New-York tribune., 1902-02-07
Mr.. CULLINAN'S ST4TEWENT.
A CORRESPONDENT THINKS 1T JUSTIFIES
DR.. PETERs's REFLECTION UPON THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE


To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir. No doubt DR.. Peters will reply to Commits
sioner Cullinans statement published in The Trib-
une Of January p in due time Meanwhile may
call attention 10 some rather noteworthy speci-
mems of philosophy logic and statistics which
adorn this state paper?
Tho Commissioner attempts 70 break the force
Of DR.. Peterss criticism of the Ranes law by
quoting the latter's declaration that he does not
believe in the law. 4 person approaching the
subject in that frame of mind the Commissioner
insists Will naturally magnify every unimportant
imperfection of the statute into a moustrous evil
His representations, therefore are to be dstrusted
But II the mild antagonism Of Dr. Peters renders
mis- statements untrustworthy. what must be the
effect of partsanship that can induce the Com
missioner TO speak of the Raines law as "the most
effective and benefcent liquor act ever enacted
here or elsewhere? Applying the commissioners
own psychological test to his paper we should cx-
peet TO find it an advocates extravaganza, rather
than judicial statement Of facts
Inc commissioners logic is at its best in showing
the erect OF the Raines law promoter OF
temperance The commitments TO prison for drunk
enness In 1897 Were $500. while in 1901 they were
only SS23 Such has been the great restraining and
corrective force Of this much abused statute Here
is the post hoe propter hoe argument with a ven
geance. The only surprise is that the Commission
er was so modest in his claims The Spanish war
has happened since the Raines law was enacted
Why not ascribe that TO this benchcent stat
ute! But, seriously, before any Inference can be
drawn from the COnmS SSiOner's figures ought ha
not TO tell us who controlled the police in the
great cities during 1897 and 1901 respectively? Nav
not the falling off in commitments have been due
largely TO a change Of ideals and orders on the
part of police commissioners and chiefs? It is quite
clear that the falling off is not due enforce
ment of the Raines law, for the Commissioner
himself declares that there has been substantial
y no enforcement Of the criminal provisions of the
law, and everybody knows that from the end OF
vide open town. II the Raines law acted as a
5 I$l. IT qid so because 1t was openly and every
And now word about the commissioners sta
tistics He gives bic Of figures to show how
drastic civil oganHt m ne eka asp ii o1oe 5oe
sellers Something over $4,000 has been collected
years since the law into effect That is about
sixty thousand taken during that period have been
f fnea anot ITIly ~ great W t. stlpendoqs performance
more than five hundred licenses have been cancelled
sued in e2ey o Of oe 1--WE was nG he 6n9
a 5ae % pm 9ngnase OF the bonding
TS f.ts [0prn m e4Iehs9 frigh1eh the depsrtme4t?
partment Of Excise has performed its duty in the
mater Of the granting OF liquor tax certificates
as may be necessary for the cancellation Of GER
liquor tax bonds it has peTformed in t6e maR
IT'S entire duty under the statute, Suppose this
the department had Instituted such proceedings it
, had not dobe It's duty That IL has not instituted
own own. figures f amply sustain the charge Only one
cry only one bond out of five has been SO sued in
cases where the licenses have been cancelled The
departments own figures convict it Of failure to do
its duty.
But perhaps the finest piece Of work in the whole
paper is the commissioners explanation of his
fHs2l TO permit DR.. Peters and others to institute
civil proceedings in their names and their
own own expense He declares that the amendment Of
1901, which compels citizen TO secure the written
approval of the Excise Commissioner TO the insti-
tuition of such proceeding. enacted to
liquor sellers from backmail actions, and that he
has felt called upon to discriminate against
where the material facts depended entirely upon
the evidence Of detectives not employed and
trolled by himslf True is that he has refused
give his consent to the institution of civil pro-
ceedings by Dr. Peters and others, although the
applications accompanied by the aff1davits Of
witnesses repeated viola tiOns Of the law. in
notoriously vicious places. The Commissioner ad-
mits that his duties under this amendment to the
statute delicate and his explanation, while
not altogether lucid, appears to be this: He
afraid that. II he gave his consent, DR. Peters and
other citizens who wished to do something close
up nOtoriously Illegal and vicious liquor places
would have costs entailed upon them. because they
had obtained their evidence through unofficial wit
nesses." 1t is gratifying to know that have at
the head Of the State Excise Department one who
feels such ftherly solicitude for petitioners under
the excise law, even though the objects Of that
socitude are ungTatefu enough to intimate that
he is playing dog in the manger role:
FRANCIS NJ. BURDICK
New-York. Jan. 2S 1902.