Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1899-04-14
THE CANTEEN AMENDMENT.

THE CANTEEN AMENDMENT.
The Washington Post contains Il col
umn interview with Senator Hans
brough, with reference to the decision
of the attorney general that the amend
ment to the Hull army reorganization
bill proposed by Senator Hansbrough,
abolishing the army cantecn, does not
have the effect as first stated. Sena-
tor Hansbrough says:
Il do nOt understand that the sec
rotary OF war, in calling for the opin-
ion, had any doubt as to the intent of
congress in enacting this statute. He
merely asked for u construction upon
which to base the order which he is re-
uuired to issue. So far as l am adj
vised, there is no doubt in the mind of
any senator or member rs to the pur-
pose Of the law. 1t is well understood
that the object was, not to wipe out
the canteen as such, but to prohibit the
selling of liquor as a feature Of that
institution. And in prohibiting the
sale Of liquor in the canteen it follows
as 4: matter of course that it was i'll
tended to prohibit it elsewhere on all
premises used for military purposes.
Hence the clause in regard to sales by
any other person Oh any premises
used for military purposes. OF course,
the opinion OF Individual members OF
the legislature are not to be taken in
constituting a statute passed by them,
but the supreme court has decided that
Whom otnhiT,1ify- avists in thn 1anr1IO pA
Of Il statute we may look, il necessary,
to the public history of the times in
which it is passed. The public his
tory Of the times applied to this case
would not warrant the Introduction Of
a bill or the passage Of a law prohibit
ing the sale Of liquor by m Individual
in one room and permitting it's sale by
another individual in IN adjoining
room.
"Nor does the attorney general in his
opinion question the legislative intent.
He merely finds fault with the phrase
ology used in the act, and offers q very
wise suggestion as to the language that
should have been employed. Had the
statute been framed in the exact Ian
guage suggested by the attorney gen.
cral the status of the case would not
he changed in the least, so far as the
intention OF congress was concerned,
but we might have escaped a construc-
ton by the attorney general. II the
intention Of congress were questioned
by either the secretary Of war or the
attorney general, then the safest and
the usual way would be to adhere to
the words Of the statute, constituting
tl,nr, r,nnrJi,,r 10 tln;,. wv, r,l ~,
port in the order in which they stand.'
The substance of the attorney gen
erals opinion appears to- be stated in
the closing paragraphs, in which he
says that the act having forbidden the
employment OF soldiers as %bartenders
OIL statesmen Of intoxicating drinks, it
would be lawful and appropriate for
the managers OF the post exchanges to
employ civilians for that purpose. OF
course employment the attorney gen
eral goes on to say, is q matter Of con
tract, and not of requirement. or per-
mission
Now the question is, would the EN-
plOyment Of a civilian to dispense
liquor i'll the army canteen constitute
Il violation Of that portion Of the act
which prohibits the selling on military
premises? With all due respect for
the opinion of the attorney general,
who says it would not, it seems to me
that the section, construed as a whole,
as it must be, is very clear in directing
the secretary of var to issue an order
prohibiting the sale of liquor 'on n
premises used for military purposes
by the United Statcs.' The army can
fann Whn1n If nvisfS of oil i, ;,,,o,,;
ably located on such military premises.
The statute provides in express terms,
nor shall any other person be required
or allowed to sell such liquors in any
encampment or fort or on any premises
used for military purposes by the
United States.'
The language Of one part of the
statute must be construed with rela-
ton to it's bearing upon any and every
other part. The attorney general con-
cedes that the secretary of wal must
direct the dis%continuance Of liquor SELL
ing in the canteen by any officer or
private soldier. Why, then, is he not
equally bound to direct the discontin-
uance Of liquor selling by any civilian
on any premises used for military pur-
poses? Having stopped the sale in the
canteen by the officer or soldier, as the
attorney general says the secretary
must do, and having forbidden the sale
on the premises by the civilian, which
congress directs him to do, is it logical
to say that the civilian may be en-
ployed to sell in the canteen, which is
on the premises used for military pur-
poses? The provision which prohibits
sales by any other person on ANY
premises used for military purposes
must stand or fall, it appears to me.
with the one which forbids the sale in
canteens by officers or soldiers, and the
employment of a civilian to sell liquor
in the canteen would, l know, be a VIC
lation of the spirit and purpose Of the
whole section"
THEY WANT PENSIONS.
+. NV, oo~c{on 1nS.a T. -.