Backbone. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. ;) 1897-1906, 1900-09-01
THE CANTEEN SITUATION.
What President Mckinley Could Do,
What He Ought to Do, and
What He Has Done.

There are two leading counts in the in
dictment against President Mckinley re.
garding the canteen; tee Inc mrs. hrst ,s' cne tmae
mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy
to order the canteen closed. The moral
sentiment of the country ys,t,t,de Is IN revolt
number of officers of the highest rank,
and public sentiment generally, have con-
demned it unsparingly. Large numbers
it has destroyed the lives of more of our
soldier boys than Spanish or Filipino bull
let's, and that it has wrought simply in
deScribable havoc in the morals of the
army The religious and secular press
alike protested, and rarely has such a
volume Of protest ever before gone to the
White House from the great religious
bodies of the country as upon this SUD-
ject. But all in vain.
The authority of the President in the
premises was undoubted. President Hayes
had practically closed the canteen (Which
was afterwards opened by President
Cleveland), and Secretary of the Navy
Long has taken this step 50 far as the
navy was concerned. But Mr.. Mckinley
would take no action.
Regarding the alleged investigation in
stituted by the War Department into. the
workings of the canteen, little need be
whitewashing efforts of the Washington
administration. In view of the we'll
known habits of large proportion of the
officers of the army and the perfect un-
what kind Of an opinion would "go" at
the War Department in the stress of a
political campaign, the people care little
for the hundreds of pages of so-called
testimony. Such officers as Generals
Miles, Shafter, Wheeler, and others of
equal rank, have spoken against the can
President and War Department are in
doubt, that the canteeen is as damnable
an institution as ever cursed an army.
Their boys are coming home to them,
thousands of them with the linnOr habit
fastened upon them, through the inf1u-
ence of both the canteen and of the sa-
looms outside the camp, which latter,
when in our newly acquired territory, are
as fully in the control of the President as
is the canteen.
The second count in the indictment of
teen policy, is that when the anti-can-
teen law had been enacted, he failed to
enforce it. The responsibility for his con,
Griggs, who furnished an opinion that
the law did not prohibit the sale of liquor
at canteens by civilians, but only by SOL
version of as plain English as the Ian
guage is capable of. Not a senator or
congressman can be found who will say
that the law was enacted with any pur-
toto. The entire press of the country
took thissfor granted as soon as it's pass
age was announced. Louis Schade, the
brewers attorney at Washington, who
has won great victories in the past for
his clients, claims that he submitted to
Griggs the idea upon which his opinion
was based. The Washington Sentinel,
the liquor dealers organ, says, "Attor-
ney-General Griggs has adopted an EVA
SION, submitted by the attorney of the
liquor Dealers"
Let it not be supposed that the Presi-
dent is bound to be governed by this So
called opinion. In the first place, he has
the same power as Chief
Of the Army and Navy to close the can
teen that he possessed before the passage
of the law Secondly, the Attorney-Gen-
eral is merely his legal adviser. He is
temporarily a member of his official fam
lily upon his invitation. The President is
at perfect liberty to act upon his own
judgment, and if serious disagreement
shall arise upon any point between him
and any member of his cabinet, he can
ly and properly, as he invited him into
his cabinet.
Even though the canteen were a benef-
icent institution, the President must be
found guilty upon the second count. He
has right to whatever opinions he may
choose to hold regarding the canteen. He
has no right whatever to defy the will Of
the people, as expressed in a plainly
worded law, passed by practically
gress. He is the Chief Executive of the
Government. AS such, it is his duty to
enforce the laws. He is neither the leg
islative nor the judicial branch Of the
government. For him to usurp their func-
tions Is tyranny. For him to refuse to
enforce the law is anarchy and is de-
Put the Prohibition Gospel into t,