a
yours
ecenertcecd ie : tye ae : : = r et
et ae
>.
ee
Sh AS
rug - Eee Sheree reo
. = eee Sh
es
te
TS.
’
se
eK
Virrrer a ace
a
PSS
ae SENS
+
een
aes
Sere ee SLT
es
Division HVSOSBW
Section .Co 7 ua.
it Ping
er er re
\
eu ikl
War .' ia
i PA wih ‘ 4
AW Ady “ i
TA NI A Sa fe
a) URL LORURA
a
a %
AS
ul
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2022 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library
https://archive.org/details/prohibitioninuni0Ocolv
PROHIBITION IN
THE UNITED STATES
D. LEIGH COLVIN, pu.p.
PROHIBITION IN
THE UNITED STATES
Aotis LOR MnO EM bp cul Bp La TON PARTY.
AND SOF sTHE
PROHIBITION MOVEMENT
BY
D. LEIGH COLVIN, PELD.,
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY
COPYRIGHT, 1926,
BY. GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Leu es
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PREBACEH
In 1919 after the great victory had been won in the ratification
of the Eighteenth Amendment there was held in Chicago a cele-
bration in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of
the Prohibition party there in 1869 and of the victory which had
crowned a half century of unselfish toil and sacrifice for the
public good, a half century’s devotion to a great cause.
At that celebration the sentiment was generally expressed that
there should be prepared an official history which should preserve
to posterity the record of the political party which for so long
had furnished the leadership in the advocacy of a principle which
had been established in the Constitution of the United States, a
political party which is unparalleled in the history of political
parties for long sustained fidelity to principle, for statesmanlike
vision, for mastery of the principles of government, for moral
power and for consecration to a great national ideal.
A few months later at a meeting of the Prohibition National
Committee, a Committee on History was appointed whose duty
it was to make arrangements for the preparation of such a
history.
In January, 1920, the writer was chosen to write the history.
He expected that it would require twelve or fifteen months.
Actually over three and one-half years out of the last six have
been devoted to its preparation, most of the remaining time hav-
ing been spent in traveling, speaking and gathering information
which has a direct application to this book.
Begun primarily as a history of the Prohibition Party, this
volume has grown to include the main points in the history of
the whole prohibition movement from 1785 down to 1926, in-
cluding a survey of national prohibition and its administration
during the first six years of its operation. Furthermore, it is
more than a history. It is a study of political science applied to
prohibition. It aims to be an authoritative and comprehensive
study of prohibition in the United States.
The beginnings of the temperance movement and the evolu-
tion of prohibition are sketched. The remarkable prohibition
movements of the decades of the fifties and of the eighties of the
last century are studied.
Va
vi PREFACE
A number of chapters deal with the consecutive, historical
events, but there are a number of special chapters. The de-
cisions of the United States Supreme Court have so thoroughly
upheld the principle of prohibition and have bulwarked the pro-
hibition argument at so many points that a chapter is given to a
summary of the leading decisions of that Court.
At different periods the Prohibitionists had to contend with
other and less advanced methods which were currently advo-
cated. So there are chapters on “High License,” “The Dispensary
System,” “Local Option,” and “The Partisan Versus the Omni-
Partisan ‘Plan\y
A special chapter is devoted to “The Voice of the Churches,”
another to the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union with ex-
tracts from some of the inspiring messages of Frances E.
Willard, particularly her messages regarding politics.
Chapter XXIII contains enlightening facts about the popular
votes in favor of prohibition. Chapter XXV gives a compre-
hensive summary of the early results of national prohibition
and analyzes the deficiencies in its administration down to date.
The chapter on “The Liquor Power’ analyzes the political
power of the liquor traffic and its effects upon government.
There are two extended chapters dealing with the deeper aspects
of prohibition philosophy, one entitled “The Principle of Na-
tional Prohibition,” and the other, “Prohibition and the Ameri-
can Governmental System.”’
This book specializes on the political and governmental aspects
of the liquor question. Perhaps the chapter last mentioned is
the most important contribution made by the author.
Select bibliographical references are given, most of them ar-
ranged by decades at the close of the appropriate chapters, some
at other places where relevant.
In the method of historical treatment the aim has been to
combine an intensive study by periods or subjects with occasional
glimpses of historical perspective, to give the longer view, the
vista of progress through the years as well as the events of
interest at a particular time. In attempting to cover such a wide
field, even with a large book, condensation has been necessary on
nearly every point.
The aim has been to represent the thought, the philosophy,
the argument as well as to record the occurrences through the
years.
The preparation included an examination of all the material
on the various aspects of the prohibition question in the New
ed
‘'f
PREFACE Vii
York Public Library, which is by far the richest library in the
country upon this question, it containing the collection of twelve
hundred books and pamphlets assembled by James Black prior
to 1893. On account of having more of the earlier material it is
much better than the Congressional Library at Washington where
also many hours were spent. Likewise examinations were made
of the leading libraries in Chicago and of a number of others in
different parts of the country, including the Yale University
Library and the Kansas State Library. The Columbia Univer-
sity Library, rich in political science, has been much utilized.
Examination has also been made of the material at the national
headquarters of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union at
Evanston, Illinois, of that of the Scientific Temperance Fed-
eration at Boston and of the comprehensive collection of clippings
made by the late Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts and Mrs. Crafts at the
office of the International Reform Federation, Washington.
Not only have many books and pamphlets on this question
been consulted, to the number of approximately two thousand,
but also many works in history and political science have been
included.
The preparation has involved going carefully through the files
of the leading national prohibition papers covering a period of
over forty years, making indexes thereof, and also going through
some of the files of at least a score of other temperance and pro-
hibition papers. Many magazine articles have been consulted,
but only a small fraction of these are of much historical value.
A number of daily papers have been examined, including the
Chicago papers for 1855 and 1869. For more recent material
the Philadelphia North American and the Philadelphia Public
Ledger gave access to their files and to their “morgue” wherein
their classified clippings are kept. The Portland (Maine) E-x-
press, published by Colonel Fred N. Dow, son of Neal Dow, gave
access to its collection of material upon prohibition. The files of
the New York Times have also been used for recent material.
Visits have been made to the homes of the families of several
of the early prohibition leaders, including those of Neal Dow,
Portland, Maine; John Russell, Detroit, Michigan; Gideon T.
Stewart, Norwalk, Ohio; H. A. Thompson, Dayton, Ohio, and
A. A. Hopkins, many of their original manuscripts, collections
of pamphlets and clippings and files of early newspapers having
been placed at the disposal of the writer. Mr. Edward W. Clark
of Indianapolis, who with his father edited the Patriot Phalanx
for many years, kindly loaned a complete file of that paper.
Viii PREFACE
Many others have contributed material. Colonel John Sobieski
of Los Angeles and Michael J. Fanning of Philadelphia, early
leaders who are still living, gave valuable personal reminiscences.
Three transcontinental trips have been made, one in the cam-
paign of 1920 as candidate for Vice-President and two in a
nation-wide prohibition and law-enforcement campaign. Forty-
five states and more than five hundred cities were visited. Many
persons were consulted regarding the history and the personalities
of the movement and also regarding current conditions.
In addition several months in each of the years 1923 and 1924
were spent in Washington, D. C., as Legislative Superintendent
of the Flying Squadron Foundation and as Washington editor of
the National Enquirer which gave opportunity to obtain first-hand
information regarding legislative and political conditions at the
National Capital and also regarding the administrative situation
centering there. More recently visits have been made to the
Prohibition Unit for information.
An indication of the preparation of the author from the stand-
points of university training and long connection with the pro-
hibition movement can be found on page 462.
Before publication nearly all of the manuscript was submitted
for criticism and suggestion to a committee composed of some
of the best qualified men of any in the country to judge of the
accuracy, the perspective and the thoroughness of the field cov-
ered. To these the author expresses his cordial thanks. They
were: Dr. Samuel Dickie, Chairman of the Prohibition National
Committee from 1887 to 1899 and subsequently for twenty years
President of Albion College; Mr. William P. F. Ferguson, for
over fifteen years the editor of the leading national Prohibition
newspapers; Mr. Alonzo E. Wilson, for many years the head
of the Hlinois Prohibition Committee and from 1900 to IQII
editor of the annual Prohibition Year Book; Dr. Raynor W.
Kelsey, Professor of History in Haverford College; and Mr.
E. L. G. Hohenthal, Chairman of the Committee on History and
Secretary of the Prohibition National Committee.
The Committee on History, who deserve the credit for having
made possible the writing of this book, were: Mr. E. L. G.
Hohenthal, Mr. Virgil G. Hinshaw, Mr. W. G. Calderwood and
Mr. John McKee.
Thanks are also extended to the many other friends through-
out the country who have cooperated.
New York Ciry,
June 12, 1926. DLs
CHAPTER
I
II
Ill
CONTENTS
A Sketch of the Early Temperance Movement .
The State Prohibition Movement of the Fifties
Factors Leading to the Organization of the
Prohibition Party
The First National Prohibition Convention
The Beginning Years, 1869-1872
The Decade of the Seventies
The Early Eighties ; :
The Famous St. John EEN of oe
The Middle Eighties }
The Influence of the Minority ath
The Later Eighties
State Constitutional Amendment Campaigns,
1887-1890
High License ; :
The Prohibition Party in the Nineties
The Voice of the Churches
The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union:
The Political Messages of Frances E. Willard
The Dispensary System
The Party Renaissance, the a of 1900
and 1904 .
The Chafin and Watkins Campaign of ‘908
andy TOI,
Local Option
The Prohibition pe a the ne edie
League; The Partisan Versus the Omni-Par-
pone Bien ;
hse
380
x
CHAPTER
XXII
XXIT
XXIV
XXV
XXVI
XXVIT
AXVITT
XXIX
CONTENTS
Events of 1913 to 1916
The Progress of State and National Prohibition,
1914-1919 ‘
The Prohibition Party, 1917-1925
National Prohibition and its Administration,
1920-1925
The United States Supreme Coett and Pro-
hibition
The Liquor Power :
The Principle of National Prohibition
Prohibition’ and the American Governmental
System
Appendix
Index
PROHIBITION IN
THE UNITED STATES
° i Nay
nue.
' “ bbe
‘}
nah Nae)
om
Chapter I
A SKETCH OF THE EARLY TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT
The beginning of the Temperance Reformation in the United
States was contemporaneous with the founding of the govern-
ment itself. Midway between the close of the War for Inde-
pendence in 1783 and the meeting of the Constitutional Conven-
tion in 1787 Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia, who had been
a signer of the Declaration of Independence, published in 1785
his essay on the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Mind
and Body. ‘This essay is generally accepted as the inception of
the movement which has now been crowned by the establishment
of the principle of Prohibition in the Constitution of the United
States.*
Prior to this, during the Colonial period, there had been much
legislation designed to mitigate the evils of intemperance. In
Massachusetts there had been passed no less than fourteen dif-
ferent restrictive laws. Most of the colonies had passed laws
prohibiting the selling of liquor to Indians. Even New Jersey
was by no means a stranger to prohibitory legislation. In 1678
that colony enacted a law prohibiting sales of liquor to Indians
by a fine of twenty pounds, the fine to be doubled for each sub-
sequent offense, with twenty stripes if the offender could not pay.
The two most notable bits of governmental action of the earlier
period were the prohibition of the importation of ardent spirits
into Georgia under Oglethorpe, the founder of the colony, in
1733; and the adoption by the Continental Congress, on February
27, 1777, of the resolution:
That it be recommended to the several Legislatures of the United
States immediately to pass laws the most effectual for putting an
immediate stop to the pernicious practice of distilling grain, by
which the most extensive evils are likely to be derived, if not quickly
prevented.?
It is significant that the first three Presidents of the United
States each gave evidence of their concern over the liquor evil
of their time. John Adams, second President of the United
1 One Hundred Years of Temperance, pp. 13-15, 113-122. Dr. Rush’s essay on
pp. 606-622.
2 Journal of the Continental Congress, ae MIT Spi 2657
13
14 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
States, as a young man in 1760, led in what was almost a crusade
against the liquor traffic in his community.
Half a century later, in 1811, he wrote to Dr. Rush of having
been “fired with a zeal amounting to enthusiasm against ardent
spirits, the multiplication of taverns, retailers, dramshops and
tippling houses” and as “grieved to the heart to see the number
of idlers, thieves, sots and consumptive patients made for the
physicians in these infamous seminaries.” Through court pro-
ceedings he succeeded in reducing the number of licensed houses.*
John Adams was one of the first to have a realization of the
political menace of the licensed houses. Writing in his diary on
February 29, 1760, he drew a graphic picture of the social and
moral evils of the licensed houses and then continued:
But the worst effect of all, and which ought to make every man
who has the least sense of his privileges tremble, these houses are
become the nurseries of our legislators. An artful man, who has
neither sense nor sentiment, may, by gaining a little sway among
the rabble of a town, multiply taverns and dramshops and thereby
secure the votes of taverner and retailer and of all: and the mul-
tiplication of taverns will make many, who may be induced by flip
and rum, to vote for any man whatever.*
George Washington wrote a letter on March 31, 1780, just a
month before he was inaugurated President, in which he referred
to drink as “the source of all evil and the ruin of half the work-
men in the country.” °
Probably the most aggressive exercise of governmental power
during Washington’s administration was his vigorous suppression
of the Whisky Rebellion.
Thomas Jefferson after eight years in the Presidency was re-
ported to have said with great emphasis:
The habit of using ardent spirits by men in public office has pro-
duced more injury to the public service, and more trouble to me,
than any other circumstance that has occurred in the internal con-
cerns of the country during my administration. And were I to
commence my administration again, with the knowledge which from
experience I have acquired, the first question that I would ask with
regard to every candidate for public office should be, “Is he ad-
dicted to the use of ardent spirits?” °
The first temperance society was organized in the town of
Moreau, Saratoga County, New York, in 1808. The prime
3 John Adams, Works, Vol. IX, p. 657.
4. Ibid. Nolwil, p.°84.
5 George Washington, Letters and Addresses, edited by Jonas Viles, p. 315.
6 Sixth Annual Report of the American Temperance Society (1833), p. Io.
THE EARLY TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT 15
mover was Dr. Billy J. Clark, a physician. Calling upon his
pastor, the Rev. Lebbeus Armstrong, one stormy night, he ex-.
claimed : ‘We shall all become a community of drunkards in this
town unless something is done to arrest the progress of intem-
perance.” The outcome was that a temperance society was
formed April 13, 1808, twenty-three men enrolling. It held
quarterly and annual meetings for many years.’
Subsequent to this there were a number of local temperance
societies formed and in 1813 was organized the Massachusetts
Society for the Suppression of Intemperance, the first state so-
ciety, which during the next dozen years formed numerous aux-
iliaries in Massachusetts and Maine.
The next important date was 1826 when the American Tem-
perance Society was formed in Boston, and also in that year the
Rev. Lyman Beecher printed his famous six Sermons on In-
temperance. From the standpoint of effective, organized and
widespread agitation, the aggressive temperance movement really
dates from 1826. From that time onward for thirty years the
history of the anti-liquor movement was a remarkable history
of almost continuous progress and rapidly expanding influence.
It was marked by a striking evolution in the methods employed
for the solution of the liquor problem.
Following 1826 was the period when temperance societies flour-
ished in great numbers. By the close of 1829 eleven state tem-
perance societies had been formed and there were 1,000 local
societies and 100,000 members. By May, 1831, there were state
societies in nineteen states and 3,000 local societies which were
reported to number 300,000 members. By the end of 1833 there
were 5,000 societies with more than a million members and by
1835 the reform had advanced with such momentum that The
~ Eighth Annual Report of the American Temperance Society
stated that more than 8,000 temperance societies had been
formed, embracing, it was thought, more than 1,500,000 mem-
bers. The total population of the United States according to
the census of 1830 was less than thirteen million.
In New York State alone in 1834 the State Temperance So-
ciety reported having received reports from 698 towns and cities
which contained 1,652 temperance societies with an actual num-
~ber of pledged members reported amounting to 320,427. ‘This
was an increase in membership in one year of 91,642. In addi-
tion, III towns which were known to have one or more societies
7 Armstrong, The History of the Temperance Reformation, 1853, Chapter I.
Also see World’s Temperance Centennial Congress, 1908 (Report).
16 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
had not sent in reports. Estimating the membership of those
which had failed to report, the number of pledged members in
the State was given as 340,107. The population of New York
in 1830 was 1,918,608. One-sixth of all the people of New York
State, men, women and children, including both city dwellers
and those in rural homes, were members of the temperance so-
cieties. Still more amazing was the percentage in New York
City. In 1837, The Eighth Annual Report of the New York
City Temperance Society reported a membership of 88,076 out
of a total population that year of about 290,000. Nearly one-
third of all the people of the nation’s largest city were enrolled
members of temperance societies.
The movement was beginning to produce results. In New
York City for the eight years preceding the formation of the
New York City Temperance Society in 1829 the number of
licenses increased 14 per cent more than the population. In the
eight years following the organization of the society, 1829-1837,
the number of licenses in proportion to population decreased 43
per cent.
The number of persons convicted of crime in New York City
decreased from one in 204 of the population in 1830 to one in
338 of the population in 1836.°
In New York State in 1834, 1,472 persons were reported as
having abandoned the sale of ardent spirits during the year in
their taverns or stores and in addition many towns reported
that all had abandoned the sale.°
The number of distilleries decreased from 1,149 in 1829 to
337 in 1835.
Over the country by 1835, more than 4,000 distilleries had
stopped, more than 8,000 merchants had ceased to sell any kind
of intoxicating liquor. More than 1,200 ships were said to be
sailing from our ports without any spirits on board. A rail-
road and some stage coach companies had decided not to employ
men who used ardent spirits. More than 12,000 who had been
drunkards and, it was supposed, more than 200,000 other per-,
sons had ceased to use intoxicating drinks of any kind.’°
In Massachusetts three counties containing an aggregate popu-
lation of 120,000 had not issued licenses for the sale of ardent
spirits for three years preceding 1835.
In 1833 was held the first of a series of National Temperance
Conventions which were to be held at irregular intervals through
8 Eighth Annual Report of the New York City Temperance Society, 1837.
9 Seventh Report of the American Temperance Society, p. 112.
10 Eighth Report of the American Temperance Society, 1835, p. 20.
THE EARLY TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT 17
the century. These conventions, particularly the earlier ones,
were destined to mark distinctive and progressive stages in the
advance of the temperance movement.
