Evening star., 1899-04-08
The Army Canteen Decision.

To the Editor of The Evening star:
Please allow me space in your excellent
paper for few words on subject which
I am sure Is greatly interesting a large
proportion of your many readers.
The decision of the Attorney General,
which appeared in your paper yesterday,
on the act of Congress relative to the sale
of liquors at army posts, etc., Is SO sur
prising that it certainly deserves some dis
cussion by the people.
do not pretend to be q lawyer, and so
1 am at loss to understand how the At
torney General could reach his conclusions:
and certainly the way he puts the matter
(as published in The Starr is misleading.
He gives the impression that the act Of
Congress comprises three separate propo-
sitions or declarations. whereas it Is all
comprised in one compact sentence, which.
to the novice in law, is as indissoluble as
are the states of this Union.
1 shall not attempt to argue this subject
at length with the Attorney General, but
1 desire to point out what appear to me to
be weak points in his decision. His con-
tention is that because Congress did not
specifically say that others than soldiers
should not sell liquors in army canteens
(although it did plainly prohibit their doing
~ territory whereon any canteen
is located) civilians may be allowed to con-
tinue the canteen business. In other words,
he claims that the statute declares 1t. un-
lawful for two parties to continue certain
business, as heretofore, but that one of
them may take the place of the other and
go on with the traffic.
He undertakes to justify this position by
asking a hypothetical question, as follows:
IF a statute were to provide that no Iiu-
uors should be sod to minors in any sa-
loon, would not every one infer that the
enactment was predicated upon a state of
law which as to others than minors allowed
the sale of liquors in saloons?'
The reply to this must be in the affirma-
tive, Of course but the question does not
appsEr to be fair one. l would rather
apply this idea directly to the case in ques-
tfon. So I'll quote the act of Congress un-
der discussion. with this thought interpo-
lated, thus:
That no officer or private soldier shall
be detailed to sell intoxicating drinks Ito
minors) as bartender or otherwise in any
post exchange or canteen, nor shall any
other person be required or allowed to sell
Qo minors) such liquors in any encampment
or post or any premises used for military
purposes" etc.
Now, If the words 1 have interpolated
were a part of the statute, could the At
torney General possibly construe it to mean
that civilians would be allowed to sell liq-
uors to minors in any army canteen? OBJ
viously 1t would be the purpose of such a
law to prevent the sale of liquors to minors
by any one on premises occupied by the
army. And If that position be correct, then
different opinion cannot possibly obtain
II the words ito minors" be omitted for
the sense and apparent purpose of the Ian
guass is not changed in the least.
And now let us paraphrase this law and
make another application. Suppose we
should have an act like this:
That no officer or private soldier shall
be detailed as nurse in any army hospital
who shall be infected with smallpox or
other contagious disease. nor shall any
other person infected with smallpox or
other contagious disease be required or
allowed to perform the duties of nurse in
any encampment or fort or on any prem
ises used for military purposes by the
United States
Now, If such an act as that which is
practically counterpart OF the statute un-
der discussion, should be presented to the
Attorney General for his opinion, could
any one for moment entertain the belief
that he would construe it to mean that 1t
would be lawful for a civilian infected with
"a ioathsome or dangerous disease to be
employed as a nurse in an army hospital?
And II be could not so declare, then his
Interpretation of the anti-canteen law Is
surely defective.
The Attorney General says strength Is
given to his position by what he terms the
third clause of the law. wherein the Score
tary of War Is directed to issue a general
order to carry this act into full force and
effect, because, says he. ..n the section was
intended to be an absolutely prohibftory
act. then 1t would execute itself and would
require no general order from the Secre-
tary OF War"
This Is the first time that ever knew OF
the statement being seriously made that .