
which he belonged. and when the prohi-
bitionists, not only of New Jersey but of
the whole country, made an cutlery
against him, the New Brunswick presby-
terry could hardly avoid taking notice of
DR.. Shields act.
The act of DIR. Shields in separating
himself from the church of which he was
such conspicuous member, and in whose
chief theological school in this country he
had been for many years one of the fore
most teachers, has naturally provoked
great deal of discussion as to whether the
general assembly of the Presbyterian
church was justified in making a deliver
ance in a matter outside of the realm of
religious faith and theology. If Dr.
Shields knowingly violated the injunction
of the general assembly he clearly holds
that it had no right to interfere with his
personal freedom of opinion in the matter
of liquor licenses at Princeton or else
where.