The first National Temperance Convention met in Philadelphia
in May, 1833, with 440 delegates from twenty-one states. It
resolved: ““The traffic in ardent spirits as a drink and the use
of it as such is morally wrong and ought to be abandoned
throughout the world.”
In 1833 a Congressional Temperance Society was organized
with General Cass, the Secretary of War, as President.** The
year before, 1832, General Cass had issued an order abolishing
the spirit ration in the army and prohibiting the vending of
ardent spirits to the soldiers of the United States in any fort,
camp, Or garrison.
Another exercise of ane prohibitory power the same year,
1832, was the order of the Board of Health of Washington,
ily Aon during the cholera epidemic which declared the vending
of ardent spirits,a nuisance and directed its discontinuance for
ninety days. The order was given following an opinion sup-
porting its legality by William Wirt who had served twelve
years as Attorney-General of the United States. In 1834 Con-
gress passed a stringent law prohibiting the sale of liquor to
Indians.
Many influential men were actively identified with the tem-
perance movement including members of Congress, governors,
and college presidents and professors.
polled 10,545 votes, which was sufficient to prevent the Repub-
lican candidate from receiving the majority vote, he being elected
by only a plurality. This large vote encouraged the Prohibi-
tionists and alarmed the Republicans. The Prohibitionists had
been advocating a statutory law as the state constitutional amend-
ment plan had not been agitated prior to 1878. In 1879 the
Republicans desired to reelect Governor Gear. They feared to
offend the increasing number of Prohibitionists who were demon-
strating their willingness to back their sentiments with their
votes. They also feared to alienate the liquor vote by committing
the party to the enactment of a law. So they compromised by
inserting a plank favoring the submission of a constitutional
amendment to the people at a special election “in order that the
entire question of temperance may be settled in a non-partisan
manner.”
Many of the Prohibitionists, willing to subordinate their new
party provided their cause was recognized, were opposed to
making a separate nomination, But there were some who were
convinced that the prohibition question could not be “‘settled in a
non-partisan manner’ and that a law administered by an anti-
prohibition governor would not be very effective. These nomi-
nated D. R. Dungan for Governor and in spite of the plank in
the Republican platform polled a respectable vote sufficient to
indicate to the politicians that they could not break faith on their
platform plank. The Legislature of 1880 passed the submission
resolution and, as the lowa constitution requires the passage of a
constitutional amendment through two legislatures before sub-
140 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
mission to the people, it was referred to the Legislature of 1882
which also approved it and at the election, June 27, 1882, the
people adopted the amendment by a majority of nearly thirty
thousand.
Notwithstanding the victory the constitutional amendment was
invalidated by the state Supreme Court in the fall of 1882, be-
cause of a technicality. It was found that a minor amendment
of three words which had been added to the original text of the
bill by the House in the Legislature of 1880 did not appear in
the Legislative Journal as kept by the Clerk of the House. The
amendment as voted upon by the people was exactly the same as
passed by both sessions of the Legislature, but because of the
failure of the clerk to record three words the vote of the people
was annulled.
There were many who thought the omission by the subordinate
clerk was intentional and the fact that in two other states, Indiana
and Oregon, there was a parallel situation with regard to legis-
lative clerks invalidating the submission of a prohibition amend-
ment gave reason for the conclusion that in some of those states
at least it was a deliberate scheme of the liquor power to head
off prohibition.
But notwithstanding constitutional prohibition was thus pre-
vented from going into effect, the people of Iowa became so
aroused that they demanded the enactment of a statutory law
and the next Legislature enacted such a law in 1884.
The successes of the popular votes in Kansas and Iowa gave a
big impetus to the constitutional amendment movement and so
much prohibition enthusiasm was sweeping over the country that
by the close of the legislative sessions of 1883 there had been no
less than twenty-one states where a state prohibition constitu-
tional amendment had been seriously agitated and voted upon in
the legislature.
The following is the record of legislative action up to July,
1883:
In Kansas, Iowa, Ohio and Maine the Legislatures had voted
for submission.
In Oregon in 1883 the amendment passed both houses to be
submitted to the succeeding Legislature.
In Indiana it had passed the Legislature of 1881 and passed
the House in 1883, but lost in the Senate.
In Pennsylvania in 1881 it had passed the House by 109 to
59, but failed in the Senate. In 1883 the wets added a com-
pensation clause which insured its defeat.
THE EARLY EIGHTIES 141]
In New Jersey the Senate voted for the amendment 11 to Io,
but it was defeated in the House 29 to 27.
In Michigan in 1881 it received the required two-thirds vote
in the Senate, 21 to 10, but in the House fell three votes short,
63°10) 33.
The method of amending the state constitution varies in the
different states. In this period eleven states required a two-thirds
vote of both houses of one legislature before submission to the
people. In nine states the majority vote of two successive legis-
latures was necessary, the adoption of the amendment to be com-
pleted by a majority vote of the people. Some states required a
majority of all the voters voting at the election. Others required
only a majority of those voting on the proposed amendment.
Rhode Island required a three-fifths vote of the people and there
were other variations in method.
In Connecticut, Illinois, West Virginia and Arkansas sub-
mission passed the House but was defeated in the Senate.
In Texas it passed the Senate but was defeated in the House.
In Missouri and Wisconsin it received the vote of a majority
of the House, but not the necessary two-thirds. In Wisconsin
100,000 people had petitioned for it in 1880 and more than that
at the succeeding Legislature.
In Nebraska it lacked only two votes of passing.
In New York and Massachusetts it received about 40 per cent
of the votes of the Legislature.
In Vermont and Minnesota it also received substantial support.
Notwithstanding that in a number of the states the politicians
were successfully utilizing the bicameral system to balance one
house off against the other and thus please both sides, the progress
which was being made was bringing the prohibition workers to
a high point of enthusiasm.
Ohio. The next state to vote was the state of Ohio, then the
third in the country in population. There a great moral victory
was won even though prohibition was not placed in the constitu-
tion. In Ohio the constitution required that a proposed amend-
ment should receive a majority of all the votes cast at the election.
This is a difficult provision because of the fact that it is a char-
acteristic of American voters that not nearly as many vote on
questions which are submitted to them at an election as vote on
the candidates. Even though the negative vote may be small
the adoption of an amendment is frequently prevented because
of the failure of the voters to express their judgment. In Ohio
out of fourteen amendments which had been submitted only one
142 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
had been adopted. The prohibition amendment voted on in 1883
received a large majority of the counted votes which were cast
upon this question, but not sufficient on the face of the returns
to make a majority of all the votes polled at the general election
that day.
Since 1851 Ohio had maintained an anti-license clause in its
constitution. Originally it had been supposed that depriving the
liquor-sellers of a license would amount substantially to pro-
hibition. But those in power did not so interpret it and the liquor
traffic continued.
In 1874 an amendment to repeal the anti-license clause and to
substitute license had been submitted and had been defeated. Of
those voting on the question a majority of 7,286 voted against
repeal of the anti-license clause and the license proposal lacked
61,461 of a constitutional majority of all those voting at the
election.
Meanwhile the politicians sought to circumvent the anti-license
clause by passing laws protecting the liquor traffic under the guise
of so-called tax laws instead of license laws. In 1880 the Legis-
lature had passed the Pond Tax Law which was declared uncon-
stitutional and in 1883 the Republicans passed another tax law
to take its place called the Scott Tax Law.
For a number of years there had been a strong prohibition
sentiment in the state. It was in Ohio where the Woman’s
Crusade had its effective beginning in 1873 and where it achieved
its greatest successes. It was in Ohio where the Prohibition party
had nominated its first local and also its first state ticket in 1869.
In the last preceding election for Governor in 1881 it had polled
the Jargest vote it had ever received. up, to this, time) godine
Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, which under the leader-
ship of Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridge had attained great strength,
presented to the Legislature a petition containing 185,000 names
asking for submission of a prohibition constitutional amendment.
The growing sentiment could not be entirely ignored by the
Legislature so the party in power decided to submit the amend-
ment, but also in order not to alienate the wets it submitted a
license amendment so that the liquor men might have another
opportunity to supplant the anti-license clause of the constitution
with a license provision.
In addition it passed the Scott Tax Law designed to satisfy
the conservative temperance elements and to lessen the support
for the prohibition amendment. Those satisfied with the Scott
Law would not vote for the amendment and, as adoption required
THE EARLY EIGHTIES 143
the majority of all votes cast at the general election, the effect of
the failure of the Scott Law adherents to vote on the amendment
was the same as if they had voted against it.
During the campaign the license amendment had been known
as the First Amendment and the prohibition amendment as the
Second Amendment. To make matters still more confusing,
when the state central committees of the two larger parties held
a joint meeting to consider how to print the ballots they agreed
to put the judicial amendment first, the license amendment second
and the prohibition amendment third. So those temperance
voters who had been instructed to vote “yes” on the Second
Amendment, if they followed their instructions, voted for the
license amendment.
The day the vote was taken was the day of election for Gov-
ernor. The Democratic party had a plank against prohibition
and Mr. Hoadly, the candidate for Governor, who was elected,
had been a prominent attorney for the liquor interests. Mr.
Foraker, the Republican candidate, declared: “The principles of
regulation and taxation are eternal and will stand. And to these
principles of regulation and taxation of the liquor traffic, be it
known of all men, the Republican party is unalterably com-
mitted.’’ Practically all the speakers of prominence of both par-
ties and the leading papers opposed the prohibition amendment.
In spite of the tremendous handicaps the moral forces made an
aggressive and enthusiastic campaign. There were a number of
nationally prominent speakers who came to the help of Ohio,
including John P. St. John, John B. Finch, George W. Bain,
Frances E. Willard and Mrs. Mary T. Lathrap.
Notwithstanding frauds in the voting and still worse in the
counting, the official returns from Cincinnati having been held
back for some days and unquestionably manipulated, the result
was that a large majority of the voters who voted on the question
voted for prohibition.
Of those who voted on the prohibition amendment 323,189
voted “yes” and 240,975 voted “no,” a majority of 82,214.
However, it lacked 37,467 of a majority of all the votes polled
for state candidates and did not become a part of the constitution.
On the license amendment only 99,849 voted for it and 192,117
against it.
Thus three states in succession, Kansas, lowa, and Ohio, gave
popular majorities for prohibition.
Maine. The next state to vote was Maine in 1884. She had
tried prohibition for a third of a century, with the exception of
144 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
two years, 1856 to 1858, after which it had been reestablished
by a large popular majority. The people of Maine were in a
position to know whether prohibition was beneficial and desirable
or not. They voted to establish prohibition in the Maine con-
stitution by the overwhelming vote of nearly three to one, 70,783
to 23,811.
Rhode Island. The next state to vote on a constitutional
amendment was Rhode Island in 1886. In that state a three-
fifths vote of the people was necessary to adopt an amendment.
Despite this, prohibition received more than the required number.
There were two other statewide votes prior to 1887 which,
however, were not upon constitutional amendments. One was a
plebiscite in that part of Dakota Territory which afterward be-
came South Dakota. It gave a majority for prohibition. The
other vote was in North Carolina in 1881, where a prohibitory
statute had been submitted to the people and defeated. It had
been badly framed, it was surmised intentionally so. Besides,
the Republican party made opposition to it a party measure.
Its state committee issued an address against prohibition. It
lined up the negro vote almost solidly against the proposal with
the result that prohibition lost by a heavy majority.
Thus in the period from 1880 to 1886 out of seven statewide
votes where the people had the opportunity to express themselves
directly, six out of the seven states, all but North Carolina, had
given popular majorities for prohibition. The continued, almost
unbroken, success which attended the popular votes was com-
parable only to the great prohibition wave of the early fifties.
Great hopes and expectations were rife. It looked again as if
prohibition was going to sweep the country. With the rapid
growth of the Prohibition party following 1884, by early 1887
many thought that prohibition would become the dominant issue
in the national campaign of 1888.
The limitations of the constitutional amendment plan and the
reasons for failure to advance will be discussed in Chapter XII.
Bibliographical Note. For references, see close of Chapter X1.
Chapter VIII
THE FAMOUS ST. JOHN CAMPAIGN OF 1884
Eighteen eighty-four was a memorable year in the history of
prohibition. That year the Prohibition party entered a new phase
and became an aggressive, militant, nation-wide political organ-
ization. Tens of thousands supported their convictions with
their ballots, with the result that for the first time prohibition
obtained recognition as a national issue. It is the year to which
many of the older Prohibitionists of the present day point with
pride and satisfaction as the year when they first championed
the great cause.
It was the beginning of a period which in many respects is
the most inspiring in the history of the reform. For a whole-
hearted devotion to the cause, for deep conviction, for moral
earnestness, for able championship, for advocacy of high prin-
ciple and for spontaneous enthusiasm no period has excelled
it. From the standpoint of great and commanding personalities
and masterly promulgation of the prohibition philosophy and
argument the half dozen years following 1884 were in many
respects the Golden Age of the reform.
The sweep of prohibition sentiment was evidenced by the
large growth of the temperance organizations, the resolutions of
the churches, the election results where the question had been
submitted and by the extent to which appeals and _ petitions
had been made to the legislatures to permit the people to vote
on state constitutional amendments.
Notwithstanding that on the face of the legislative votes on
submission near-success seemed to have been achieved in several
states, the temperance leaders had lost confidence in the dominant
parties. In some states, support in the legislatures sufficient to
encourage the non-partisan temperance men had been given but
submission had been lost. In sixteen Republican states where
submission had been strongly urged the legislatures refused to
submit. Commitment to prohibition had not been asked. The
temperance leaders had sought merely the opportunity for the
people to vote upon the question. In the words of John B.
145
146 PROHIBITION, IN THE UNITED STATES
Finch, the head of the order of Good Templars, which had been
very active in petition work:
Six times in Nebraska we have gone to the Legislature on our
knees asking the poor boon that this criminal be put on trial.
Six times the Legislature, more than three to one Republican, has
denied and spurned us. In Wisconsin our friends have gone five
times with a similar petition. In Michigan they have gone four
times, in Massachusetts twice. You in New York have gone once
and the politicians felt the breath of your coming. They trimmed
their platform to deceive you. They got your votes by false pre-
tenses and then they refused your request and disgracefully broke
their sworn pledge.
In the beginning of 1884, John B. Finch, in a ringing mes-
sage to the temperance people of the country on the work for
1884, said:
The time has come for a union of all good men and women to say
the Government must stop the ravages and outrages of the alcoholic
liquor trade and the prohibitionists must refuse to wait a single year
longer without a struggle to make it win this year. The principles
of the reform are right and agitation must arouse public attention
and hasten the day of victory. There is no more important issue
demanding the attention of the American people. The liquor
lords are absolute political autocrats and dictate or try to dictate
the nominations of both Democratic and Republican parties. For
prohibitionists to remain idle and allow the liquor lords to fasten
the chains of their control on this country is to betray the highest
and holiest interests of the people. The man and woman who cries
“Wait,” “Go slow” is an enemy of God and Humanity.
DAE Wey C. (Tu Ose MEMORIAL
At the national convention of the Woman’s Christian Temper-
ance Union in 1883 it had been determined to present to the
presidential nominating conventions a: Memorial of the American
home for protection from the saloon, asking them to “advocate
and adopt such measures as are requisite to the end that prohibi-
tion of the importation, exportation, manufacture and sale of
alcoholic beverages may become an integral part of the National
Constitution and that your candidate shall be by character and
public life committed to a national prohibitory constitutional
amendment.”
Miss Willard was commissioned to present the Memorial to
the different conventions. At the Republican convention she was
THE FAMOUS ST. JOHN CAMPAIGN OF 1884 147
finally given fifteen minutes to present the Memorial to the plat-
form committee. She went before the committee:
On behalf of millions of women, good and true but grieved and
sorrowiul, to ask that the guarantees and safeguards of law shall
be stripped from the saloons of my country; that their tarnished
gold shall no more pollute our treasury and that the land we love
may at once and forever go out of partnership with the liquor trat-
rire
She was coldly received. The Platform Committee in its report
ignored the subject and when the platform was read not a dele-
gate even from the prohibition states uttered a peep against the
omission. Later the Memorial which Miss Willard had pre-
sented was found amid the litter on the floor of the committee
room aslime with tobacco juice. This was subsequently pro-
cured and photographed by Mr. J. A. Van Fleet, the editor of
the Lever, a facsimile was published broadcast as evidence of
the Republican party’s disrespectful treatment of the Memorial
of the Christian women and as a “monument to the perfidy of
the Republican party to the interests of the American home.”
The attitude of the candidates was very unsatisfactory. Mr.
Blaine, the Republican nominee for President, had advocated the
distribution of the federal liquor tax to the states as a perma-
nent resource to them. This proposition implied the ‘permanent
entrenchment of liquor in the revenue system.
Senator John A. Logan, the Republican Vice-Presidential
nominee, had advocated the use of liquor revenue for school pur-
poses, a policy exceedingly distasteful to persons of moral dis-
cernment.
Subsequently during the campaign Mr. Blaine further offended
the prohibition element by dodging the vote on state constitutional
prohibition when that was voted on in his state of Maine in
September.
ST. JOHN’S ACCESSION
The action of the Republican convention in ignoring the pe-
titions of the W. C. T. U. and the other temperance organiza-
tions, in renewing its allegiance to the infamous Raster resolu-
tion of 1872, and in nominating candidates who had publicly
committed themselves to the perpetuation of the liquor en-
trenchment in the revenue system resulted in driving ex-Governor
St. John into the Prohibition party. Upon learning of the action
of the Republican national convention, he declared: ‘I will con-
148 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
demn such cowardice, such disregard of the best interests of the
people with my voice and vote,’ and allied himself with the
Prohibition party in the national contest.
However ex-Governor St. John was not yet ready to forsake
the Republican party in the state of Kansas. Under his leader-
ship as Governor it had enacted the laws for carrying the con-
stitutional amendment into effect and at the preceding election
in 1882 it had supported prohibition in its platform. He assumed
that it could be depended upon to uphold prohibition as against
attempts to repeal or nullify it. However, at the state convention
a few weeks aiter its national convention, the Republican party
of Kansas in its platform declared merely that prohibition had
been adopted by the people without distinction of party and
simply pledged itself to formal compliance with the requirements
of the state constitution. A party could hardly dare to do less
than to pledge allegiance to the constitution.
Although recounting the achievements of the party it did not
include prohibition as one of them. It thus substantially dis-
owned responsibility for prohibition and left it without party
support—the support of the agency which was to administer
the government of the state. Besides, the candidate nominated
for Governor was regarded as hostile.
