The Hawaiian gazette., 1909-10-26

be in the form of an open letter. Mr..
Michaelis wrote that General Grant g
presence in the parade is taken by
some to mean that the federal govern
ment and the Army in general have
taken sides with the prohibition move
ment. 81 do not dispute the right of
General Grant to take part in this
movement as private citizen, but he
has no right to-head parade in full
uniform, or to participate as federal
officer is a part of the letter of pro-
test. Several letters taking contrary
stand to that of Mr.. Michaelis also
have been sent to the secretary of war.
These are from men who approve of
the action of General Grant, and de
fend his appearance in the parade
They claim that the parade was not n
"prohibition PARADE but was "a
movement for great civic righteousness
and the enforcement of law and order
in Chicago 1t is interesting to note
that in his annual report for the last
fiscal year, just issued, General Grant,
on page l6, in reviewing the work of
the judge advocate for the year. says:
glance at the report of the Judge
advocate clearly shows to my mind
that liquor was the cause of most of
the troubles among the soldiers" How
ever, on page %, General Grant attrib.
utes to another form of dissipation
most of the non effectiveness of his
troops.
Commenting on this, the Army and
Navy Journal says editorially:
The question whether an officer of
the Army wearing the uniform of his
rank, should head a street parade be-
cause it is designated a "Great Tenn
perance and Law Parade" is SO large
ly question of good taste on the part
of the officer that the war department
has very properly refused to take any
action in response to the criticisms of
General Grant An officer of the Army
is very proper representative of the
principle of enforcing law as law, and
enforcing all laws alike, though it may
be questioned whether he is wise in
identifying himself with q movement
for the enforcement of laws which
appeal especially to n certain class of
citizens as those most worthy of en-
forcement. 1t is clearly not to the
advantage of the Army to have off
| GERS identifying themselves with move
| ments which, whatever their claims ia
| special moral virtue, are really parti
san in their character. With full sym
| pathy with any movement which il
| calculated to promote individual re
| straint in the matter of the use OF
liquor, it is well to remember that the
| sale of liquor has the sanction of the
United States government, for no man
can engage in this business without
first obtaining the permission of the
government represented by the bureau
of internal revenue. The secretary of
war states the case very clearly when
he says, in a published letter, in reply
to one Of the critics of General Grant.
"You state that il has been rumoled
that the federal government and the
Army in general have taken sides with
the prohibition movement IL she
federal government has in any way
taken part In any such movement
do not know il. What individual mem.
beers Of the Army may feel about such
movements ! do not know. Ench sol.
der and officer Of the Army has a
right IA determine for himself. / d0
know, however, aud state that tha
Army as an organization has taken
no side aud viii have no right to take
sidus either fpr or against the pTOhibi,
ton movement General Grant par
lieipatoi In the parade ~ an indiyid.
nal, ard not as In any way represent
Ing The Army or tho war depal lmonl
st.--
"llow's yef wheat - "Flrst rate -
ifIlna do|ni Wfllff NIius 20 iiIhat