Washington sentinel., 1901-01-12
Gaotes
The Army UanJeCn.T

or all the silly crusades inspired by
moral egotism or mlsdirected philan-
thropy, the present. onset against the
army canteen is the most foolish says
ames Gre eiman in the New York
Journal. 1t is pity that all this energy
cannot be eNerted against some evil
thing-the Ship Subsidy bill, for in
stance.
The truth is that the army canteen is
an admirable institution. In the Philip
pine Islands it is a distinct and unmis-
taxable advantage to the army. An
extensive and varied experieUce with
troops in the field has. convinced me
that the closing OF army canteens-in the
Philippines, for iustance-would be
immediately followed by fall in the
morals of our soldiery.
The army canteen does not regard the
soldier as prey. II keeps the soldier
away from degrading and demoralizing
associations. 1t keeps the soldiers
together. 1t holds them under the eyes
Of their responsible superiors. 1t IS
cheaper, 1t is a safeguard against
drugged drink. 1t protects the soldier
from thieves in his hour Of relaxation,
Il certainly shuts out immortality.
Yet here are the elect OF God-ignor-
ant of the temptations which beset Yirile
men in the held-storning the doors of
Congress and denoupcing the wisest
provision that experience can make
against inalienable human appetite.
The Government is denounced for
officially recognizing the proneness Of
man to alcohol. But what is the Gov
eminent to dor The soldier will drink.
There is nothing immoral in beer or
whisky. Christ Himself turned water
into wine aud gave it to the wedding
guests, St Paul advised Timothy to
take little wine for his stomachs sake.
The Apostles drank wine in the presence
OF Christ. The Mohammedan Church
alone has condemnedit it.
Why should the Government be
reviled for authorizing the sale of strong
drink in the army under proper super
Yision2 Why should our soldiers be
driven out to become the victims OF
watchful ruffians and panders1 The
sensible churchman has his glass of
wine at dinner when he chooses, and
why should he deny to the hard iaring
American soldier serving IN distant
lands the right to have glass of beer
or whiskey when he cannot afford to
buy wine9
Moderate drinking does not brutalize
soldiers. On the contrary, it promotes
good comradeship and sOftens The nev-
table rigors OF army lite. The army
canteen is simply the soldiers club
house. 1t IS a source OF pleasure and |
contentment. The soldier is trained for |
hardships and deeds Of violence. In the |
field he is an instrumsn snt to kill and |
destroy. Is it not preposteTous to expect
such a man TO conform his habits and |
appetites to standards which cannot be !
maintained even in the restaurant of |
Congress or in the White Housel
It is fact beyond dispute that soldiers |
will take strong drink, The only ques-
tion open to debate IS whether they |
should be permitted to drink in their /
own canteens under wise supervision or
Wheher they should be forced to patron
ize outside barrooms.
1.-THE men and the women who are
assailing the ears OF Congress with pro-
tests against the canteen really desire /
to Danish drunkenness from our army
they can better serve their purpose by
inaugurating movement to cultivate a
taste for light and cheap beverages
among our soldiers. We have the ex-
perience OF France and Italy and Spain
to guide us. AS Jefferson wrote 10 De
Melville in 1878:
"No nation is drunken where wine is
cheap, and none sober where the dear
ness of wine substitutes ardent spirits as
the common beverage" The same Is
true OF beer.