St. John, instead of compromising and weakly assuming that
the two-faced policy of the old party must be endured for the
sake of the maintenance of the semblance of prohibition, re-
fused to be a party to such duplicity, expressed his contempt for
the cowardice exhibited in the Republican party’s action and,
notwithstanding it was not without severe personal struggle that
he severed the political associations with a party which he had
so long served, committed himself unreservedly to the Prohibi-
tion party in both state and nation.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PARTY IN INDIANA
The national convention of the Prohibition party was pre-
ceded by the organization of the party in several states where it
had never been organized before, notably in Oregon, where the
initial steps toward organization were taken at the meeting of
the State Temperance Alliance in February, in Missouri and
in Indiana. The developments in the latter state leading to the
formation of the party are of significance.
Indiana was one of the last of the northern states to organize,
there having been no ticket there prior to 1884. There had been
THE FAMOUS ST. JOHN CAMPAIGN OF 1884 149
a strong temperance sentiment, active temperance societies and
there had been a state temperance organ published since 1875.
The unsatisfactory provision which had existed for expressing
one’s prohibition convictions at the ballot-box was illustrated
by the weak and insipid advice given by the state temperance
organ in the campaign of 1880. It said: “Let us look around
us now, bury our prejudice and vote for what we think best
for 1880.”
For five years prior to 1884 earnest and persistent efforts
had been made by the Grand Prohibition Council, the State
Temperance Union, the W. C. T. U. and the churches to add
a prohibition amendment to the constitution of Indiana.
In 1881, after having been petitioned by 46,000 citizens, the
Legislature passed the joint resolution for submission and re-
ferred it to the succeeding Legislature to be again acted upon.
But the resolution failed to be entered upon the journal except
by its title. This clerical omission was made the pretext by the
Senate in the Legislature of 1883 for refusing to submit the
amendment to a vote of the people. The defeat of the amend-
ment in Oregon and its invalidation in Iowa by similar omissions
made by politically appointed legislative clerks caused more than
a suspicion of something other than innocence.
At the state conventions of 1882 both the Democratic and
Republican parties had resolved in favor of submission, the
former recommending submission at a general election and the
latter at a special election, but at the same time the Democrats
declared their hostility to the object. The Republicans did not
commit themselves but when in the canvass it was charged by
the wets that this silence meant an endorsement of prohibition
the candidates vehemently denied any such construction and some
of them openly declared their intention to vote against prohibition
should it come to a popular vote.
Notwithstanding this, the temperance forces made a thorough
and expensive canvass of the state in favor of the Republican
ticket and as a reward for it received the taunt that they had
defeated the ticket by driving the saloon men to the Democratic
party. The Republican party was unwilling to champion pro-
hibition unequivocally, to such a degree as would elicit the sup-
port of temperance Democrats. On the other hand, the liquor
forces threw their balance of power to the Democrats with the
result that the Democrats secured control of both houses of
the Legislature. Submission passed the House by a large ma-
jority. In the Senate it was defeated with eleven Republicans
150 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
not voting. If these had voted, or if the Republicans who did
vote had voted for submission there would have been enough
votes combined with temperance Democrats in the Senate to have
submitted the amendment.
At the annual meeting of the Grand Prohibition Council held
a few months later in September, 1883, the Council being com-
posed of representatives of all the temperance and prohibition
organizations of the state, it was resolved:
If, in the coming political contest at the state election of 1884,
neither of the great political parties declares itself in favor of a
prohibitory amendment to the Constitution in its platform, then,
without regard to parties, or affiliation, we will respond to a call
for a convention of temperance voters and workers in the state
and at such convention will organize a prohibition party and will
place in nomination a separate ticket for state officers.
On the following day the State Christian Temperance Union
met in semi-annual session and endorsed the resolution of the
Grand Prohibition Council. In March, 1884, the same purpose
was reiterated with instructions that in case neither of the larger
parties should endorse prohibition a convention should be called.
In addition to the well-considered action of the organized
societies, thousands of voters authorized the editor of the Mom-
tor-Journal, the state temperance organ, to append their names
to a call for a convention provided neither of the larger parties
should endorse prohibition in its platform and nominate candi-
dates in harmony therewith.
At the convention of the Republican party the temperance
people were treated with scorn and contempt and the prohibition
resolution was refused even a hearing.
So strong was the feeling that by the time the prohibition
convention met in July, 1884, thirty-four thousand eight hun-
dred and eighty signatures had been appended to the call.
The convention was called by M. E. Shiel, the editor of the
Monitor-Journal, It was the largest temperance convention that
had ever been held in Indiana. Col. Eli F. Ritter was Chairman.
A strong platform was adopted and a full ticket nominated,
headed by Robert S. Dwiggins as candidate for Governor. He
had served as a Republican presidential elector and also as a
member of the state Senate.
What the aroused Prohibitionists of Indiana thought of the
old parties is evidenced by the following vigorous extract from
their state platform of 1884:
THE FAMOUS ST. JOHN CAMPAIGN OF 1884 151
When political parties exist for the benefit of the country and
labor for the promotion of some great good or for the eradication
of some pernicious evil, they are a priceless blessing; but when
they exist solely for their own good and seek to make the country
tributary to that end, when their acts are dictated by a selfish policy
and not by principle, and their chief aim is to secure the public
offices and to dispense their patronage as the reward of party serv-
ices; then political parties become subversive of public morals and
dangerous to the stability and perpetuity of free government. To
this complexion have the dominant parties of this country arrived.
The platform went on to declare that the parties controlling
the government refuse to recognize the liquor evil, spurn from
their councils those who would call their attention to it and
treat with contempt their earnest appeals.
Referring to personal liberty it said:
3. In thus prohibiting the liquor production and sale there is
no encroachment on that personal liberty which is so dear to every -
American ; for no man has a natural right to injure society or burden
the community by the practice of a vice or the commission of a
crime. . . . But drunkenness is a degrading and expensive vice and
to make a drunkard is a crime of the first magnitude and both of
these are legitimate outgrowths of the liquor traffic.
Another plank was as follows:
4. So long as legislatures are made and courts created by the
machinery of political parties, unorganized public opinion upon any
political question is of but little value. Even prohibition in the
Constitution will avail but little without an efficient party honestly
and earnestly committed to its enforcement.
THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1884
The national convention was held in Pittsburgh, July 23 and
24. It had been originally planned to hold it in May but it was
decided to postpone it until after the conventions of the larger
parties in order to give them one more opportunity to indorse
prohibition. |
Those who had held to the hope that one of the major parties
would champion prohibition were doomed to disappointment,
and by the time the Prohibition convention met most of the
aggressive prohibition workers of the country were substantially
a unit as to the necessity of third party action.
More than seven hundred delegates and alternates from
thirty-one states and territories gathered in historic Lafayette
152 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Hall. From the beginning the convention was marked by tre-
mendous moral earnestness and great enthusiasm.
A pre-convention rousing mass meeting was held the night
before and here as in the conventions of 1869 and 1882 the
dominating message was delivered by John Russell, recognized
as one of the ablest thinkers in the history of the prohibition
movement. His whole address deserves preservation but part
of it has such a pertinent bearing on the present situation as to
command insertion. One of the subjects he discussed was:
“Why insist upon a separate political party.”
He said that parties are exponents and representative of
political ideas. The major parties being composed of diametri-
cally opposite elements on this question and each containing a
large number of voters who are antagonistic to prohibition and
who persistently make the upholding of the liquor trade the sine
qua non of their political support—these parties are organically
disqualified to meet the prohibition issue.
Reviewing the history of the prohibition movement from 1851
to 1884, he asserted that the movement in the hands of those
parties, or more properly in the hands of the friends of the
principle but without a party, was “uneven, inconclusive and
thoroughly unsatisfactory.”
Continuing his discussion of the need of a party Dr. Russell
said:
Furthermore, prohibitionists need a party of their own because
“Constitutional Prohibition,’ though it were secured in every state
in the Union, would not prove a final adjustment of the controversy,
nor would it remove the question from the arena of party politics.
IT am not unmindful of the fact that some of our good friends have
thought and taught differently on this point. Perhaps nothing
short of actual experience will fully convince some of them of their
error. Nevertheless, a few points should be considered touching
this phase of the question:
There probably is now no constitutional impediment in the way
of enacting a prohibitory statute in any state in the Union. More-
over, there are but few states, if any, where, if the question were
submitted fairly, and so as not to complicate it with old party
politics, and a “fair count” of the ballots could be obtained, a
majority of the people would not vote for prohibition. Why, then,
are not such statutes enacted, and why do so many good people
petition legislative bodies in vain for the submission of constitutional
amendments to a popular vote? The plain answer is, because the
party in power could and would be held responsible by the liquor
men for granting such favors to the cause of temperance.
THE FAMOUS ST. JOHN CAMPAIGN OF 1884 153
Furthermore, it should be observed that the enforcement of law
against the liquor business is even more taxing to the machinery of
a party than the enactment of it. Our points then are: Democrats
and Republicans are growing less and less willing to submit pro-
hibitory constitutional amendments; such constitutional provisions if
adopted are powerless for good unless followed by suitable statutes
for giving them effectiveness; and, finally, because the agency of a
thoroughly united party is even more needful for the election of effi-
cient executive and judicial officers than the legislative department.
In this connection allow me to remark that in no other way shall
we ever completely answer the frivolous yet popular objection of
our opponents that “Prohibition does not prohibit.” It would in-
deed be marvelous if it should, and it is scarcely less marvelous
that its friends have been stupid enough to expect it to, under the
political conditions surrounding such legislation in the past. The
comparatively excellent record which it has made, in this regard,
in the initiative stages of its history is owing to the soundness of the
legal principle and the profound moral conviction upon which it
rests. Reasoning a priori, why should we expect it to prove ef-
fective? The Prohibition party through the years had been preaching the
necessity of the union of the good citizenship of the nation in a
great national political party to obtain control of the government,
national, state and local, and legislative, exesutive and judicial.
Its purpose was to so administer the government that the liquor
trafic might be suppressed and that the great social, economic,
moral and political benefits which would accompany such an
administration might be achieved.
Among the fundamental and distinctive bases of the Pro-
hibition party were:
1, The liquor question is a national question in every respect,
requiring for its settlement the agencies of the national as well
as the state governments.
2. The government of the United States is party government.
3. The real settlement of the liquor question requires a political
party unalterably committed to prohibition from the standpoint
of party principle. The nature of the problem requires the con-
380
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 381
tinuous support of all branches of the government. The. party
is the agency developed as a consequence of the American Con-
stitutional system to provide for the cooperation of all branches
of the government.
4. Neither old party can effectively support prohibition. Each
is organically disqualified from the very nature of its composition.
Fach makes its basis of union issues foreign to prohibition and
each desires both the wet vote and the dry vote. Each contains a
radically opposing element of potential bolters. So long as a
party depends for success upon retaining the votes of that element
it will cater to and compromise with that vote—it cannot settle
the liquor question.
With these underlying bases there was demonstrated the neces-
sity of a party for prohibition. The tremendous difficulties of
building a new party were not minimized but the overwhelming
need justified the labor and sacrifice.
In behalf of the political party method it was urged that it was
simple, direct, familiar to voters, in harmony with the American
system of government, effective when placed in operation, and
that it had the weight of historical precedent in the building of a
new party to deal with the slavery question.
The Prohibitionists’ concept of the party was that it was an
essential agency for the effective operation of the government.
It was necessary as the means by which an aroused public
sentiment could function in a manner so as to utilize the powers
of government to suppress the liquor traffic. This concept was
the antithesis of that which looked upon a party as a faction, or
merely as a means for obtaining the spoils of office, or as a
corrupt machine to be avoided and spurned. ,
A party being regarded as the necessary agency for the attain-
ment of a great, transcendent objective, voting for such a party
became a civic duty. It was perfectly proper to advocate voting
for such a party in a church or anywhere. Responsibility for the
use of the ballot took on a deeper and fuller meaning.
By the late eighties and early nineties the Prohibition party
was making great headway in convincing the more thoughtful
and conscientious class of voters of the soundness of its position.
Nearly every prominent leader in any branch of temperance work
was a Prohibitionist. Several attempts to organize counter-move-
ments against the Prohibition party had but little support and
met with early failure.
The sentiment for the party was by no means measured by the
vote. It was more indicated by the possibility of a break toward
382 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
the new party. Back in 1887 it had looked as if prohibition
might become the dominant issue in the presidential campaign of
1888. Several factors heretofore discussed headed it off, among
which were the organization of the wets to defeat proposed state
constitutional amendments and also the determination of the
politicians to sidetrack prohibition by a compromise on high
license and local option.
The amendment defeats of the later eighties temporarily weak-
ened the morale of the Prohibitionists. Then came the hard
times and financial stringency accompanied by the Populist wave
and the free silver conflict. This split every party, the Prohibi-
tion party being hurt the worst. The split was, however, followed
by a marvelous recovery, the campaign of 1896 having been the
only campaign in the whole half century history of the party
where another divisive issue seriously affected it.
These hindrances did not affect the philosophy of the party.
It was being increasingly accepted. As noted in the chapter on
the Voice of the Churches, by 1892 most of the leading religious
bodies were taking a very strong position in support, not only of
national prohibition but also in support of a party for prohibition
and they were emphasizing the-responsibility of the Christian
citizen for the use of the ballot. The substance of a number of
the church declarations was that a Christian citizen should not
vote for a party which did not place itself on record in an attitude
of open hostility to the saloon. Political righteousness had begun
to be emphasized throughout the nation.
Then came the Anti-Saloon League. It taught the present
repression of the saloon with more or less emphasis on its ulti-
mate suppression. Its vision was limited chiefly to the local
saloon, and local option was its method, the scheme promoted by
the old party politicians to head off the threatened growth of the
Prohibition party.
The League taught that voting for a party was not necessary.
Voters might stay in their old parties and vote for “good men”
in those parties. It ignored, if it did not substantially deny,
the tremendous fact of party government. According to the
Anti-Saloon League teaching it did not matter with which party
aman voted. The policy of the party toward the liquor question
or the party’s subserviency to the liquor oligarchy were matters
of unconcern. Only the individual candidate counted. The bonds
which held the candidate to his party, which gave him life politi-
cally, were disregarded. Voters might remain in any party and
still try to suppress the saloon.
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 383
Here was a fundamental and inherent point of conflict between
the League and the Party because it involved how the adherents
of the respective organizations should vote. The conflict in-
volved the use of the ballot, the supreme instrument of citizen-
ship. The teaching of one organization was to vote one way—
for the old party; the teaching of the other was to vote for the
Prohibition party. Upon the crucial question of the use of the
ballot the teachings of the two organizations were diametrically
opposed. ee
This conflict brought on by the League propaganda could not
be brushed aside by any solemn homilies about cooperation,
neither could it be glossed over by “‘avoiding subjects as to which
we differ,’ as stated by one of the officers of the League to be its
policy.
If the League was correct, if the solution could be brought
about by men staying in their old parties, it seemed almost a waste
of energy to try to continue the difficult task of building a new
party.
Unless its contention was overcome the Prohibition party was
bound to suffer because the omni-partisan plan followed the line
of least resistance. People did not want to leave their accus-
tomed party unless there was a compelling reason for leaving.
Furthermore, if the League was correct, the moral argument
for voting for a party committed to prohibition was undermined.
In the later eighties and nineties many conscientious voters
were being influenced by the Prohibition party’s teaching con-
cerning the moral responsibility for the use of the ballot.
Many of the partisan Republicans and Democrats who could
not justify the actions of their party, some of them holding high
ecclesiastical positions, were being made to feel very uneasy be-
cause of the ticket they were voting. The omni-partisan plan
offered great relief to such as these. One deplorable reactionary
effect of the whole League movement was a letting down in the
standards regarding the moral responsibility for the use of the
ballot in the groups that followed the League.
There is no doubt that the rise of the Anti-Saloon League was
the chief factor in obstructing the growth of the Prohibition
party. ‘The moral voters of the country were not prevented from
voting with the Prohibition party by being told that the liquor
trafic ought not to be abolished, nor yet by being told that other
issues were more important. Those obstacles were easily sur-
mountable. But they were prevented from joining the Prohibi-
tion party by being told, and that by speakers from pulpits, that
384 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
it was not necessary to join the Prohibition party to settle the
liquor question but that their object could be accomplished by
remaining in their old parties.
EARLY HISTORY
The Anti-Saloon League started at Oberlin, Ohio, in 1893
among a group of people who had become interested in the
passage of a township local option law in 1888. They were led
by the Kev. Howard H. Russell, a graduate of the Oberlin
Theological Seminary, of the class of 1888. They were earnest
and sincere against the evils of the saloon without evidencing
much vision of the problem or horizon beyond the evils of the
local saloon. They were Republicans, and this is an important
fact.
Oberlin had been one of the foremost centers in the anti-slavery.
movement. ‘lhe people there had formed such a deep attachment
to the party which had overcome slavery that they were almost
intolerant towards the Prohibition party.
On several occasions Oberlin had exhibited an amazing an-
tagonism toward the Prohibition party. Back in 1883 during
the Ohio constitutional amendment campaign, John Russell, the
Father of the Prohibition Party, a man of great ability, while
engaged in a speaking tour over Ohio in the interest of the
amendment, was excluded from speaking in a Congregational
Church in Oberlin, in which he had been scheduled to speak on
a week night, because of his prominent connection with the Party.
In 1884, Walter Thomas Mills, then a student in Oberlin Col-
lege, who later became the first organizer of the Intercollegiate
Prohibition Association and the author of an excellent book en-
titled, The Science of Politics, was mobbed for his activity in
behalf of the Party. Oberlin was also a typical local no-license
town of a type in which in that period it was notoriously difficult
for the Party to obtain a foothold. Such was the anti-Prohibition
party environment of the League’s birthplace.
The starting of the Anti-Saloon League was not considered
of much importance for some time because of the well-known
history of the successive failures of several other similar non-
partisan organizations which had started and fallen by the way-
side during the preceding decade.
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 385
PRECURSORS OF THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE
These earlier organizations, none of which had _ sufficient
vitality or moral power to exist more than a few years, included:
1. The Ohio Voters’ Union, organized in 1883, to unite
temperance voters in a non-partisan manner to compel the sup-
port of all political parties by throwing their vote solidly for any
party pledged to their support. It existed only two years. Its
president said they found “political ties and party bias too strong.”’
