United States Government. A question arose as to the interpretation of this act, some claiming that it did not prohibit the sale of liquor, but only regulated it. President McKinley submitted the law to Attorney General Griggs for an opinion, which he rendered, expressing views contrary to those who had urged the passage of the measure. The following is a concise statement of the Canteen

question :

THE CANTEEN QUESTION

In every army post there is a club for the soldiers where they gather socially, read the papers, and may buy extra food and beer. Distilled liquors are not allowed. Army officers claim that this club or canteen cannot be successfully maintained if the sale of beer is prohibited, and furthermore state that if such sale is prohibited the soldiers resort for their club privileges to saloons outside the camp lines, with, as a result, an increase of drunkenness and disorder. Congress, in March, 1899, passed an act which it is claimed prohibited all sale of beer in the canteen. The question as to the meaning of this act was submitted by the President to the Attorney-General of the United States, and he gave it as his legal opinion that the act did not prohibit such sale of beer. The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, is acting on this opinion in his construction and enforcement of the law.

On this statement of facts, three very different questions are involved, namely: First, Is the canteen to be tolerated or allowed at all? second, Has it been prohibited by Congress? third, What is the duty of the President in the premises?

THREE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

On the first question temperance men are divided in opinion. Those who think that all drinking is wrong, and that all government permission of drinking is reprehensible, are, of course, opposed to the sale of beer in the canteen. Those who believe that the permission to sell beer within army lines lessens the dangers from whisky-shops outside the camp lines, generally believe in the sale

of beer in the canteen. This is the opinion of General Corbin, who believes that "the prohibition of the sale of beer in the post exchange means an increase of whisky-drinking and drunkenness.” In support of this he affirms that "a canteen was established at Manilla for the sale of beer, and the beneficial effects therefrom were almost instantaneous. The wine-shops were driven out of business, and the wine-question, so far as our soldiers were concerned, died a natural death."

The second question is whether the Act of Congress approved March 2 prohibits all sale of beer within camp lines. This law provides that "no officer or private soldier shall be detailed to sell intoxicating drinks as a bartender or otherwise, in any post exchange or canteen, nor shall any other person be required or allowed to sell such liquors in any encampment or fort, or on any premises used for military purposes by the United States." This seems clearly explicit and emphatic. It seems to prohibit all sale of liquor in the canteen.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S JUDGMENT

But it is not to the newspaper press, nor to any secular body, that the President is to look for advice respecting the construction of Acts of Congress, but to an officially constituted expert on legal questions appointed for the very purpose of being his legal adviser. This official is the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has given, in reply to the President's request for information, his legal opinion that this law does not prohibit the sale of beer in the canteen; that it prohibits all detailing of officers or soldiers for the purpose of selling intoxicating liquors, and all licensing of outside parties coming into the encampment to sell such liquors; but does not prohibit the sale within the post under government regulations. Does the President do right in taking his judgment as to the interpretation of the law from the Attorney-General? Doubtless he has a right to over-rule the Attorney-General and should do so in extreme cases. Friends of the measure hold this to be an extreme

case, and that the law plainly intended to prohibit the canteen, and to protect the soldiers from the evils of the liquor traffic under government control. The effect of the agitation brings prominently forward the whole subject of the temperance question.

Whether such an act ought to be passed is a difficult question, on which temperance men will disagree. The testimony given to the public as to the effect of liquor-selling in the canteen is very contradictory. Before Congress acts on the question it will make a careful examination as to these facts, and that it will be governed, not by any a priori theory that all drinking of intoxicating liquors is wrong, nor by any theory that government cannot allow such sale without being particeps criminis, but by information carefully obtained as to the actual effect of the sale of beer the post on the character of the men and the discipline of the camp.

1

Another measure is before the Fifty-sixth Congress to prohibit the sale of liquor in all territory, grounds and buildings controlled by the United States Government. In the recent Act organizing a government for Hawaii, the saloon was prohibited.

STATE OWNERSHIP AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

The condition of the affairs of the Pacific railway, has given some ground for expectation that the Government would take control of this vast transcontinental road, but by patient waiting and consideration of various proposals made, a solution has been found by which the Government has been repaid the principal and a large part of the interest expended for the construction of the line, and the control of the road has been turned over entirely to its stockholders. The issue has been suggested by the Populist party, and been in its several platforms, that the State should assume control of the railroads, and that the telegraphic as well as the post-office system should be owned and operated by the Government in the interest of the people. City railway lines being a great public convenience, and occupying thoroughfares which are public properties, should be so controlled that the tariff charged passengers should not be exorbitant, nor fixed at a rate that would pay dividend to

the stock that has been watered. The same principle seems to be here involved as in all railroads. New York City has practically undertaken to build an underground railway to secure rapid transit to various parts of the city. The success of this enterprise will go far to help solve the problem of public ownership. Several cities of the United States have in one way or another assumed control of city railway lines. The advantages of low tariff rates, the means of public revenue, and greater security and safety for travel which would come from public ownership of transaction lines, may be offset by the introducing into our politics, a larger body of public servants, creating thereby greater pressure upon the appointing power. As these employees are also voters, and constitute a very large number, it is naturally feared that they would have undue influence in the making and enforcing of the laws, thereby forwarding their own interests and perpetuating their own power.

Private ownership on the other hand, properly regulated by law, so as not to be allowed to fix tariffs and charges for revenue to pay dividends on stock which represents more than actual value of the property, would preclude the dangers arising from the evil influence of a combination of a large number of public employees. On the other hand, it may be argued that the Civil Service law, properly enforced, would help regulate the public ownership of public necessities. Both political parties when in power have laid themselves open to criticism for the manner and method by which the Civil Service laws have been enforced. Each administration has, however, appeared to do the best it could under the circum

stances.

CHAPTER IV.

Vital Issues of the Campaign—Continued

NOW

SHALL WE HOLD THE PHILIPPINES

WOW that the Philippines have become a part of the permanent possessions of the United States, the question arises, shall we continue to hold them, or shall we surrender them to their own government, now or in the immediate future, or still further, shall we turn them over to the rule and possession of some other government. Few of the people agree to withdraw in favor of any other government. Perhaps a large number will favor the surrendering of the islands to the Filipinos, as soon as a responsible government in the islands can be organized.

BISHOP POTTER'S VIEWS

BISHOP POTTER, of New York, who at first seemed disposed to antagonize the policy pursued by the administration, and to favor an immediate withdrawal of the United States forces from the islands, made a tour of inspection, in which he visited a factory in Manila, where about 450 Filipino boys and girls were spinning cotton cloth. He was told that they learned to work the looms in about six weeks, where Irish and Scotch children take as many months before they are of any service. The natives seemed to take kindly to manufacturing and industrial pursuits. He expressed his opinion as follows:

"Whatever we might have done a year or more back, there is but one thing for us to do now, and that is to hold on to the islands and assume the responsibility for their future. The military administration of the islands is beyond praise. General Otis has not received half the recognition to which he is entitled. His position has been one of extreme delicacy. New questions