Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1902-02-12
THE cANTEEN CONTROVERSY.
Hasty Condemnation by Doctors Of
Law AboIishing the Army
saloon II Unwise.

The Journal of lnebriety has re-
ceived a number of papers, pamphlets.
and newspaper letters with editorials
on the canteen controversy. The real
question in dispute is this: Does the
abolition of spirits and beer at the
army posts promote temperance and
increase the sobricty of the soldiers,
or does Il encourage drunkenness and
incapacity by forcing the soldiers to
procure spirits outside of governemnt
control?
Less than year ago congress passed
u law abolishing the sale of beer and
spirits at all government posts. A
few weeks after this law went into ef-
feet a movement was started To have
it repealed. This has grown in certain
sections ino partisan struggle which
is startling in its bitterness and ex-
aggerations.
The medical men and medical jour
mails who have been drawn into this
controversy in support of the repeal
of the law are making record that
will be regretted in the futue. An
honest difference of opinion is al
ways recognized, but disingenuous,
unfair efforts to support such opinions
remove the subject from all scientific
consideration.
The resolutions offered in the med
ical societies and arguments used to
sustain them are sad examples of dog
matte credulity.
The subject concerning the sale of
beer and spirits TO soldiers is a psyche
physical one which can only be set
tied by an appeal to accurately OBJ
served facts, not opinions or theories,
but facts collected from years of OBJ
seryation and rational experience. The
law is intended to be practical ex-
perimental test and scientific inquiry
that can only be settled by time and
appeal to the facts.
1t is absurd and presumptuous to
denounce the law from less than a
years experience, and il is still more
startling to assume that alcohol is an
essential in the army or in any other
condition of life. This opposition inn
plies that the conclusions of scientific
investigation which indicate that al
cohol is a narcotic and protoplasmic
roads and other corporations employ
ing men in hazardous work, who de-
mand total abstinence of their en-
ployes, are impractical enthusiasts and
cranks.
1t is the advanced conclusions of sci
ence, sustained by teachings of bitter
experience, which demand a practical
test in the amy of the abolition of all
beer and spirits to the soldiers. Why
should opposition be offered TO an ex-
pertinent of this kind when il is along
the line of advanced work and has for
it's object the improvement of the men
and efficiency Of the service?
Dogmatic opposition would imply
that the army is lower socially than
other bodies of men, and cannot be
managed except by keeping the use of
beer and spirits at the posts and un-
der control. This opposition shows
something radically wrong in the in
telligence, reading and personnel of it's
defenders, and such simple reasons for
its defense. Scientifically this effort
by law is the only way to settle the
question. Controversy, bitter opposi-
ton, deceptive arguments, and ig-
norant personalities never settle any
question or bring out the true facts.
Medical men and their journals
should be the warmest supporters of
this law and insist that a fair trial
should be made of all provisions, and
that the question should be settled
above opinions and personal prejudice.
journal of Inebriety.