2. In 1884 a number of prominent persons, led by Dr.
Dorchester and Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, started the National Non-
Partisan League. After issuing some pamphlets attacking the
Prohibition party it collapsed.
3. In 1887 the Citizens’ Union of Michigan started out to
reform the political caucus and convention and pledged its mem-
bers to support as candidates for the Legislature only those men
who were in favor of prohibition. Its president was the Repub-
lican Lieutenant-Governor. Its purpose appeared to be largely
to head off the Prohibition party. It likewise soon collapsed.
4. In 1889 a small faction of the W.C.T.U., disgruntled be-
cause of that organization’s friendliness toward the Prohibition
party, seceded and formed the Non-Partisan W.C.T.U., but it
never attained much strength. It was exceedingly bitter in its
opposition to the Prohibition party.
5. Ihe same year, in 1889, there started in Pennsylvania
what was known as the Union Prohibitory League of Pennsyl-
vania, headed by Dr. A. J. Kynett, who when the national Anti-
Saloon League was formed in 1895, became chairman of the
League’s board of directors. The animus of the Pennsylvania
organization was shown in correspondence of Dr. Kynett who, in
giving reasons for forwarding the League work, said, “in no other
way can the present political tendency be modified,’ and another
promoter of it said that unless the Union Prohibitory League was
pushed, “the whole Prohibition movement would go into the
hands of the third party.”
6. Another somewhat similar organization, which for three or
four years showed more activity than any of the above, was the
Anti-Saloon Republican movement. It differed from the non-
partisan organizations in that it sought to commit the Republican
party to prohibition. For a while it had the support of a promi-
nent newspaper organ, the New York Mail and Express, but it
received little encouragement from the Republican leaders and
failed.
386 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
7. Another attempt was in Missouri, in 1890, when there was
held an “‘All-Partisan” temperance convention, the first time when
a name similar to omni-partisan was used. The prime mover in
working up the convention was Howard H. Russell, then a
minister in that state, who three years later at Oberlin came
to be the founder of the Anti-Saloon League. Cherrington’s
History of the Anti-Saloon League states that he found it difficult
to raise money to work up the convention, so his difficulty becom-
ing known to the Non-Partisan W.C.T.U. at Oberlin, that organi-
zation furnished fifty dollars and made possible the holding of
the All-Partisan Temperance Convention.
8. In 1892 a non-partisan, anti-saloon organization was or-
ganized in Massachusetts but was short-lived.
It will be observed that most of the organizations mentioned
above differed distinctly from the regular temperance organiza-
tions like the splendid National Temperance Society, the temper-
ance orders and others which were primarily educational and were
non-political in the sense that as organizations they did not deal
with the political phases of the question, or if they did they were
not antagonistic to the Prohibition party idea. The leaders of
most of the latter organizations were very friendly.
Most of the organizations with which the Anti-Saloon League
was related in its origins were distinctly hostile to the Prohibition
party plan.
This was further accentuated in the convention which organ-
ized the national Anti-Saloon League in 1895. The list of those
present shows that there were only one or two Prohibitionists of
national prominence in attendance. The man chosen as national
president of the Anti-Saloon League was Hiram Price, an ex-
Congressman from Iowa and a Republican office-holder, a man
who had been conspicuously persistent in his endeavors to head
off the Prohibition party. He had been present at the special
convention of 1882 and. had vigorously opposed the advanced
party action taken there. Likewise in 1884, although then hold-
ing office as a Republican federal Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
he went to the Prohibition convention and did his best to prevent
the nomination of a national ticket.
So distasteful were his intrusions that the convention passed
an ironical resolution introduced by John Lloyd Thomas:
Resolved, That the convention of the Prohibition party recognizes
with due humility the anxious care for the welfare of our party
displayed by the representatives of the National Government, who
in the persons of W. W. Dudley, Commissioner of Pensions, and
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 387
Hon. Hiram Price, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, have violated
Civil Service rules and used public time to come to Pittsburgh to
urge advice upon members of the convention, but we timidly ad-
vance the claim that the intelligence of this assembly is ample to
provide for its own security.
The Prohibition party never had a more persistent and inde-
fatigable opponent among the temperance leaders than Hiram
Price, who was chosen the first president of the National Anti-
Saloon League and continued to hold that position as long as he
lived.
Thus the president and the chairman of the board of directors
both had records conspicuously hostile to the Prohibition party.
These facts regarding the forerunners and the personnel of
the early officers of the League furnish apparent justification for
the feeling on the part of many of the better informed Prohibi-
tionists that the desire to protect the “Grand Old Party’’ and to
head off the new was too great a factor in the founding of the
League. It was thought that some strongly partisan Republicans
were seeking a pillow for their consciences while they continued
to vote for a license party.
The object of the National Anti-Saloon League was stated to
be the suppression of the saloon. To that end it invited the
alliance of all those who were in harmony with that object. Its
attitude toward the party method was distinctly stated in the
paragraph setting forth the object.
That paragraph said the League “pledges itself to avoid affilia-
tions with any political party as such.” In later years some
criticized the Prohibition party for not cooperating more thor-
oughly with the League but in its very object the League took a
position in direct opposition to the fundamental philosophy of
the Prohibition party.
The emphasis of the League was placed upon opposition to the
saloon. The immediate objective in most states was local option
as to the local saloon. For many years even the brewery and
distillery were given little consideration.
THE LEAGUE AND LOCAL OPTION IN OHIO
The work of the League can best be illustrated by its history
in the state of Ohio. That was its birthplace. By 1919 thirty-
four of its state superintendents had come from that state. For
years the successes won in Ohio were held up by its representa-
tives in other states as evidence of what wonderful victories could
388 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
be won by League methods. It was their exhibit “A” as to
League accomplishments.
Ohio was a state where for a generation there had been a
strong and vigorous prohibition sentiment. In 1851 it had placed
an anti-license clause in its state constitution. This was, how-
ever, circumvented by the Legislature providing for a liquor tax
instead of a license fee.
In 1874 the liquor interests had tried to repeal the anti-license
provision, but the people by a popular vote had voted to retain it.
In 1883, ten years before the League was started, a state pro-
hibition constitutional amendment had been submitted to the
people and received a counted vote of 323,189 in its favor to
240,975 opposed. But as the constitution required for its amend-
ment a clear majority of all the votes cast at the election for any
office, prohibition fell short of the required number to place it
in the constitution. .
Notwithstanding this sentiment, the League started in with
local option, which to the Prohibitionist was a decided retro-
gression. It was like a college graduate starting in all over again
in the kindergarten.
After thirteen years of agitation all the League had secured in
its banner state was local option by a unit which did not cover a
greater area than a municipality or township. In 1908, how-
ever, a county option law was passed.
In the next two and a half years under that law fifty-seven
counties voted out the saloons, which, together with five already
having no saloons, made sixty-two counties out of eighty-eight,
where the people had outlawed the saloons. This appeared to be
very encouraging progress. But in the second series of county
option elections, held after the two years’ interval had elapsed,
seventeen of the fifty-seven counties went wet again.
Here was revealed the weakness of the Anti-Saloon League
methods. The first election evidenced the sentiment of the people
against the saloons. These were universally evil and the people
wanted to banish them and voted against them when the question
was submitted. The second election reflected the disappointment
at the degree of banishment which had been achieved. There
were several reasons why dry counties voted wet. One was the
limited area of county option. Another reason was because the
League in limiting its vision to the local saloon had not seen
the breweries and the distilleries which not only furnished the
source of supply but corrupted politics and also concentrated their
national resources in local county elections.
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 389
But probably the chief reason why dry counties went wet was
because of the League’s ignoring of party government. The
county had voted dry but the court house continued wet. In
many cases the old type of political ring continued in office.
These politicians were not in sympathy with the dry side and
made no special efforts to enforce the law.
The county was voted dry in one manner, by a direct vote of
the people, but the officers were selected in another manner—
by the political party.
The political party nominated and elected the officers. Accord-
ing to the Anti-Saloon League’s omni-partisan theory it was not
necessary to have a party, its stress was laid upon good men
regardless of party. Hence the League made no effort to secure
a party alignment upon the dry issue. Each major party was
composed of opposing elements on this question. Consequently
the office-holder elected by the party organization held his office
in part at least by the votes of those who did not want the law
enforced. The office-holder knew that the organization which
placed him in office was divided upon the question. He knew
that if he were aggressive in doing his duty, he would alienate
an active element of his party which was opposed to the law.
He knew that he would be in danger of losing his office at the
next election. On the other hand, by long experience the office-
holders had found out that by a moderate pretense of enforce-
ment they could probably hold that element of the party which
was in favor of the law. Consequently in multitudes of cases
in counties, states, and in the nation as a whole, a pretense of
enforcement has been about all that was secured. As a result
the holy cause of prohibition was brought into disrepute, due
in its final analysis to the inherent weakness of the omni-partisan
plan more than to any other single factor.
That is undoubtedly the greatest reason why dry counties and
states went wet. Throughout the history of prohibition the difh-
culty has not been in getting prohibiting laws, but in getting them
enforced.
Returning to the history of the League’s work in Ohio, follow-
ing the reaction on the second vote on county option, the State
Constitutional Convention in 1912 removed the anti-license clause
from the constitution and a license amendment was substituted.
In 1914 on a statewide vote the wets succeeded in repealing the
county option law and the number of counties having no saloons
fell to only eighteen.
It was the adoption of the statewide initiative and referendum
390 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
in 1912 which forced the League to adopt the state as a unit.
Votes on state prohibition were taken in 1914, 1915 and 1917
with diminishing wet majorities each time and finally in 1918 a
prohibitory law was secured.
Such was the history of the League in its most lauded state.
What had been proclaimed as wonderful local option victories
turned out to be only temporary.
Aside from the benefits of agitation and education, only small
lasting benefits were achieved until after local option had been
supplanted and national prohibition had become the overshadow-
ing objective.
THE OMNI-PARTISAN PLAN
The Anti-Saloon League called itself omni-partisan and inter-
denominational. There was a good deal of obscurity as to just
what the term meant. As late as 1923 in a national conference
the writer heard two high national officers of the League argue
the question whether the League was omni-partisan or non-
partisan.
It was non-partisan in the sense that it was not partisan and
did not affiliate directly with any party. But the term non-
partisan has acquired to a large degree a technical meaning. A
non-partisan movement is one such as is conducted when a meas-
ure is submitted to a direct vote.
Omni-partisan did not mean that it sought the support of all
party organizations because in its very object the League pledged
itself to avoid affiliation with any party as such. If it could not
afhliate with any it could not with all.
By the omni-partisan plan it was meant that the League sup-
ported individual candidates of all parties or any, but did not
seek the support of any party. The party to which a candidate
belonged made no difference. The Anti-Saloon League Blue
Book said: “The League has to do with candidates and the
things they stand for instead of parties,’ and the Anti-Saloon
League Catechism stated it was the aim to concentrate upon can-
didates for office “irrespective of their party affiliations.” +
In the Catechism, which was the Anti-Saloon League’s decla-
ration of principles and methods, adopted in 1903, given in the
form of questions and answers, one of the questions asked was,
“May the League, at any time, be identified with any one politi-
1The Church in Action Against the Saloon, an Authoritative Statement of the
Movement Known as the Anti-Saloon League called the Blue Book, 1910 ed.,
p. 14.
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 391
cal party, for the accomplishment of its purposes?” The answer
was: “No. The League is under solemn promise not to form
afhliations with any political party, nor to place in nomination a
ticket of its own. Its plan is to make selections of the most
acceptable available candidates placed in nomination by existing
parties, and to invite persons in all the political parties to unite in
securing their election.”
The theory of the League was sometimes called the “good man
theory”’ because it.urged people to vote for the “good man” can-
didate no matter what his party. It assumed that so long as the
individual candidate was a “good man” and personally more or
less favorable to the particular temperance legislation sought
by the League, the attitude of his party was of little or no
importance.
Meanwhile party government went right on. The major
parties continued to be divided within themselves upon the pro-
hibition question. Prohibition did not become a party principle.
It was ignored by the parties.
But the League upheld no high qualifications in supporting
even so-called “good men.” In the Catechism one of the ques-
tions was: “May the League properly favor the election of can-
didates who are not wholly in faith and practice acceptable to
friends of temperance reform?” The answer was: “While it is
desirable that candidates for office should be in all respects ac-
ceptable, it may be necessary at times, in order to secure some
desired end, to vote for candidates committed to the object,
though not wholly committed to the plan and purpose of the
Deasie:
Another question was “How shall the League choose between
candidates partially acceptable?” The answer was: “It should
choose the one committed to the most desirable measures and of
whose election there is a reasonable probability.”
In case of choice between a candidate partially acceptable and
one who was unobjectionable but whose election was apparently
improbable, the choice was the “‘partially acceptable’ candidate.?
This led to many exceedingly strange situations. For ex-
ample, in 1908 in Illinois the League endorsed thirty-four can-
didates for the Legislature who were also endorsed by the liquor
organizations. That the liquor side knew their men better than
did the Anti-Saloon League was proven by the fact that although,
following the election, the League claimed a victory, when the
Legislature met no desired legislation was obtained.
2 Catechism, Question 14.
392 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
This League policy led to the support of all kinds of ques-
tionable candidates and helped to perpetuate the old type of poli-
ticians. It tended to repress high ideals in politics. It was very
discouraging to a candidate striving for purer politics to have the
church vote, so far as influenced by the League, go to an opposing
candidate who was but “partially acceptable.”
Another evidence of the League’s satisfaction with the old
parties was shown by question nineteen of the Catechism. It
asked: “Does the League seek the disintegration of any political
party?” The answer was: “It certainly does not. It never seeks
to induce any voter to forsake the party of his choice, nor to
vote a party ticket other than that with which he has been con-
nected. While it makes selections of most desirable and avail-
able candidates in all parties and aims to unite in their election
adherents of the several political parties, it avoids all efforts that
would tend to destroy party integrity or effect the overthrow of
any political organization.”
This, again, was in direct opposition to the purpose of the
Prohibition party which sought to overthrow both the liquor-
dominated old parties with their shameful subserviency to the
liquor power, their organic incapacity to settle this question and
their perversion of the high purposes of government.
There was an irreconcilable difference, a great gulf between
the low ideals of satisfaction with the rum-ridden old parties
and perpetuation in office of low grade politicians on the one
hand, and on the other the ideals of the Prohibition party which
sought a regeneration of politics and statesmen to match the
grandeur of the cause.
The lack of idealism in politics was all the more deplorable
because the League claimed to represent the church in action.
The League had started in 1893 as a “self-perpetuating, vol-
untary organization” working chiefly through the churches but
it was not until 1904 that, beginning in Illinois, the state branches
began to officially represent the churches by virtue of the state
bodies of the different denominations appointing members of the
state boards of trustees of the League.* The League usually saw
to it that only their strongest supporters were appointed so that
it was exceedingly seldom that the churches were able to control
the League to the extent of removing a superintendent. Not all
the denominations were represented. The Presbyterian Church
was precluded by reason of a provision in its fundamental law
preventing official connection with non-ecclesiastical bodies and its
3 The Church in Action, p. 60.
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 393
General Assembly repeatedly refused to take steps toward author-
izing official connection.
One effect of the League’s work was to cause a reaction in the
high standard taken by the church as expressed in the church
_ declarations described in Chapter XV. This reaction was most
noticeable in the Methodist Church where the League obtained
its greatest influence. As quoted in the chapter referred to, that
denomination in 1888 and 1892 had taken very advanced ground
with regard both to prohibition and to political parties. But
by 1908, under the influence of the League, the resolutions had
been toned down to individual candidates instead of parties and
substantially to the advocacy of local option, with prohibition held
out as a hazy prospect in the indefinite future. The Methodist
resolutions of 1908 repeated the familiar League phrases about
putting the liquor traffic “in the course of ultimate extinction”
and about local option as a “‘step.”” They were in decided con-
trast to the earlier militant declarations.
Among the reasons why the League was unacceptable to the
more advanced Prohibitionists were: :
1. Its advocacy of omni-partisanism, the effects of which are
hereinafter discussed.
2. Its concentration upon local option, an entirely inadequate
solution for an overwhelmingly national problem. In the Anti-
Saloon League Year Books of 1908 and I9QIO three times the
space is given to a discussion of local option as a method as
that given to prohibition. Not until 1913 did local option cease
to be the chief method promoted by the League.
3. Its lowering of the standard of the churches to conform
with the low basis of current political conduct rather than up-
holding high ideals of righteousness in government.
4. Its obsession regarding the “step” theory of local option
with the result that in a number of states it obstructed the secur-
ing of prohibition. In North Carolina it opposed the state
prohibition campaign until practically forced into it by Governor
Glenn.
In Georgia the League came out for state prohibition only a
short time before it was adopted in 1907 and as the result of
the fact that men on the Resolutions Committee who had long
been affiliated with the Prohibition party insisted that it should
declare for state prohibition.
In Arizona it opposed the statewide campaign in 1914 which
proved to be successful.
In South Dakota it had consented to the dispensary and in
394 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Iowa, in 1902, it had favored the maintenance of the infamous
Mulct Law.
Its policy up to 1913 was almost continually that of opportu-
nism. It frequently retarded rather than led public sentiment.
5. Its numerous compromises alienated many who were
supporters of prohibition by reason of principle. Even after
1913 it supported gallon and quart laws which permitted
liquor in certain quantities to be shipped into prohibition terri-
tory for personal use. The League supported such laws in Vir-
ginia, Oregon, Washington, and other states. In California
as late as 1917 it supported the Rominger bill which permitted
the sale of wine up to 21 per cent of alcohol.
6. It incorporated “for sale” clauses in the proposed amend-
ment to the Federal Constitution, known as the Hobson Amend-
ment, which it caused to be introduced in Congress in 1913.
These clauses made the prohibition apply only to the manufacture
for sale, transportation for sale, importation for sale, and ex-
portation for sale. If these clauses had been adopted they would
have made prohibition of little effect.
One of the reasons for a constitutional amendment was to
confer upon the federal government the direct, unquestionable
power to prohibit. If the Hobson Amendment had been adopted
it would have limited the federal prohibitory power to merely
that of prohibiting the manufacture for sale, the transportation
for sale, and so forth. It would not have provided for the pro-
hibition of manufacture or transportation for personal use and
would have been almost unenforceable.
