Washington sentinel., 1900-12-15

OHS OCulOCLdt VINO DfOke from the
traditions Of his party and advo-
Gated the amendment. His excuse
was that he believed "it is wrong
Tor the Government OF the United
States to engage In the sale OF in
toxicating liquors, either upon its
own property or in any other place
anywhere. Applause. !"
Rather lame excuse, but as it
evoked Republican applause Mr..
Hay was probably satisfied. He
must have ielt lonesome in the
Prohibitionist ranks.
Mr.. Pear-e (Rep.). oi Missouri,
followed with pertinent question
which no one saw ft to answer.
He said:
Mr., Chairman, am glad to be able to
inform my friend from Texas IMr. Slay.
den that upon this. as upon every other
question, have the courage to vote in
accordance with my convictions; and
have no hesitation in saying that l shall
vote against this amendment, not
because | am not as sincerely in sympa-
thy with temperance as my friend from
Maine. but because ! believe, after a
very careful examination OF this canteen
system as it is operated at every poJt Of
the United States (and I have visited
nearly all ofthem), there is no institution
which does more to IOrtifY temperate
habits and induce temperance in the
army than the cantsen system; and there
IS no measure OF law that would do more
to break down the temperance Influence
of army officers and to increase intem.
perance than the measure proposed by
the gentleman from Maine.
Why, let me ask him, has be not
included in his amendment proposition
to forbid the carrying Of any ki1d OF
intoxicants upon Government reserva.
ton by the officers as we'll as by the
menS II an officer OF the army has the
right TO drink beer or wine, certainly
the enlisted man has precisely the same
right, and we ought not to withdraw
that right from him. have seen the
canteen introduced in the army, and
we'll remember the condition of affairs
before its introduction. There are now,
may state, in every city of the Union
saloon keepers and dive keepers waiting
and watching the enactment OF such an
amendment as this. to enable them to
surround the Government reservations
with their saloons, where the business
they conduct can be carried on safely,
and the poisonous compounds which
they dispense may be furnished to the
soldiers OF the army. That is the reason
that | am opposed to such legislation as
has been suggested here. Under the
care and regulations which exist for the
control OF Ihe canteen system Of the
army it is, in my judgment, a wise pro.
vision and one which should be contin-
ued, and for that reason I shall vote
against the proposition which IS now
pending, to prohibit the continuance OF
that system in the future. / think the
suggestion is unwise and unwarranted,
and | hope it will not be adopted.
Mr.. Parker, (Rep.) OF New
Jersey, opposed the amendment.
He said:
Mr.. Chairman, do not sympathize
with the views OF the man who decides
to vote tor this amendment in order to
please any general sentiment which
through ignorance has grown up among
the people OF the United States, and
thereby knowingly votes to hurt the
soldier. We are trustees for the soldier.
lApplause. We are charged to speak
and act for his temperance and good
order. and when we abolish the canteen
system OF the post exchange temperance
In the army will have received almost a
death blow.
The adoption OF this amendment, we
think, would be calamity TO the cause
Of temperance, None greater could
beiall that cause in the army and in the
Soldiers Home than the prohibition Of
the canteen feature ofthe post exchange.
This is not a matter OF theory, but one
Of actual experience. Soldiers, as well
as everyone else, resent interference
with their personal freedom. To adopt
this amendment means that those who