The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-10-26

be in the form of an open letter. Mr.. |
Michaelis wrote that General Grant S
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 a private citizen, but he
has no right to head parade in full
uniform, or to participate as federal
officer, is part of the letter of pro-
test. Several letters taking a 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
prohibition PARADE but was ga
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 16, in reviewing the work of
the judge advocate for the year, says:
ga 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 25, 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 editoriafly:
The question whether an officer of
| the Army, wearing the uniform of his
rank, should head street parade be-
| cause it is designated a 'fGreat 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 NAV
| be questioned whether he is wise in
identifying himself with a movement
for the enforcement of laws which
| appeal especially to a certain class of
| citizens as those most worthy of en-
forcement. II is clearly not to the
| advantage Of the Army to have Off
GERS identifying themselves with move
ments which, whatever their claims to
| special moral virtue, are really parti-
san in their character With full sym
| pathy with any movement which is
| 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 published letter, in reply
| to one of the critics of General Grant
| "You state that it has been rumored
that the federal government and the
| Army in general have taken sides with
| the prohibition movement. If she
| federal government has in any way
| taken part in any such movement |
| do not know it. What individual mem.
| bers of the Army may feel about snch
| movements I do not know. Each sol
| der and officer of the Army has a
| right to determine for himself dc
| know, however, and state that the
Army as an organization has taken
no side and will have no right to take
sides either for or against the prohibi
ton movement. General Grant par
tieipate2 in the parade as an individ
ual, ard not as in any way represent
ing the Army or the war department.
---s-%-s~--
How 5 yer wheata'' First rate.