7. It opposed the Reed Amendment which prohibited the inter-
state transportation of beverage liquors into any state or territory
the laws of which prohibited the manufacture or sale of intoxi-
cating liquor. When this measure was pending in Congress in
1917, the chairman of the League’s National Legislative Com-
mittee, Dr. Cannon, sought to prevent its passage. He personally
lobbied against it. It passed despite his opposition.
The effect of the Reed Amendment was to prevent the bringing
into so-called dry territory of liquor in quantities for personal
use, this having been permitted in several states by the compro-
mising prohibitory laws which had been drafted by the League.
8. Its halting, temporizing attitude on War Prohibition was
not creditable at a time when an unprecedented patriotism was
voicing its demand for the overcoming of the worst enemy any
nation had.
g. The League’s continual policy of opportunism, its almost
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 395
habitual compromising, its repeated political machinations even
against other prohibition organizations, caused it to incur the
disapprobation of many of the better informed and more advanced
temperance people of the country. The other anti-liquor organiza-
tions cooperated with each other, but it was exceedingly difficult
for them to cooperate with the League except upon the basis of
subserviency to the League.
10. The League had a comparatively superficial grasp of the
larger aspects of the problem. There was comparatively little
scholarship in its propaganda except perhaps on the physiological
side of the problem, where in the later period material was fur-
nished chiefly by the Scientific Temperance Federation which had
its origin in the Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction
of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. For intellectual
content the files of its organs do not compare with the files of the
Prohibition papers with their many able articles.
11, There were other irritations caused by the League, such
as its attempted blocking or circumventing of the more aggressive
church temperance boards; its attempts in a dozen or more states
to close the churches to prohibition speakers of other prohibition
organizations; its excessive and exaggerated claims for credit for
the progress of prohibition; its misleading wet and dry maps; its
meager experience of sacrifice as compared with the Prohibition-
ists; its almost universal failure to support Prohibition party
candidates, even those who had already demonstrated their pos-
sibility of election—notably its failure to support Congressman
Randall of California for reelection notwithstanding his un-
surpassed record in Congress, and also State Senator Lobeck in
Minnesota, a splendid, able Prohibition leader of the Northwest.
These objectionable actions and characteristics of the League,
however, were minor as compared with the fundamental conflict
between the partisan and omni-partisan plans. The omni-parti-
san plan has thus far prevailed. It has now been tested.
As has always been claimed by the Prohibitionists, it has now
been demonstrated to have serious inherent defects which or-
ganically affect the success and progress of prohibition and which
demand analysis.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE OMNI-PARTISAN PLAN
1. The omni-partisan plan prevented a continuous political
union of the voters who were in favor of prohibition. By keeping
them divided among all parties it prevented a union in one. It
kept the dry Republicans in the Republican party and the dry
396 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Democrats in the Democratic party and was unable to control
either party as a party.
2. Such union as was achieved was only temporary. Whena
state referendum campaign was on the dry voters were gotten
to the polls in mass. But they voted on the specially submitted
question of prohibition, cast their ballot for it in the referendum
and that ended their union. The voters separated when it came to
the election of officers to execute the law. Similarly, the occas-
ional crossing of party lines to elect dry candidates was temporary
and exceptional. The customary attitude was adhesion to one’s
accustomed party.
3. The temporary joining to carry a referendum provided for
the adoption of a policy but not for the continuous union to carry
it into effect. It did not provide for the continuous administrative
support to execute it.
4. Under the omni-partisan plan one group of voters adopted
the policy, that is, the group which voted for the prohibition law
under the referendum. But another group administered the law,
that is, the group which composed the political party in power
and elected the officers. The majority which adopted the law was
differently composed from the majority which elected the off-
cers. But the group which elected the officers was organized and
continuous and the group which voted for the law was not.
5. No matter how much the Anti-Saloon League tried to get
around the fact of party government, its attempt at such circum-
vention did not do away with the fact. The ostrich by hiding its
head in the sand cannot obliterate the fact that his enemies are
approaching. The fact is that the parties nominate and elect
the candidates and the successful party administers the gov-
ernment.
6. Neither major party was united in the support of prohibi-
tion. Neither adopted prohibition as a party principle. The
League continuously opposed the proposal that either party should
support prohibition. Even in 1920 after prohibition was in the
Constitution, but was being viciously attacked by opposing inter-
ests, the chairman of the Legislative Committee of the League,
Bishop Cannon, appeared before the Resolutions Committee of
the Democratic National Convention opposing a proposed plank
upholding prohibition. He did it even in opposition to William
J. Bryan, three times Democratic candidate for President and in
later years the most prominent dry leader of that party. He did
the same thing at the Democratic National Convention of 1924
in Opposition to more than twenty-five other prohibition organi-
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 397
zations which were seeking a plank in favor of the maintenance
and enforcement of prohibition.
7. By giving its influence to the perpetuation of the old
parties, by “avoiding all efforts that would tend to destroy party
integrity or effect the overthrow of any political organization,”
the League helped to keep alive the old alignments and helped to
make other issues paramount, issues frequently manufactured or
exaggerated and usually infinitesimal as compared to prohibition.
The League thus minimized its own issue and encouraged its
subordination.
8. Party alignments continued along the old cleavages.
Each party contained two opposing and conflicting elements, the
wets and the drys. But both elements were party supporters.
Both were an integral part of the party. The wettest liquorite
was just as good a Republican or a Democrat, as the case might
be, as an Anti-Saloon League bishop. It was the party policy
to hold both of these elements if possible and alienate neither.
9g. The liquor vote was more easily alienated. It was less
bound by party ties, would leave on less provocation. It was more
easily controlled, was more bossible, could be more easily shifted
from one party to another. It was harder to conciliate and could
only be conciliated by compromise either in legislation or en-
forcement. It exacted obedience by its threat of wielding its
balance of power. It frequently disciplined and defeated can-
didates. Its alienation was, therefore, more feared than that of
the temperance vote.
10. The liquor traffic was able to wield the balance of power,
to occupy the center of the political teeter-board, simply because
the good citizens continued to be divided between the two old
parties, the very division fostered by the omni-partisan plan.
The advocates of the omni-partisan plan unwittingly helped to
forward the plan of the liquor men which, according to one of
the liquor organs, was to “keep both parties in the field, divide
the spoils of office between them, prevent the hopeless defeat of
either.”
11. Even -under constitutional prohibition the liquor traffic
continued to take advantage of the division between the two
parties on extraneous issues and threatened to wield the balance
of power.
Some have thought that this threat of the use of the balance
of power has lost its influence. Locally in the dryer sections
and in the one-party states it has done so to some degree. But
in the nation as a whole the liquor element continued in the year
398 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
1924 to elicit the silence if not the obedience of the politicians
because of its threat to wield the balance of power in carrying the
presidential electoral vote in certain close, pivotal states. The
opponents of prohibition took advantage of the continued division
along other issues and the closeness of presidential elections.
In March, 1924, the Joint Legislative Committee for the
Modification of the Volstead Act, which claimed to represent the
American Federation of Labor and three wet organizations, hav-
ing as chairman the First Vice-President of the American Fed-
eration of Labor, sent out publicity matter in which it claimed to
be speaking for 7,000,000 voters. This was undoubtedly greatly
exaggerated. But the wet threat of wielding the balance of
power affected the politicians and rendered parties silent if not
subservient. :
Over four years after the Eighteenth Amendment had gone
into effect as a part of the Constitution both parties continued to
be afraid to alienate wet votes because they feared to lose the
margin of plurality in certain close, pivotal states which contained
a considerable wet vote, among these states. being New York,
New Jersey and Maryland.
One illustration of the continued domination of the liquor
power over the old parties was a conversation which the writer
had in February, 1924, with a personally dry Congressman from
the pioneer prohibition state of Kansas. Kansas is a state in
which locally the liquor traffic had as little political influence as
in any state in the country, a state where the benefits of prohibi-
tion were so universally recognized that the people were almost
unanimous in its favor. Yet notwithstanding this, the Kansas
Congressman was opposed to his party adopting a plank in favor
of the maintenance and enforcement of prohibition for fear it
would alienate votes in certain close, pivotal states of the East.
In an earlier chapter it was stated that Kansas delegates to
the Republican national convention of 1888 had refused to advo-
cate a prohibition plank. Likewise in 1920 enthusiasm for com-
mitting the national party was lacking, and the same attitude con-
tinued in 1924.
This illustrates how the liquor traffic continued to wield its
power and how both of the old parties in their desire to retain a
component part of their membership continued to be dominated
by the wets.
If the same overwhelming prohibition sentiment which out-
lawed the saloon in most of the states and which placed prohibi-
tion in the Constitution had been united in a political party the
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 399
wets would not now be able to take advantage of old partisan
divisions to wield the balance of power. The present deplorable
situation is thus a direct consequence of the omni-partisan method.
12. As a result of the dual composition of each party and
the continued incentive to hold the liquor vote in national
elections, neither party was committed to the maintenance and
enforcement of prohibition. It did not become a party principle.
Even though prohibition is in the Constitution, such is the
influence of the party interest that politicians place the party
ahead of a great moral’ principle in the Constitution,
13. Not being a party principle, neither party accepted re-
sponsibility for the earnest. enforcement of prohibition. The
kind of prohibition which the United States has thus far ex-
perienced has been prohibition without a responsible party behind
it to administer it.
One of thé main reasons for lack of party responsibility for
prohibition was because the Anti-Saloon League followed the
policy of trying to get around the fact of party government. One
of the reasons why the League gained as many so-called victories
as it did, was because it seldom called upon a legislature to take a
direct responsibility for the inauguration of a dry policy. Usually
it merely asked the legislature for a local option law which shifted
the responsibility away from the legislature to a locality, local
option permitting a locality to decide for or against the saloon;
or, later, it asked for the submission of a state amendment which
also shifted the responsibility for the decision from the represen-
tatives in the legislature to the people of the state.
Even the submission of a federal constitutional amendment
shifted the responsibility for the time being from Congress to the
state legislatures. Some of the Anti-Saloon League leaders made
the unsound argument that Congressmen should forego their own
views and submit the question to the states and let the states de-
cide the question of amending the Constitution. There is no
evidence, however, that many Congressmen were influenced by
that kind of argument.
Although the responsibility could be shifted when it concerned
a single decision, such as is involved in voting for or against a
particular proposal, responsibility can not be shifted when it
concerns the continuous enforcement of the law. Here the party
in power has the responsibility and upon the question whether
or not the party seriously fulfils that responsibility depends
whether or not the law is effectively enforced. The fact that
there has been no real party responsibility for prohibition by the
400 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
party in power is the main reason why prohibition has not been
better enforced.
The reason for ineffective enforcement traces back to the
unsound governmental theory underlying the omni-partisan plan.
14. Another effect of perpetuating the old alignments was
that the office-holder had a divided constituency, some wets, some
drys. If an administration offended the drys by a lax enforce-
ment of the law it has been found by long experience that the dry
voters, although they sometimes protested, usually stayed with the
party. On the other hand, if the wet voters became offended they
frequently bolted to the opposite party. The ordinary office-
holder usually took the middle ground and made a pretense of
enforcement sufficient to satisfy the drys and at the same time
catered to the wets by interfering with them no more than neces-
sary to maintain the pretense. In many cases, however, the office-
holders did not respect the law even to the extent of making a
pretense of enforcement. For effective enforcement a united
constituency for the administrator is essential. The omni-partisan
plan usually furnished a divided one.
15. The continuation of the national party incentive to hold
the wet vote so affected the party objective and created such a
subserviency to the wet vote as to neutralize efforts to reform the
old parties from within. Direct primaries failed to reform either.
old party to any great degree because the national party ob jective
continued to be to retain the wet vote. The primaries might
change the personnel within the organization but did not greatly
affect the objective of the party. The national objective of a
party in presidential elections is the chief factor in determining
the policy and character of a party.
16. One of the most deplorable consequences of the omni-
partisan plan was that it resulted in the perpetuation in a large
measure of the old type of degraded politics. A great moral
principle was implanted in the Constitution, but there was but
little betterment in the quality of our politics because, as indicated
above, the opposition was left in control of the party organiza-
tions. In most states the same old political bosses continued in
power. The old low political standards continued to prevail.
The political machinery continued to be in the hands of the
ordinary old type of wet or “two-faced’’ politicians.
The omni-partisan plan left most of the political power in the
control of the old political organizations which were responsible
for the colossal infamies of the old liquor political system.
This situation was in sickening contrast to the purpose and
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 401
ideals of the Prohibitionists who sought a party of commanding
principle, a party of a united constituency, a party which would
stand four-square for political righteousness, a party which would
root out the old pro-liquor régime and install in office men en-
nobled by the very cause they champion.
Of course, the personnel of politics was improved to some de-
gree as the result of outlawing the saloon. Such improvement
as occurred, however, was chiefly in legislative bodies, rather
than in executive officers, as most of the concentration upon so-
called “good men” was to secure legislation rather than adminis-
tration. Also the improvement was better in the one-party states
where dry candidates, after winning in the primaries, stood a bet-
ter prospect of winning in the ensuing election because in the
one-party states the wets were not able to control the balance
of power.
But taking the country as a whole, a tour of over five hun-
dred cities in forty-five states in nation-wide prohibition and law
enforcement campaigns in the six years since the preparation of
this history was begun has impressed the writer that local adminis-
trative officers continue to be largely of the same type of poli-
ticians as before. The omni-partisan derogation of a party for
prohibition resulted in the dominant parties remaining unpuri-
fed. The great principle of prohibition was entrusted not to its
friends, but often to its enemies—to officials who owed their
political careers to the liquor-political alliances, In fully two-
thirds of the cities visited throughout the country some of the
essential, strategic official positions relating to law enforcement
were filled by wets. Including such officers as mayor, chief of
police, sheriff, prosecuting attorney and judges, all of whom
are vital in law enforcement, it was only occasionally that a large
community was found where all these officers were dry. Where
the officers were dry, it was generally due to there having been
a union of the better citizens—substantially a local party align-
ment to elect officials who would enforce the law.
17. Still worse, this continued dominance of the old régime in
politics had its debasing effects in the presidential campaign of
1920 and in the national administration which followed.
Both major parties nominated for President candidates who
were decidedly unsatisfactory both from the standpoint of favor-
ableness to the new principle of the Constitution and from the
standpoint of general capacity and statesmanship.
Mr. Harding, the successful candidate, when in the Senate had
voted for the submission of the Eighteenth Amendment and the
402 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
passage of the Volstead Law over President Wilson’s veto but on
nearly every other dry measure he had voted with the wets. An
investigation of his votes as recorded in the Congressional Record
made by an organization in Washington, D. C., whose chief
function is to report the records of members of Congress, showed
that out of thirty-two roll calls on wet and dry measures during
his term in the Senate, he had voted with the wets thirty of the
thirty-two times. Some of the roll calls were on unimportant mat-
ters, but a score of them were important and revealed his anti-
prohibition attitude.*
When the proposed Eighteenth Amendment was pending in
the Senate, on August 1, 1917, he made a speech in which he
said: “I am not a prohibitionist, Mr. President, and never pre-
tended to be. . . . I do not approach this question from a moral
viewpoint, because I am unable to see it as a great moral ques-
tion.” ° He offered an amendment to the proposed amendment,
which provided that it should be inoperative unless ratified within
six years from the date of submission. This was later changed
to seven years. He went on to say that he would not vote for sub-
mission unless this limitation should be adopted and if this were
added he would then vote for submission in the endeavor to “get
the question out of politics.”
This proposed six-year limitation which he sponsored and
insisted upon was the scheme devised by the liquor interests
for the purpose of heading off prohibition.
He announced in the Senate that if the prohibition amend-
ment should be adopted he would be willing to join in a movement
for compensation to the liquor interests. He also admitted hav-
ing owned some stock in a local brewery in his home city, hav-
ing made no moral distinction between owning stock in a brewery
and owning stock in legitimate business enterprises.
During the campaign of 1920 the Prohibitionists pointed out
that there were three strategic offices relating to the enforcement
of the Eighteenth Amendment which, if the incoming President
should fill by the appointment of wet officials, any one of those
officials could prevent effective enforcement. These offices were
those of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney-General
and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. All of these offices
were filled by men generally regarded as wet.
The Secretary of the Treasury, the head of the department of
which the Prohibition Unit was a mere fraction, had been
4 The Oficial Truth About Harding, by Lynn Haines and H. R. Mussey, p. 10.
5 Congressional Record, Aug. 1, 1917, p. 5648.
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 403
heavily interested financially in the making of whisky. In March,
1924, a United States Senator from his home city, Senator Reed
of Pittsburgh, who had been his personal attorney, stated on
the floor of the Senate:
For many years past ... there has been a partnership known
as A. Overholt and Co., which was in the business of distilling
whisky in western Pennsylvania. For a great many years—I do
not know how many, but I think forty years—Mr. A. W. Mellon
was one of the partners in that partnership. . . . Before he took
the oath of office he transferred his whole interest in that enterprise
to the Union Trust Co. of Pittsburgh as trustees to close up the
business absolutely. ... He will when the business is finally
liquidated be entitled to his proportion of the net proceeds.*
In 1925 the newspapers reported that the Overholt distillery
had been sold, that the amount of whisky involved was about
1,800,000 gallons and that Mr. Mellon had held a one-third
interest." In other words the whisky distillery interest of the man
at the head of the department responsible for the enforcement
of the Eighteenth Amendment was amazingly large.
Furthermore, so far as known to the temperance and prohibi-
tion leaders or to the genenal public, there was no indication either
through personal expression or administrative policy that his at-
titude toward prohibition was different from that which naturally
would be inferred regarding one so long heavily interested in the
making of whisky.
And yet the people wondered why the great moral principle of
the Constitution was not better enforced. Even if the Secretary
of the Treasury never lifted a finger to encourage the wet side,
the law violators, big and little, thought they had a friend at the
most strategic center of power and that the government did not
really mean to enforce prohibition.
An administration which would appoint and maintain such a
man in such a position, in the face of an unprecedented attempt to
nullify the Constitution and create disrespect for its newly adopted
moral principle, should have been sunk in political oblivion by a
moral uprising of the American people.
In addition, the Attorney-General, although professing to be
dry according to certain standards, was generally regarded as a
representative of the old type of questionable politics. The day
after President Coolidge asked for his resignation, for reasons
extraneous to prohibition, the New York Herald Tribune, the
6 See Congressional Record, March 31, 1924, pp. 5244 and 5245.
7 New York Times, May 26, 10925.
404 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
leading Republican paper of the East, on March 29, 1924, re-
ferred to him as “far better versed in the technique of saloon
politics than in the case books.”
