Washington sentinel., 1900-04-28
Prohibition for the Islands.
Intoxicating Liquors in the Phil
tppines,

Intoxicating Liquors in the PhiI-
ippines,
The bill introduced in the House
by Mr.. Gillett, of Massachusetts,
to prohibit the sale Of liquors in
the Philippines. in its own proVi-
sions and with the amendment pro-
posed by Rev. Wilbur F. Gratis at
the hearing before the Insular
Committee on March 80, covers a
very wide field, wider, indeed, than
many have any idea OF.
In its issue after the hearing the
SENTINEL promised to give its at
tention to the bill when a printed
copy OF the proceedings came to
hand. Through the courtesy OF
Hon. H. A. Cooper, Chairman Of
the Insular Committee, from whom
we received a copy too late for last
weeks issue, we are now prepared
to say a few words on the measure.
The general public were under
the impression that the bill simply
forbids the sale OF distilled liquors
to natives in the Philippines, but at
the hearing mentioned, Mr.. Crafts
at the outset, "in the name of AZ
600, 900 Of church members, with
5000, 900 voters, ,"-(the rev. gen
tleman has this hvperbollc way OF
expressing himself alwaYs) pro-
posed to apply the pr DIVISIONS Of
the bill to Hawaii, Tuteila and the
islands that came into our posses
sion from Spain, and extend its
scope so as to include fermented as
we'll as distilled liquors.
In his argument in support OF
the measure Mr.. Gratis laid stress
on the fact that in 1892 sixteen
nations had signed treaty to sup
press the sale OF spirituous liquor
in the Congo Free State and Ger.
tain other parts Of Africa, because
of its demoralizing effects on the
natives. He referred also to the
criticisms of the sale of liquors by
Commissioners Schurman and
Bishop Thoburn. Mr.. Crafts forgot,
however, while giving the opinions
oi Mr.. Schurman and Bishop Tho
burn. who received their lnforma-
tion at second hand or from
very limited personal experiences
among the Fllipinos, to present
the views of Chaplain Pierce, re-
ferred to in recent issue of the
SENTINEL, whose conclusions were
drawn from far longer and closer
study OF the conditions prevailing
in the Philippines at the time they
came into our possession, the
effects OF the substitution of Amer
ican liquors for native drinks and
the condition Of the people during
his residence and at the time OF
his departure as compared TO his
arrival. Mr.. Gratis could not be
expected to do this. He was there
to argue for the suppression OF the
sale Of liquors. He has persuaded
himself that the use OF liquors is
cemoralizing and he does not pro-
pose to offer any testimony to the
contrary. (This much in charity
to the gentleman.) The testimony
OF Chaplain Pierce. however, borne
out as it is in every place where
mild liquors have been substituted
for stronger and especially native
drinks Of uncivilized races, pre-
sents obstacles as to the entire cor
rectness OF Mr.. Crafts assertions
that are at least entitled to consid-
Grafton. AS We have said, Mr..
Crafts and his friends were there to
urge prohibition, right or wrong,
and they didit.
Mr.. Gratis might have stated
also that the treaty OF 1899, spoken
OF by him, was entered into tor the
prote ction oi savage African tribes,
whose sole conception of a bevei-
age Of this kind is something that
intoxicates or that stupefes. They
have no idea that alcoholic bever-
ages are beneficial to strengthen
the sick, to invigorate the old and
weary, to build up a broken down
constitution. Their only aim is to
get drunk, and their beverages are
all OF the kind that make drunken
ness. Hence it was that the sale
OF distilled liquors to these people
was forbidden.
Charity covers a multitude Of
sins, and Ist here was an oppor-
tunity for the Rev. DR.. to extend
its folds over himself and his
friends for their Misrepresentation
Of the milder beverages and their
failure to say that while distilled
liquors were forbidden the sale OF
fermented beverages is nowhere
prohibited in that treaty to those
people. and admit that the objec-
49,. ..----. 4 - 80. - a.