Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-03-09

antidotes to the outeide dives Of which
the department was ever complaining. II
canteen buildings had becn ordered there
Is no doubt they would have been ready
In three months. And even now, years
after Congress ordered these substitu-
tons, which In tho British army have
been used by friendly ofYicers to make
onc-thrd of the soldiers voluntary alb
stainers, these buildings have not had any
sort of a fair trial.
III evils had increased under this I'M
friendly administration of the law. IL
would be in order to find out whether
the law or the execution was faulty. But
the very last off1cial reports contradict
the manifestly biased Opinions Of those
army officers who think assertions. dis
eases and disorder have increased since,
and because of, the abolition Of the army
beer saloon.
I'm an exhaustive statistical study Of tho
canteen and no-canteen periods in the
New Voice, December il. William e.
Johnson concludes as follows: Summarize
ing the comparative records Of the two
systems we find that since the cantccn
has gone and assertions have decreased
80 per cent; deposits of savings have
nearly doubled: court martals have
lHIsHttN ueCTeHSeu. duI1lSS'OHS lOT dICoil'l-
ism have decreased b per cent; admis-
sions to the sick list have decreased 20
per cent.
Note that tho least decrease Is that
of court nartals. which reminds me that
when spent pay day at Fort Sheridan
after the oantcen was abolished. many
soldiers who had no temperance notions
told me that since the cantecn had been
removed. ~ ia tpI for
trivial things that had been passed with
n word of rcbuke in canteen days. and 1t
was generally understood that the COM
nnndant was making statistics to. prove
the cantecn should be restored. Figures
can not lie but liars can figure
To most readers of the daily press it
is considered Il conclusive argument for
the restoration of the army beer saloon
| that the weight Of military opinion. is
supposed to he In favor of it. To which
We answer that the weight of military
opinion whether from n world view, in
GLIDING recent anti-canteen movements in
Foreign armies, or from Il national view.
Is not on the canteen side. Our generals
VIII" have seen real war are mostly anti
cantcen for example: Howard. Miles.
Shaftcr. Wheeler. Indeed Eagan. Of un-
savory fame. was the only one who took
the other side before TIE war department
took that side. after which Generals Cor
bin, Sternberg and many more made
| lightning change only equaled by the
suddonness with which thousands of re-
publicans. bi-metalists. became gold bugs
when the party convention officially adopt
cd the gold standard.
Officers are no less human than poll
ticians and no less DESTROYS of plea sing
the leaders Ia whom the must look for
promotion. and the crowd they train with
And in this case there are other motives
that those who know army life and the
actual workings of the 'canteen will re-
call Why is it that so many officers.
when they wish to speak on the anti
canteen side. ask us to whom they write
not to publish their names?
THAT there are outside dives about the
army posts whose influence is bad is not
denied, but of these several things should
be said: First. they are mostly licensed
saloons that have been put in charge of
persons of alleged good moral charac-
ter by public officials at the bidding of
Christian voters ] saw the outside places
at Newport. r. l.. in canteen days and at
Fort Sheridan. H.. in anti-canteen days.
and not one OF them was worse than
the 'canteen' had seen in the Newport
fort in charge of regulars. which paid
as little regard to laws against gambling
and getting drunk as do other saloons
Second the case you cite from the Philip
pines shows the fallaoy OF the pretense
that the military authority can not close
up these outside dives who licensed
the outside places you complain Off l
said to a pro-canteen captain Just back
from th. Philipplncs The general in