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue evidenced no convic-
tion in favor of the law and conducted his office so unsatisfac-
torily that he was repeatedly the object of vigorous criticism by
the friends of law enforcement.
Thus every one of the three key officials was glaringly unfit
to administer the prohibitory laws. ‘The attitude of these men at
the top lowered the morale of enforcement officers from top to
bottom all over the country. It encouraged the violation of the
Constitution, by making the violators think that no serious effort
would be made to enforce the law. It helped the propaganda of
the wets by holding out the hope of nullification. It fostered
their cry that prohibition was a failure. It augmented disrespect
for law and engendered distrust of national prohibition in the
minds of the undiscriminating.
Furthermore, the federal prohibition enforcement officers
were appointed through the usual party channels for the distribu-
tion of party patronage. The party policy was not dry and many
of the patronage distributing politicians were decidedly wet.
Many had been long in political alliance with the liquor interests,
many had secured their offices by seeking the support of those
who wanted the prohibition law violated. The consequence was
that many officers who were appointed to enforce the prohibition
law were decidedly wet and antagonistic to the very law they
were paid to enforce. In seventeen states visited by the writer,
the chief federal prohibition officer appointed in each of those
states was reputed to be wet. Could the depths of governmental
degradation be more abysmal?
Such was the outcome of omni-partisanism. The record of en-
forcement by a government controlled by the old type of liquor-
subservient politics was one of duplicity and maladministra-
tion. This kind of enforcement threatened to bring the noble
cause of prohibition into disrepute and even engendered doubt as
to the capacity of the nation to achieve a great moral advance.
The consequences of the omni-partisan plan which sought to
implant a great moral principle in the Constitution and at the
same time leave that principle to be administered by the unre-
generate old parties have demonstrated the colossal inadequacy
of that plan. By contrast they have emblazoned the overwhelm-
ing need of the Prohibitionists’ plan of a party committed to
prohibition to administer it from the standpoint of party principle.
PROHIBITION PARTY AND ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 405
SELECT REFERENCES
Among the scores of articles dealing with the omni-partisan
method appearing in the Prohibition papers the following were
among the best:
Method and Principle, editorial in New Voice, October 17, 1901.
The Reform’s Wider Purposes. Editorial in National Prohibj-
tionist, July 16, 1908.
CALDERWOOD, W. G.—Not Good Men but Good Party, National
Prohibitionist, July 16, 1908.
PaTTon, Rosert H.—Reply to Anti-Saloon League attack upon
the Prohibition Party. National Prohibitionist, Septem-
ber 24, 1908.
FErcuson, Wittiam P. F.—When the Tide Comes in. Ad-
dress, National Prohibitionist, July 28, IQIO,
Newett, J. P.—The Party Victorious, American ‘Advance,
June 10, Iort.
Fercuson, Witiiam P, F.—Bring Up the Regiment, Vindica-
tor, October 21, 1913.
SHIELDS, Joon A.—The “Good Man” Theory, Vindicator,
November 20, 1914.
HENDRICKson, FINLEY C.—The Logic of Partisanism, Vindica-
tor, February 5, 1915.
SHIELDS, Joun A.—A Discussion of Methods, American Pro-
hibition Year Book, rors, p. 118.
The leading books which give the distinctively Anti-Saloon
League viewpoint are:
CHERRINGTON, E. H.—The Anti-Saloon League Year Book,
annually, 1908 to date.
CHERRINGTON, E. H.—The History of the Anti-Saloon Weague,
POLS spi GI:
CHERRINGTON, E, H.—The Evolution of Prohibition in. the
United States of America, 1920, 384 pp.
Barker, JoHN M.—The Saloon Problem and Social Reform,
1905, 212 pp.
Proceedings of the National Conventions of the Anti-Saloon
League have been issued after the national conventions
Which in later years have been held biennially,
ANDERSON, Witt1AM H.—The Church in Action Against the
Saloon. An Authoritative Statement of the Movement,
1906, rev. ed. 1910, booklet, 64 pp.
The leading organ of the A. S. L. is the American Issue.
Chapter XXII
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916
One of the most ambitious programs undertaken by the Pro-
hibition party for a number of years was adopted at a national
conference held at Indianapolis in January, 1913. This program,
known as the Indianapolis Program, provided for five specific
lines of work:
1. To raise one million dollars for party work before the
close of the campaign of I916.
2. To organize Prohibition clubs everywhere.
3. To tremendously increase the circulation of Prohibition
periodicals.
4. To concentrate in not to exceed ten Congressional districts
for the purpose of electing Prohibitionists to Congress in the
fall of 1914.
5. To enroll five million voters for the support of the Prohi-
bition party.
By June, 1914, the National Committee under the leadership
of Virgil G. Hinshaw completed the raising of the first unit of
a quarter of a million dollars, by far the largest amount ever
raised in a similar period, and the various state committees had
raised about an equal sum.
Concentration campaigns were conducted in 1914 in Arizona
where Eugene W. Chafin as candidate for United States Senator
made a vigorous campaign, finishing second in the race; in the
Second Congressional district of Oregon where George L.
Cleaver ran a close second, polling more than one-third of the
votes with three candidates in the field; in the Twenty-eighth
Congressional district of Pennsylvania where William P. F.
Ferguson made a splendid campaign in a difficult district, polling
about 5,000 votes, a little less than 8,000 votes being necessary
to elect; and in the Ninth district of California where Charles
HH. Randall was elected to Congress.
The aggressive work of the Party in Oregon deserves spe-
cial mention. For a number of years there had been a splendid
group of active men in that state led by I. H. Amos, B. Lee
Paget, F. McKercher and others who had dedicated themselves
to the advancement of the cause by every means in their power.
406
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 407
It had been chiefly due to the activities of the Prohibition party
leaders that under the initiative and referendum a county option
law had been secured in 1904 under which two-thirds of the
counties had voted out the saloons. There as elsewhere, how-
ever, attempts at a local solution proved inadequate.
Because of wet officers administering dry laws some of the
voters became alienated and in 1910 a home rule amendment was
adopted which permitted saloons to return to the cities of
Oregon. Following this the Party leaders determined to make
still greater efforts to build a party to both secure and administer
the law.
In 1912, there was conducted an “Out to Win” campaign under
the leadership of State Chairman J. P. Newell, a man of remark-
ably clear vision, and State Secretary E. E. Taylor, who had
received his training in the Intercollegiate Prohibition Associa-
tion and in organizing activities in several states. B. Lee Paget,
candidate for United States Senator, spoke more than two hun-
dred and fifty times over the state. |
An extensive literature campaign was carried on. During the
last six months of the campaign about one thousand volunteer
workers distributed over half a million pieces of literature.
The Party organization was greatly strengthened, twenty of the
thirty-four counties having been organized. In six counties
where special efforts were made to elect men to the Legislature
more than 25 per cent of the total vote was polled, and W. P.
Elmore lacked only fourteen votes of being elected. Several
county and local officers were elected.
The “Out to Win” campaign was kept up and in 1914 the
number of registered Prohibitionists in the state was eight times
what it had been in 1912. In the concentration campaign for
Congressman in the Second district George L. Cleaver received
33 per cent of the total vote and in the First district, where
Curtis P. Coe was the candidate, the percentage was doubled over
1912. W. P. Elmore, a member of the State Committee, was
elected to the Legislature and six other legislative candidates and
two candidates for sheriff came very close to election.
B. Lee Paget as candidate for State Treasurer polled 70,000
votes. Furthermore, the party Prohibitionists with the coopera-
tion of the W. C. T. U. inaugurated the movement which led to
the adoption of state constitutional prohibition under the initiative
and referendum that year. The long continued education of the
Prohibition party was a very large factor in securing the majority
for state prohibition.
408 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
An unfortunate sequel to the adoption of the constitutional
amendment was, that when it came to the enactment of enforcing
legislation to carry the constitutional provision into effect, those
who dominated the drafting of the legislation were anti-saloon-
ists rather than prohibitionists. As in several other so-called
prohibition states of that period, including Washington and sev-
eral of the southern states, the enforcing legislation, although
aiming to eliminate the saloon, permitted the importation of con-
siderable quantities for personal use. The Oregon enforcement
law permitted the importation of two quarts of spirituous or
vinous liquors or twenty-four quarts of malt liquors every four
weeks. Notwithstanding the amendment had been initiated by
the Prohibition State Committee and the W. C. T. U., with the
Anti-Saloon League coming in at the eleventh hour under pro-
test, the enforcing legislation provided merely an anti-saloon
law.
The importation became so extensive that in Portland and
other cities special express offices were opened to handle the
liquor trade. Conditions were becoming intolerable and the
brewery interests initiated a measure to permit the manufacture
of beer within the state to be voted upon in a referendum at the
1916 election. Inasmuch as so much liquor was allowed to be
shipped in, the brewers were making menacing progress in their
campaign. It was becoming a matter of great concern to the
temperance people and consideration was given to the matter of
initiating a counter-measure to forbid importation. All tem-
perance organizations had this matter under advisement, but both
the Anti-Saloon League and the W. C. T. U. decided not to
undertake it. The Prohibition Party State Committee stepped
into the breach and initiated a measure for complete prohibition
which would prohibit the importation and carried for some time
the entire burden of expense of getting signatures to the initia-
tive petition and carrying on the campaign. Meanwhile it sought
to organize a Union Dry Committee and invited, even after its
refusal to cooperate, the Anti-Saloon League to unite. The
W. C. T. U. decided to unite but the Anti- ‘Saloon League held
to its refusal. The latter prosecuted its campaign against the
brewers’ proposal but for the most part ignored the anti- -impor-
tation measure. When this measure succeeded at the election it
characteristically took the credit.* The adoption of this law under
the referendum in Oregon in 1916 was an outstanding event in
1 See Patriot Phalanx, March 23, 1917. Article by Mrs, Unruh, former presi-
dent of the Oregon WCE Ue
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 409
the progress of prohibition. This law was called a “bone-dry”’
law because it prohibited the shipping of liquor into the state for
personal use. The term “bone-dry” was first used in this cam-
paign in Oregon in 1916,
In 1914 in several other sections of the country special efforts
were made. In New York former Governor Sulzer was the
Prohibition nominee and polled 126,270 votes, he having re-
ceived also the nomination of the American party which was
responsible for perhaps a little over half of the vote. One
bright spot in a dark state was Gloucester county, New Jersey,
where, due to the splendid work of William F. Varney, a strong
party organization was built up and nine local officers were elected.
In Minnesota seven Prohibitionists were elected to the Legisla-
ture. In Ohio a splendid campaign for Congress was made by
Valentine A. Schreiber who had been elected Prohibition mayor
of East Liverpool.
Altogether the Prohibition vote for Governors and Congress-
men in the various states in 1914 was nearly half a million, the
largest vote the Party had ever polled. The total was made up
chiefly from a few sections where specially aggressive cam-
paigns were conducted but these campaigns demonstrated the
possibilities of success. They likewise demonstrated to the old
parties that there was danger of a large loss of votes unless they
took some action to conciliate the dry voters.
The most notable result of the 1914 campaign was the election
to Congress of Charles H. Randall of the Ninth Congressional
district of California, including part of Los Angeles and ad-
jacent territory.
One of the most interesting features of the Randall campaign
was the work of a group of consecrated college students who
made a house to house canvass of the voters of the district.
Mr. Earl H. Haydock, of the University of Southern California,
who the following December won the national oratorical contest
of the Intercollegiate Prohibition Association held at Topeka,
Kansas, went among the colleges of southern California and
enlisted a group of about forty students who spent most of the
summer vacation in prohibition campaign work. Every morning
the campaigners would assemble at a designated center, hold an
informal conference and study class, and compare their ex-
periences and difficulties of the preceding day. Then after a
season of prayer they would go in a body to some suburban town
or a certain section of Los Angeles to carry on their canvass.
They would knock at every door and ask the voters to support
410 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
the proposed state prohibition constitutional amendment which
was to be voted on in November in order to make California
“dry,’ and to support Charles H. Randall, Prohibition party
candidate for Congress, in order to help make the United States
“dry,” and furthermore to support no political party not com-
mitted to the national destruction of the liquor traffic. The
response to the national proposition was substantially equal to
the response to the state proposition. They interviewed 27,000
voters and nearly 20,000 were enrolled. Mr. Randall received
about 27,500 votes. Their success was due largely to the
splendid consecration and leadership of Mr. Haydock.
In addition to the work of the college volunteers an extensive
literature campaign was carried on and, during the latter part
of the campaign, W. G. Calderwood, of Minnesota, the chairman
of the Concentration Committee of the National Committee and
one of the most able and experienced political managers in the
history of the party, went to California and superintended the
campaign. Mr. Randall’s subsequent incomparable service during
his three terms in Congress abundantly justified the efforts put
forth to elect him.
In 1915 a concentration campaign was carried on in Massa-
chusetts in behalf of William Shaw, the Prohibition candidate
for Governor. Mr. Shaw had been for many years the General
Secretary of the World Christian Endeavor movement. He
was very popular among the better class of people. He made a
tour of the state and the newspapers gave a large amount of
attention to his campaign. The vote was multiplied about five
times and the national prohibition issue received more recognition
than ever before. A week or so before election the prospect of
his polling a very large vote so frightened the Republican or-
ganization that at the last moment it brought tremendous pres-
sure upon the church people lest the Republican party be de-
feated. Besides, the liquor interests, fearing that the defeat of
the Republican party on the prohibition issue would force that
party to take a stand against the liquor traffic in the next cam-
paign, threw their support to the Republican candidate. With
the combination of the partisan Republican church voters and
the liquor vote the Republicans won by a small margin.
One of the items of the Indianapolis Program of 1913 had for
its object the enrollment of five million voters who would sign an
agreement to make the prohibition issue the supreme issue in their
political action. There were several forms of enrollment pledge
circulated but the one most generally used was known as the
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 411
Shaw pledge, having originated with William Shaw. It read:
God being my Helper, henceforth no political party can have
my support or vote that does not declare for the national destruc-
tion of the liquor traffic.
There were several individual workers who secured more than
one thousand enrollments each and some of the speakers secured
them in large numbers. Excellent progress was made in certain
sections but there was not the organization or force to promote it
uniformly enough over the country to make it succeed.
In 1913, the Anti-Saloon League, after having devoted the
greater share of its efforts to obtaining local option, came out for
national constitutional prohibition. It held its national conven-
tion at Columbus, Ohio, in November, 1913. That was a great
turning-point in that organization’s history. An able group of
speakers including several outstanding Prohibition party leaders
participated in the program and plans for achieving national con-
stitutional prohibition were adopted.
Just following that convention there was held a notable con-
ference at which representatives of practically every temperance,
prohibition and anti-liquor organization in the country were
present. More than ninety organizations, large and small, gen-
eral and local, were represented. These now agreed upon a
common objective, one advocated for forty-four years by the
Prohibition party, the national prohibition of the liquor traffic.
Out of that conference was formed the National Temperance
Council for the cooperation of all temperance groups along edu-
cational lines. It has continued to meet annually ever since.
It is composed of about two hundred and fifty of the most promi-
nent temperance leaders of the nation.
At the Columbus meeting a number of the leaders of the dif-
ferent groups were gathered together and were discussing the
prohibition situation, These leaders felt the need of a more
commanding campaign of education and agitation, especially to
reach the cities of the country.
The outcome was that the Flying Squadron of America was
organized. Former Governor Hanly of Indiana was chosen as
leader and under his leadership there was assembled a group of
some of the ablest speakers of the period. The name, Flying
Squadron, was a naval term suggested by Captain Hobson, the
hero of the Merrimac in the Spanish-American War, then, in
1913, the outstanding dry leader in Congress.
Beginning in September, 1914, the Flying Squadron made an:
412 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
unprecedented campaign, visiting every state, every capital city,
nearly every large city and educational center in the country.
A series of three-day meetings, with sessions both afternoon and
evening was held in two hundred and fifty-five cities in about
eight months. These meetings received the hearty cooperation
of the Prohibitionists all over the country and were very suc-
cessful. The speakers were: Governor J. Frank Hanly, Oliver
W. Stewart, Daniel A. Poling, Ira Landrith, Charles M. Shel-
don, Wilbur F. Sheridan, Eugene W. Chafin, Clinton N. How-
ard, Charles Scanlon, Clarence True Wilson, John B. Lewis,
Dr. Carolyn E. Geisel, Dr. Ella A. Boole, Mrs. Culla J. Vay-
hinger and Mrs. Ella Seass Stewart.’
The campaign caught the imagination of the country. Large
audiences attended the meetings and that campaign of the Flying
Squadron was a tremendous factor in crystallizing the sentiment
for national constitutional prohibition.
The Flying Squadron had as an enlistment pledge:
We stand for the abolition of the liquor traffic. On this issue
we fight. Whenever a politician or an executive officer or a polit-
ical party prefers the liquor traffic above public morals, such a
man must be set aside and such parties abandoned.
Another influential organization, which was initiated largely
by the Prohibitionists, was the Committee of Sixty on National
Prohibition which was organized early in 1916.
Its object was to bring to the support of the prohibition move-
ment additional outstanding leaders of the nation.
It grew out of a conference which National Chairman Hinshaw
had with Mr. James J. Hill, the noted railroad builder of the
Northwest, in 1915 and Mr. Hill’s suggestion that such a com-
mittee be formed. After further preliminary conferences Pro-
fessor Irving Fisher, Professor of Political Economy in Yale
University, led in organizing the Committee, enrolling in its mem-
bership a very influential group of the intellectual leaders of
the nation.
It was committed to the five million voters pledge movement.
Its especial objective was to secure unequivocal declarations in
favor of national prohibition by political parties and candidates.
Its pledge as perfected was:
In the interest of national security, prosperity, public health and
morals we favor the prohibition of the liquor traffic and to this
end we urge the adoption of prohibition planks in the platforms of
all political parties and candidates.
2 See Speeches of the Flying Squadron.
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 413
Representatives of the Committee of Sixty appeared before the
Platform Committees of the Republican, Democratic and Pro-
gressive national conventions in 1916 but did not meet with much
encouragement.
The officers were: Honorary President, Dr. David Starr
Jordan, Chancellor of Leland Stanford Jr. University.
President, Dr. Daniel A. Poling, Associate President United
Society of Christian Endeavor.
