New-York tribune., 1907-10-06
TWO MEN AND ONE ISSUE.

Mr.. Fort has kept his word to the electors of
New Jersey. He promised some time ago that
he would explicitly define his attitude toward
every issue of the campaign. On Friday even
ing he fulfilled that promise in letter and In
spirit. 1t would be difficult to imagine a more
complete, straightforward, unequivocal and
courageous declaration of principles and poll
cies than that which was made by the Repub-
lican candidate for the Governorship; and that
characterization applies with most force and
fitness to his discussion of the issue which has
been regarded as the most important, or at
least as the most difficult to deal with and the
most dangerous-frOm the votegettlng point of
view-to touch 1t was assumed that on all
other topics Mr.. Fort would stand pat' on the
Republican platform. but those who did not
know the man and those who judged him by
their own hesitant and timOrOus standard We're
in doubt as TO what he would say on the ques-
ton of the regulation of the liquor trade. Most
interest centred upon that issue, and 1t was just
like Mr.. Fort 20 give 10 il his fullest attention
and his plainest and most emphatic words.
Mr.. Fort stands squarey upon the excise
plank of the Republican platform That is to
say. he pledges himself to the maintenance and
impartial enforcement of existing excise laws
including the so-called Bishops BILL" until Il
majority of the electors of the state through
!
This Bishops bill about which there has
been so much unwarranted pother. really
amounts to nothing but "A provision for enforc-
ing the laws which existed long beforc--the law
of 1889 enacted by the Democrats under Cover
nor Werts. and that of 1898. The restrictions
and penalties imposed upon the liquor trade
were prescribed by those acts, not by the
bishops bill" The Bishops bill" adds moth
ing to them. 1t simply provides a means Of
making them something more than n dead let
ter. 1t was and is notorious that before the
Bishops bill" was enacted the liquor law was
grossly violated, with impunity 1t was a
mockery and byword. The new law of 1906
changed all that 1t made those former laws
| effective wherever there honest sheriffs
and police. And that is the reason why it has
| been so much denounced Those who con-
| denim II had no objections TO the laws of 1889
and 1898. with all their "puritanical" restric-
| tlons and penalties, so long they were not
enforced. 1t is the enforcement of them that
| hurts Those who condemn the Bishops bill"
are simply condemning the enforcement of the
| laws. They are demanding that state laws
| shall be a dead letter on the statute book II
| they want 10 save themselves from the re-
proach of that attitude they should cease their
/ attacks upon that law and demand the repeal
OF the older laws.
They will scarcely have the courage 70 do
that. Mr.. Fort challenged them to DO it, but
they not likely TO respond. Does any one.
Mr.. Fort pertinently demanded. object TO the
| abolition of those back rooms of saloons which
were SO notorious for vice and crime? Does
any one object TO the prohibition of sales of
| liquor 10 children of tender years? Does any
one object TO confning the sale of liquor TO
| barrooms, excepting in hotels and restaurants =?
| Does any one--saye those who want to break
| the law-object to having the windows of bar
| rooms unobscured that Ii can be seen
| whether liquor is being sold at Illegal hours