In March 1918, an editorial in the San Antonio Express urged the city government to work with the military to clean up the city and make it a fit place for soldiers to train and people to live: “The old proverb, ‘What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,’ is working out beautifully in those cities where the army camps are located. The army is the goose and the general public is the gander… . The Government has determined on certain conditions for the army camps, and these conditions are of necessity forced upon the community.” The “sauce” referred to was restrictions on certain “immoral” actions, particularly drinking and prostitution. The editorial advocated prohibiting alcohol in town and ending prostitution not only for moral improvement and for the greater war effort but also for the economic advantages of complying with military orders. “The choice is clear and plain; it is a choice between the liquor business and the army business… . The deciding element is the dollar.” The editorial also struck a moral argument: “The old idea that patriotism was a Fourth of July celebration, was a narrow view. Now we are exercising the patriotic virtues at the table, the pantry, in the bank, on the train, in moral sanitation, and in temperance reform… . The outcome will be seen in a greater and purer city.”

The editorial's multiple justifications for supporting a major vice crackdown in San Antonio demonstrate several key aspects of moral policing during World War I. It mentioned the concerns of businessmen, noting that a military presence meant a financial boom to the local economy. It placed the vice crusade in the context of a larger Progressive campaign for moral uplift. And it equated soldiers with civilians in terms of moral policing. Propagandists in the War Department used patriotism, efficiency, and national destiny to instill heightened moral codes in soldiers, and city officials did the same to civilians. San Antonio, which hosted more than seventy thousand soldiers during the war, also policed its civilians, arguing that what was good for the army was good for the community as a whole.