Vice-Presidents: Luther Burbank, the famous plant wizard of
California; Dr. Samuel Dickie, President of Albion College ;
Hon, Richmond P. Hobson, former Congressman; Dr. J. N.
Hurty, Secretary of the Indiana State Board of Health: Mr.
John B. Lennon, Treasurer of the American Federation of Labor;
Dr. William F, Slocum, President of Colorado College; and
Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, former Chief of the U. S. Bureau of
Chemistry.
Secretary, Dr. D. Leigh Colvin, National President of the
Intercollegiate Prohibition Association.
Treasurer, Dr. J. H. Kellogg, Superintendent of the Battle
Creek Sanitarium.
Subsequently Professor Irving Fisher became President.
A subcommittee, composed of Professor Fisher, former Gov-
ernor Eugene N. Foss of Massachusetts, and Mr. Ernest Gordon,
obtained one thousand signatures to a Memorial for National
Prohibition which was presented to Congress on April 5, 1917,
the day before the United States entered the World War.
Those who signed the Memorial included many of the captains
of industry and business executives as well as leading scientists,
economists, social workers, university presidents and professors,
and leaders in every walk of life.
The combined strength of influence of those who signed the
Memorial gave a large impetus to the movement for national
prohibition.
The Committee of Sixty also had a large part in the movement
for war prohibition.
THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1916
The National Convention of 1916 was held at St. Paul, July
Ig to 21. Daniel A. Poling was Temporary Chairman, Howard
I’, Kershner, of Kansas, Secretary, and W. F. Varney, of New
Jersey, and Miss Minnette Murphy, of Iowa, assistant secretaries.
414 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Dr. Poling delivered a campaign keynote speech having as a
slogan “Save America and Serve the World.” Robert H. Pat-
ton was Permanent Chairman.
The striking feature of the convention was that Prohibition
had become so popular there were three former Governors of
three prominent states, each of whom was a receptive candidate
for the presidential nomination—Hanly of Indiana, Sulzer of
New York and Foss of Massachusetts. Former Governor Hanly
of Indiana was nominated on the first ballot.
THE NOMINEES
For President. J. Frank Hanly was born in a log cabin in
Illinois in 1863. Without any advantages, by hard work, de-
termined will and sheer force of character he advanced until he
had become Governor of his state at the age of forty-one. At
thirteen years of age he started out to make his way in the
world as a hired hand on a farm. Barefoot, he trudged into the
state of which he was to be the Chief Executive. He taught
school in the winter for seven years. He studied law and was
admitted to the bar in 1889. In 1890 he was elected to the State
Senate and in 1894 to Congress. In 1898 he was narrowly de-
feated in the Republican legislative caucus for United States
Senator by a coalition of all the opposition after a memorable
contest. In 1904 he was elected Governor by a plurality that was
without precedent in Indiana.
In his inaugural address he antagonized the liquor traffic. He
served as Governor for four years and it was said that in that
period there were instituted more vital reforms and laws for the
promotion of honesty and efficiency in government than in any
other two administrations in Indiana combined. He drove the
grafter from the State Capitol thereby incurring the enmity of a
certain group of politicians. As a result of his experience in the
Governor’s chair he came to have an increasing and deepening
realization of the indescribable tragedies of the liquor traffic
and of the effects of that traffic upon the interests of the state.
Under the constitution of the state he could not succeed himself
but at the Republican state convention of 1908, in the last year
of his term, through his personal power he influenced the con-
vention to adopt a county option plank in spite of the bitter an-
tagonism of many of the members of his party.
Taking no chances of the politicians going back upon their
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 415
platform pledges, Governor Hanly proceeded to catry the plank
into effect before election by calling a special session of the
Legislature and putting through the desired law. At the suc-
ceeding election the liquor interests threw their balance of power
to the Democrats and defeated the Republicans, whereupon the
Republican politicians became even more bitter against Governor
Hanly.
Fe was three times Chairman of the Committee on Temperance
of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church
and had a large part in preparing the utterances of that great
church upon prohibition. Through a number of years he was
recognized as one of the ablest men on the lecture platform in
the country and headed the nation-wide speaking campaign of
the Flying Squadron. He also edited the National Enquirer,
founded in 1915. He hesitated to leave the Republican party
which had honored him so highly but when he became convinced
there was no hope of that party taking a position against the
liquor traffic he courageously severed his connection with it, writ-
ing two editorials which were widely circulated, one entitled
“Severed,” and the other, “Obedient to the Vision.”
No portrayal of Governor Hanly would be adequate which
does not include a famous passage from one of his addresses
entitled, “I Hate It.’
piNEvAnmM Ts}
I bear no malice towards those engaged in the liquor business,
but I hate the traffic.
I hate its every phase.
I hate it for its intolerance.
I hate it for its arrogance.
I hate it for its hypocrisy; for its cant and craft and false pre-
tense;
I hate it for its commercialism; for its greed and avarice; for its
sordid love of gain at any price.
I hate it for its domination of politics; for its corrupting influ-
ence in civic affairs; for its incessant effort to debauch the suf-
frage of the country, for the cowards it makes of public men.
I hate it for its utter disregard of law; for its ruthless trampling
of the solemn compacts of State constitutions.
I hate it for the load it straps to labor’s back: for the palsied
hands it gives to toil; for its wounds to genius; for the tragediés
of its might-have-beens.
I hate it for the human wrecks it has caused.
I hate it for the almshouses it peoples; for the prisons it fills;
416 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
for the insanity it begets; for its countless graves in potters’ fields.
I hate it for the mental ruin it imposes upon its victims; for its
spiritual blight; for its moral degradation.
I hate it for the crimes it commits; for the homes it destroys;
for the hearts it breaks.
I hate it for the malice it plants in the hearts of men; for its
poison; for its bitterness; for the dead sea fruit with which it
starves their souls.
I hate it for the grief it causes womanhood—the scalding tears,
the hopes deferred, the strangled aspirations, its burden of want
and care.
I hate it for its heartless cruelty to the aged, the infirm and
the helpless; for the shadow it throws upon the lives of children;
for its monstrous injustice to blameless little ones.
I hate it as virtue hates vice, as truth hates error, as righteousness
hates sin, as justice hates wrong, as liberty hates tyranny, as
freedom hates oppression.
I hate it as Abraham Lincoln hated slavery, and as he sometimes
saw in prophetic vision the end of slavery, and the coming of the
time when the sun should shine and the rain should fall upon no
slave in all the Republic, so I sometimes seem to see the end of
this unholy traffic, the coming of the time when, if it does not wholly
cease to be, it shall find no safe habitation anywhere beneath Old
Glory’s stainless stars.
For Vice-President. The 1916 convention, having chosen one
who had recently been a Northern Republican for President, chose
one who had been recently a Southern Democrat for Vice-Presi-
dent. Ira Landrith was Texan born, of a stature to comport
with the dimensions of that state. He had been Chairman of the
Tennessee State Committee of the Young Men’s Christian As-
sociation for twenty-one years and had served as President of the
preceding International Convention of that great organization.
He had served as Moderator of the General Assembly of his
church and had been for years the editor of the leading paper
of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. He was one of the
leaders in Tennessee in the fight which outlawed the liquor
traffic in that state. He was one of the prominent members of
the Flying Squadron and he had served for some years as Presi-
dent of Ward Belmont College at Nashville.
The platform of 1916, in decided contrast to the two pre-
ceding ones, was the longest in the history of the party. There
were twenty planks and only about one-twentieth of the platform
was devoted to prohibition.
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 417
THE PLATFORM OF I916
The Prohibition party, assembled in its Twelfth National Con-
vention in the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, on this twenty-first day
of July, 1916, thankful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty,
grateful for our institutions and the multiplying signs of early vic-
tory for the cause for which the Party stands, in order that the
people may know the source of its faith and the basis of its action,
should it be clothed with governmental power, challenges the at-
tention of the Nation and asks the votes of the people on this Dec-
laration of Principles.
Prohibition
We denounce the traffic in intoxicating liquors. We believe in
its abolition. It should be made a crime—not a business—and
ought not to have governmental sanction.
We demand—and, if given power, we will effectuate the de-
mand—that the manufacture, importation, exportation, transporta-
tion and sale of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes shall be
prohibited.
To the accomplishment of this end, we pledge the exercise of
all governmental power—the enactment of statutes and the amend-
ment of the constitutions, State and National. Only by a political
party committed to this purpose can such policy be made effective.
We call upon all voters, believing in the destruction of the drink
trafic, to place the Prohibition party in power on this issue as a
necessary step in the solution of the liquor problem.
Suffrage
The right of citizens of the United States to vote should not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on ac-
count of sex. We declare in favor of the enfranchisement of
women by amendments to State and Federal Constitutions.
We condemn the Republican and Democratic parties for their
failure to submit, to the States, an equal suffrage amendment to
the National Constitution.
We remind the four million women voters that, in 1872, we de-
clared for their political rights, the first so to do, and we invite
their cooperation in electing the Prohibition party to power.
Peace and Preparedness
We are committed to the policy of peace and friendliness to all
nations. We are opposed unalterably to the wasteful military pro-
418 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
gram of the Democratic and Republican parties. Militarism pro-
tects no worthy institution. It endangers them all and violates the
high principles which have brought us as a Nation to the present
hour. We are for a constructive program in preparedness for
peace. We declare for, and will promote, a World Court, to which
national differences shall be submitted, so maintained as to give
its decrees binding force.
We will support a compact among nations to dismantle navies and
disband armies; but, until such World Court and compact are es-
tablished, we pledge ourselves to maintain an effective army and
navy and to provide coast defenses entirely adequate for national
protection.
We are opposed to universal military service and to participation
in the rivalry which has brought Europe to the shambles and now
imperils the civilization of the race.
Private profit, so far as constitutionally possible, should be taken
out of the manufacture of war munitions and all war equipment.
In normal times, we favor the employment of the army in vast
reclamation plans; in reforesting hills and mountains; in building
state and national highways; in the construction of an inland water-
way from Florida to Maine; in opening Alaska and in unnumbered
other projects, which will make our soldiers constructive builders
of peace. or such service there should be paid an adequate in-
dustrial wage.
Those units of our navy which are capable of being converted
into merchantmen and passenger vessels should be constructed with
that purpose in view, and chiefly so utilized in times of peace.
We condemn the political parties, which for more than thirty
years have allowed munition and war equipment manufacturers to
plunder the people and to jeopardize the highest interests of the
Nation by furnishing honeycombed armor plate and second-rate
battleships, which the Navy League now declares are wholly in-
adequate.
We will not allow the country to forget that the first step toward
physical, economic, moral and political preparedness is the enact-
ment of National Prohibition.
Mexico and the Monroe Doctrine
Mexico needs not a conqueror, but a good Samaritan. We are
opposed to the violation of the sovereignty of the Mexican people,
and we will countenance no war of aggression against them. We
pledge the help of this country in the suppression of lawless bands
of marauders and murderers, who have taken the lives of American
citizens, on both sides of the border, as well as of Mexicans in their
own country.
The lives and property of our citizens, when about their lawful
a a
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 419
pursuits, either in the United States or in Mexico, must and will be
protected. In the event of a breakdown of government across the
border, we would use, in the interests of civilization, the force nec-
essary for the establishment of law and order.
In this connection we affirm our faith in the Monroe Doctrine,
proclaimed in the early days of the Nation’s life and unswervingly
maintained for nearly a hundred years.
We cannot claim the benefits of the Doctrine and refuse to as-
sume or discharge the responsibilities and the duties which inhere
therein and flow therefrom.
These duties have long been unmet in Mexico. We should meet
them now, acting, not for territory, not for conquest, or for our-
selves alone, but for and with all the nations of North and South
America.
The Democratic party has blundered and four years ago the Re-
publican evaded, and passed on, the problem that it now seeks the
opportunity to solve.
The Philippines
The abandonment of the Philippines at this time would be an in-
justice to them and a violation of our plain duty. As soon as they
are prepared for self-government, by education and training, they
should be granted their independence on terms just to themselves
and us.
Tariff and Reciprocity
The countries at war are preparing for a fierce industrial strug-
gle to follow the cessation of hostilities. As a matter of com-
mercial economy, international friendliness, business efficiency, and
as a help to peace, we demand that reciprocal trade treaties be
negotiated with all nations with which we have trade relations.
A Commission of specialists, free from the control of any party,
should be appointed, with power to gather full information on all
phases of the questions of tariff and reciprocity, and to recommend
such legislation as it deems necessary for the welfare of American
business and labor.
Merchant Marine
The necessity of legislation to enable American shipbuilders or
owners to meet foreign competition, on the most favorable terms,
is obvious.
Materials for construction should be admitted free of duty.
The purchase of ships abroad, when low prices invite, should be
420 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
allowed and, when so purchased, should be admitted to American
registry.
Harbor rules and charges and navigation laws should not be
onerous, but favorable to the highest degree.
Liberal payment should be made by the Government for carry-
ing mails and for transport services.
All shipping from the United States to any of our possessions
should be reserved to ships of American registry.
The people should not overlook the fact that the effect of nation-
wide Prohibition, on labor and industry, generally, will be such as
to lower the cost of shipbuilding per unit and, at the same time,
permit the payment of higher wages. The increased volume of
trade and commerce, which will result when the wastage of the
liquor traffic is stopped, will quicken our shipping on every sea and
send our flag on peaceful missions into every port. This is urged
as an incidental effect of wise action on the liquor question, but
is none the less to be desired’ and will aid in the solution of the
problem of our merchant marine.
Civil Service
In order that the public service may be of the highest standard,
the Government should be a model employer in all respects. To
enforce the civil service law, in spirit as well as in letter, all pro-
motions should be non-political, based only upon proven fitness; all
recommendations for demotions or removals from the service should
be subjected to the review of a non-partisan board or commission.
The merit system should be extended to cover all postmasters,
collectors of revenue, marshals and other such public officials whose
duties are purely administrative.
We reaffirm our allegiance to the principle of secure tenure of
office, during good behavior and capable effort, as the means of
obtaining expert service. We declare for the enactment of an
equitable retirement law for disabled and superannuated employees,
in return for faithful service rendered, in order to maintain a high
degree of efficiency in public office.
Labor and Capital
Differences between capital and labor should be settled through
arbitration, by which the rights of the public are conserved, as
well as those of the disputants. We declare for the prohibition
of child labor in factories, mines and workshops; an eight-hour max-
imum day, with one day of rest in seven; more rigid sanitary re-
quirements and such working conditions as shall foster the physical
and moral well-being of the unborn; the protection of all who toil
by the extension of Employer’s Liability Acts; the adoption of
EVENTS OF 19138 TO 1916 421
safety appliances for the protection of labor; and for laws that
will promote the just division of the wealth which labor and capital
jointly produce. Provision should be made for those who suffer
from industrial accidents and occupational diseases.
Social Justice
We stand for justice to humanity and for its rights, safety and
development; we believe in the equality of all before the law;
in old age pensions and insurance against unemployment and in
help for needy mothers, all of which could be provided from what
is now wasted for drink.
Agriculture
While it is admitted that grain and cotton are fundamental fac-
tors in our national life, it cannot be denied that proper assistance
and protection are not given these commodities at terminal markets,
in the course of interstate commerce.
We favor and pledge our efforts to obtain public grain elevators
at necessary terminal markets, such elevators to be owned and
operated by the Federal Government; also to secure Federal grain
inspection under a system of civil service and to abolish any Board
of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, or other place of gambling in
grain or trading in “options” or “futures” or “short selling,’ or
any other form of so-called speculation, wherein products are not
received or delivered, but wherein so-called contracts are settled
by the payment of “margins” or “differences” through clearing
houses or otherwise.
This party stands committed to free and open markets, based
upon legitimate supply and demand, absolutely free from question-
able practices of market manipulation. We favor Government
warehouses for cotton at proper terminals where the interests of
producers so require; and the absolute divorce of all railroad ele-
vators or warehouses owned by railroad companies, whether for
public or private use, from operation or control by private in-
dividuals in competition with the public in merchandising grain,
cotton and other farm products.
We {furthermore endorse all proper cooperative methods which
tend toward broader and better markets for producer and con-
sumer.
Public Ownership
Public utilities and other resources, which are natural monopolies,
now are exploited for personal gain under a monopolistic system.
422 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
We demand the ownership or control of such utilities by the people
and their operation and administration in the interests of all.
Free Institutions
We stand for the preservation and development of our free in-
stitutions and for absolute separation of church and state, with
the guaranty of full religious and civil liberty.
Departmental Decisions
Departmental decisions ought not to be final, but the rights of
the people should be protected by provision for court review.
Conservation
We reaffirm our declaration’ in favor of conservation of forests,
water power and other natural resources.
E fficiency
We pledge a business-like administration of the nation’s affairs:
the abolition of useless offices, bureaus and commissions; economy
in the expenditure of public funds; efficiency in governmental serv-
ice; and the adoption of the budget system.
The President should have power to veto any single item or
items of an appropriation bill.
We condemn, and agree when in power to remedy, that which is
known as “pork-barrel” legislation, by which millions of dollars
have been appropriated for rivers where there is no commerce, har-
bors where there are no ships and public buildings where there is
no need.
Marriage and Divorce
We favor uniform marriage and divorce laws, the extermination
of polygamy and the complete suppression of the traffic in girls and
women.
Single Presidential Term
We are in favor of a single presidential term of six years.
Rule of the People
We favor the initiative, referendum and recall.
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 423
Americanism
We stand for Americanism. We believe this country was created
for a great mission among the nations of the earth. We rejoice
in the fact that it has offered asylum to the oppressed of other
lands and to those, more fortunately situated, who yet wished to im-
prove their condition. It is the land of all peoples and belongs
not to any one—it is the heritage of all. It should come first in
the affection of every citizen, and he who loves another land more
than this is not fit for citizenship here; but he is a better citizen,
who, loving his country, has reverence for the land of his fathers,
and gains from its history and traditions that which inspires him
to nobler service to the one in which he lives,
The Federal Government should interest itself in helping the
newcomer into that vocation and locality where he shall most quickly
become an American. Those fitted by experience and training for
agricultural pursuits should be encouraged to develop the millions
of acres of rich and idle land.
Conclusion
This is the day of opportunity for the American people. The
triumph of neither old political party is essential to our safety or
progress. The defeat of either will be no public misfortune. They
are one party. By age and wealth, by membership and traditions,
by platforms and in the character of their candidates, they are the
Conservative party of the United States.
The Prohibition party, as the promoter of every important meas-
ure of social justice presented to the American people in the last
two generations, and, as the originator of nearly all such legislation,
remains now the only great Progressive party.
The patriotic voters, who compose the Republican and Democratic
parties, can, by voting the Prohibition ticket this year, elect \ the
issue of National Prohibition.
To those, of whatever political faith, who have the vision of a
land redeemed from drink, we extend a cordial invitation to join
with us in carrying the banner of Prohibition to nation-wide victory.
THE CAMPAIGN
The notification meeting was held at Indianapolis, the home
of Governor Hanly. He gave a comprehensive address which
will always stand as a state paper of the first rank.
For the campaign a special campaign committee was formed
with Oliver W. Stewart as Chairman. The outstanding feature
3 Vindicator, Aug. 11, 1916; also issued in pamphlet form.
4:24 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
of the campaign was a special train carrying the candidates from
Coast to Coast. It started from Chicago, September 8th, and
continued until election, going first to the Pacific Coast and then
to the Atlantic Coast and back to Chicago. It covered nearly
20,000 miles in thirty-four states, and stops were made for from
five to fifteen meetings a day.
The emphasis by the candidates was chiefly upon the prin-
ciple of prohibition rather than upon the distinctively party argu-
ment. Both were new converts to the Party and, naturally, were
not as fully grounded in the party philosophy as some of the
earlier candidates. Statewide referendum campaigns were being
held in half a dozen states and the candidates made special
efforts to help carry those states. In the special train campaign
Hanly and Landrith had an influential part in five of them. As
Governor Hanly stated after the election:
Wherever we spoke we gave first consideration to the dry issue,
telling the people, without qualification, that they might vote us up
or vote us down, if they would only redeem their state by making
it dry.
The ticket was on the ballot in forty-four states. Owing to
the tremendous pressure of the old party organizations in the last
week of the campaign when it was foreseen that the election was
going to be very close between Wilson and Hughes, the Prohibi-
tion national vote was disappointing. In a number of states the
state ticket went considerably ahead of the national. In nine
states the high vote for state candidates reached a total of
183,000 more than the vote for the national candidates. In
Minnesota W. G. Calderwood received 78,426 votes for United
States Senator. —
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY, IQIO-I9I9Q
Prohibition Party.
American Prohibition Year Book, 1910, IQII, 1912, I915, 1916.
CHAFIN, EUGENE W.—The Master Method of the Great Re-
form, 1913, 156 pp. Contains 1912 Acceptance Speech
and five other leading addresses.
Government by Administration, Address, 1912, 16 pp.
-One Standard of Morals, Address, 1911, 16 pp.
Government by Political Parties, 1910, 16 pp.
Howarp, Crinton N.—The Handwriting on the Wall, Speech
of Temporary Chairman Prohibition National Conven-
tion, 1912, 16 pp.
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 425
Watkins, Aaron S.—Why I Am a Prohibitionist, 1912, 8 pp.
Patton, Ropert H.—The Real Progressive Party, 1912, 8 pp.
CALDERWOOD, W. G.—The Faith of the Fathers, 1912, 8 pp.
FANNING, M. J.—Notification Address to Pennsylvania Candi-
dates, I912, 16 pp.
Potine, DanteEL A.—Save America and Serve the World, Key-
note Speech, Prohibition National Convention, 1916.
PERRIGO, JAMES—The Sheriff, 1911, 85 pp.
Pickett, L. L_—The Booze Devil, 1914, 84 pp.
HeENprRICKSON, FINLEY C.—The Constitution and Prohibition,
1918, 24 pp.
SHAW, ELton R.—At the Parting of the Ways, 1911, 40 pp.
MacNricuHott, Dr. T. ALEXANDER—The Relation of Alcohol to
Race Suicide, 1912, 4 pp.
CALDERWooD, W. G.—Do It Right First, An Analysis of County
Option.
SHIELDS, JOHN A.—A Discussion of Methods.
Results of State Prohibition.
Stusss, Gov. W. R.—Prohibition in Kansas, 1910, 32 pp.
Capper, Gov. ArtHuUR—What Prohibition Has Done for
Kansas, 1915, 16 pp.
Jounson, WitttaAm J.—The Question Answered, How Prohibi-
tion Works, Experience of Omaha, Denver, Portland,
meattle, TOTS, 31) pp.
JoHnson, Witt1Am E.—Ten Years of Prohibition in Okla-
homa, 1918, 96 pp.
- Prohibition in Kansas, 1918, 89 pp.
Gorpon, Ernest—The Maine Law, 1919, 124 pp.
Biug, F. O.—When a State Goes Dry (West Virginia), 1916,
II4 pp.
MarsHALL, T., K.—The First Six Months of Prohibition in
Arizona, 1915, 73 pp.
Wine, Henry A.—Maine’s War on the Liquor Traffic, 1911,
So pp.
CraFts, WiitBur F.—Prohibition Handbook (Written for the
campaign in Maine), I9II, 94 pp.
Anti-Saloon League Year Book, published annually since 1908.
Prohibition—General.
JoHNson, Wirt1Am E.—The Federal Government and the
Liquor Traffic, 1911, 364 pp.
426 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Hanty, J. Franx—Editor, Speeches of the Flying Squadron,
IQ15, 420 Ppp.
Eaton, E. L.—Winning the Fight Against Drink, 1912, 344 pp.
Crooxker, J. H.—Shall I Drink, 1914, 255 pp.
DurkKEE, J. H.—History of the World’s Centennial Congress,
1908, 199 pp.
FisHer, Pror. Irvinc—Sale of Intoxicating Liquor, Statement
before Subcommittee on Excise and Liquor Legislation
of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 1912,
21 pp.
Gorpon, Ernest—The Anti-Alcohol Movement in Europe,
1913, 333 PP-
The Breakdown of the Gothenburg System, I91I, 155 pp.
Russian Prohibition, 1916, 80 pp.
STELZLE, CHaRLEsS—Why Prohibition?, 1918, 336 pp.
NicHotts, Joun A.—Does It Pay? Economic Studies in the
Liquor Problem, 1912, booklet, 45 pp.
SroppaRp, Cora Frances—Alcohol’s Ledger in Industry,
IQI4, 22 pp.
Ritter, Cot. Err F.—Moral Law and Civil Law, 1910, 278 pp.
Crarts, Dr. and Mrs. WitBur F.—The World Book of Tem-
perance, IQII, 410 pp.
Crarts, Witsur F.—Why Dry? Briefs for Prohibition, 1918,
126 pp.
Pickett, Deets—The Cyclopedia of Temperance, Prohibition
and Public Morals, 1917, 406 pp.
WILSON, CLARENCE TruE—Dry or Die; The Anglo-Saxon
Dilemma, 1912, 186 pp.
HayLer, Guy—Prohibition Advance in All Lands, 1913, 366
pp. (Mr. Hayler is President of the World Prohibition
Federation. )
Beman, L. T.—Selected Articles on Prohibition (Debater’s
Handbook Series), 1915, 1608 pp.
BatLey, T. J.—Prohibition in Mississippi, 1917, 224 pp.
Nicuots, Emmett D.—The Second Declaration of Independ-
ENCE \ TOES Fa 7npy,
Winning Orations in the National Contests of the Intercollegiate
Prohibition Association, 7th Ed., 1917, 184 pp.
RicHARDSON, NorMAN E.—The Liquor Problem, 1915, 140 pp.
Report of the Commission to Investigate Drunkenness in Massa-
chusetts, 1914, 42 pp.
National Conference on Social Work, Proceedings, I919, pp.
761-782. Articles on Prohibition and Its Social Con-
EVENTS OF 19r3 TO 1916 427
sequences by Robert A. Woods, Prof. Irving Fisher and
others.
War Prohibition.
Pickett, DEEts—The Wooden Horse or America Menaced by
a Prussianized Trade, 1918, 87 pp.
FIsHER, Pror, Irvinc—The Case for War-Time Prohibition,
4 pp.
BALLINGER, WALTER F.—Quick Relief for the Nation, pam-
phlet, 4 pp.
CarVER, Pror, THomas N.—Government Control of the Liquor
Business in Great Britain and the United States, 1919,
192 pp.
Crarts, WiLBuRr F.—Why War Prohibition?, 1918, 32 pp.
International Reform Bureau—Conservation of Food and Other
Resources of War Prohibition. Extracts from Congres-
sional Record, June 18, 1917, 16 pp.
Howarp, Crinton N.—The World on Fire—National Pro-
hibition Demanded as Emergency War Measure, Address,
IQI7, 24 pp.
STODDARD, Cora F.—Shall We Save Beer and Wine? 1917,
16 pp.
RANDALL, CHARLES H.—Telegraphic Demands for War-Time
Prohibition. Reprint from Congressional Record of
June 20, I917.
For a summary of efforts for War Prohibition in Congress, see
Crarts, W. F.—Dates and Data for a History of Na-
tional Prohibition in Twentieth Century Quarterly, Winter
Quarter, 1920-1921.
The following three British books were influential here :
Mer, ArtHurR, and Hoipen, J. Sruart—Defeat or Victory,
IQI7, 120 pp.
Meg, ArtrHuR—The Fiddlers, 1917, 65 pp.
ute barasite; TOL7 4701p.
Scientific,
Dover, R., and Benepict, Francis G.—Psychological Effects
of Alcohol, 1915, 281 pp.
Mites, Watter R.—The Effect of Alcohol on Psycho-Physio-
logical Functions, 1918, 144 pp. |
Fisk, Euc—Ene Lyman—Alcohol, Its Relation to Human Ef-
ficiency and Longevity, 1917, 286 pp.
428 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Ketynack, T. N. (editor)—The Drink Problem of Today in
its Medico-Sociological Aspects (English), 1916, 318 pp.
Hosgson, RrcumMonp P.—The Great Destroyer, Speech, Febru-
ary 2, LOLL, @o pp.
Alcohol and the Human Race, 1919, 205 pp.
Maus, Cou. L. Mervin—Alcohol and Racial Degeneracy, 1914,
13 pp.
a Gs Cora FRANCES—Handbook of Modern Facts About
Alcohol, 1914, 105 pp.
PARTRIDGE, G. E.—Studies in the Psychology of Intemperance,
1O12, 275 pp.
Howarp, Pror. Grorce Exttiotr—Alcohol and Crime, Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, July, 1918.
For recent bibliography of scientific aspects of the alcohol ques-
tion, see Fisuer, Irvine, and Fisk, EuGENE LyMan—
How to Live, 18th edition, 1925, pp. 378-382.
Prohibition Papers.
The leading national newspapers of the Prohibition party were:
American Advance, organ of the National Committee, 1911-1913;
The Vindicator, 1911-1916; The Patriot Phalanx, 1917-1920.
The chief state Prohibition newspapers of the decade were:
Indiana, The Patriot Phalanx, published from the eighties to
1920, except its first few years, by William F. Clark and his son,
Edward W. Clark. From 1917 to 1920 it served as a national
organ. Clean Politics of Indianapolis was a national propaganda
weekly, edited by W. M. Likens from 1910 to 1914.
Pennsylvania, The People, founded in 1887 and continued for
over twenty years with several editors, one of the later being
Orrin H. Graham. A daily newspaper performing great service
to the Party was The Venango Daily Herald, published at Frank-
lin for many years by David B. McCalmont who also was the
publisher of The Vindicator, 1911 to 1916, the national organ
edited by William P. F. Ferguson; The Clean Commonwealth,
of Butler, edited by A. P. Hutchinson, was a vigorous paper;
The Index, of Williamsport, has been published monthly since
1892 by Dr. C. W. Huntington and continues at the present time.
California, The California V oice is the longest lived Prohibi-
tion paper in the history of the country. It is the successor of a
temperance paper founded in 1855, and is still on the firing line.
For fifty-six years it has been published under its present name,
EVENTS OF 1913 TO 1916 4.29
and for over a quarter of a century has been edited by Wiley
J. Phillips, of Los Angeles,
Illinois, The Banner, edited by George W. Woolsey; West
Virginia, The Mountain State Patriot, edited by Dr. J. W. Bed-
ford from 1902 to 1918; Iowa, The Jowa Prohibitionist, edited
by Dr. O. D. Ellett; Nebraska, The Nebraska News, edited by
J. L. Claflin; Wisconsin, The Campaigner, started in 1916, edited
by Will C. Dean; Minnesota, The Northwestern Patriot, edited
by George F. Wells; Missouri, The State Leader, edited for many
years by Charles E. Stokes; Connecticut, The Voter, edited by
FE. L. G. Hohenthal; Catholics and Prohibition was a Catholic
Prohibition monthly, edited by Rev. Fr. George Zurcher from
1908 to IgIQ, its successor now being published is The Father
Mathew Man.
In the New York Public Library can be found substantially
complete files of The Voice, The New V oice, The National Pro-
hibitionist, The Vindicator, The Citizen, The Defender, Clean
Politics, and partial files of The Facts, The People, Backbone of
Minnesota, The Patriot Phalanx, True Reform, Iowa Common-
wealth, Missouri State Leader, The C alifornia Voice, The Corner-
stone, The Lever, Oregon Searchlight, The Constitution, Flying
Wedge, Frozen Truth, Backbone of New York, Intercollegiate
Statesman, Prohibition Bombs and New Voice Leaflets,
Chapter X XIIT
THE PROGRESS OF STATE AND NATIONAL
PROHIBITION, 1914-1919
THE PROGRESS OF STATE PROHIBITION
Prior to September, 1914, there were only nine prohibition
states, there having been no net gain in the number of prohibition
states for over five and one-half years. West Virginia had been
gained in 1912 but in 1911 Alabama had been lost, temporarily.
Of the nine states, in six prohibition had been adopted by a popu-
lar vote. These were Maine; which four times had given popular
majorities for prohibition, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
North Carolina and West Virginia. Three had adopted prohibi-
tion by action of the legislature—Georgia, Mississippi and Ten-
nessee. Three, Maine, Kansas and North Dakota, had adopted
prohibition prior to 1890. There were no additions between 1889
and 1907. The other six were since 1907.
The year 1914 gave a great impetus to the movement for
state prohibition. That year five states adopted prohibition by
popular vote—Virginia, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and
Arizona. Of these in all but Virginia it was adopted by means of
the initiative and referendum. Virginia followed a roundabout
method different from any other state. She did not have a gen-
eral initiative and referendum law and the Legislature did not
vote to submit. But it passed an enabling act permitting a vote
upon the question of prohibition provided one-fourth of the
number of those who had voted at the preceding election should
petition for such a vote.
Of the five states adopting prohibition in 1914 Virginia was
the only one where the Legislature was involved in any way
and there it did not take the responsibility either for adoption
or submission. The Legislature merely passed an enabling act
which was substantially a special initiative and referendum law
to be applied to this one question. It did provide that if the ma-
jority of the people voted for statewide prohibition the sale,
manufacture for sale, and so forth, within the state should be
unlawful. But manufacture for sale outside the state was per-
mitted and the penalties were merely the same as they had been
450
THE PROGRESS OF PROHIBITION, 1914-1919 431
for trafficking without a license. It was a very weak law and its
going into operation was postponed for over two years after
the vote.*
In the other four states prohibition was distinctly a popular
movement having been initiated and carried through by the people.
Especially in Oregon and Arizona, the party Prohibitionists took
the leadership in bringing on the vote and in the other states they
were very active in the campaigns. Arizona adopted the most
thoroughgoing constitutional provision yet adopted in any state.
Anticipating that the Legislature would be politically constituted
so as not to be favorable to the adoption of enforcement legis-
lation, the initiated measure provided penalties within the measure
itself. Thus action by the Legislature was not essential to carry
it into effect. Much credit for prohibition in Arizona was due to
Eugene W. Chafin, twice Prohibition candidate for President,
who was then living in that state.
In 1915 five more states passed prohibitory laws. Alabama,
having experienced the contrast between prohibition, even poorly
enforced, and license, returned to prohibition. The other states
adopting prohibition in 1915 were Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and
South Carolina. In the latter state it was adopted by a popular
vote, in the others it was passed by the Legislatures,
The vote of South Carolina was very significant as that was
the state where the dispensary system, the method of government
monopoly, had been tried for many years under the most favor-
able’ circumstances, having been administered by its friends
whereas so often prohibition has been administered by its enemies.
When the people had an opportunity to express their sentiments
regarding whether they should continue the dispensary or adopt
prohibition over 71 per cent voted in favor of prohibition. With
the exception of Maine, which after trying prohibition for a third
of a century voted in 1884 to place prohibition in its state con-
stitution by a vote of nearly 75 per cent of those voting, South
Carolina gave prohibition the largest percentage of the popular
vote it had thus far received in any state. The fact that after
years of most favorable trial the dispensary system was able to
muster less than 29 per cent of the votes should be regarded as
overwhelmingly decisive against the results of that system.
In 1916 four more states were added, Michigan, Nebraska,
South Dakota and Montana. In all of these prohibition was
adopted by a popular vote and in all but Montana it was adopted
by means of the initiative as well as the referendum.
1 Virginia, ‘Acts of Assembly, 1914, p. 20.
432 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
An analysis of the twenty states which adopted prohibition in
the ten-year period 1907 to 1916, inclusive, in relation to the
attitude of political parties and liquor’s ability to wield the bal-
ance of power reveals significant facts.
Of these twenty states, in seven prohibition was adopted by
means of the initiative and referendum in which the vote was
brought on by the initiative of a certain percentage of the voters
petitioning for a vote on the proposition without the legislatures
or the politicians having anything to do with the matter.
Of the other thirteen states, in six it was submitted to a
popular vote. In one of these, Oklahoma, it was submitted by the
constitutional convention, in four it was submitted by the legis-
lature, and in the sixth state, Virginia, the method, as described
above, was by means of a special initiative and referendum. Of
these six, all but West Virginia and Montana were one-party
states.
In seven states prohibition was enacted by the legislature, but
of these all were one-party states with the single exception of
Idaho.
Idaho has the unique distinction of having been the single
state in the whole history of the prohibition movement where all
parties placed prohibition planks in their platforms prior to the
enactment of prohibition. It is the only state where both major
parties ever did so. In Idaho, in 1914, all parties, aside from the
Socialist—the Republican, Democratic, Progressive and Prohibi-
tion—placed prohibition planks in their platforms. That they
did this was due largely to the acceptance of the party philosophy
of the Prohibition party by the leaders of the larger parties.
The consequence of this support by the parties was that the
succeeding Legislature of 1915 not only enacted a statutory pro-
hibition law, but, to make prohibition permanent, it submitted
a prohibition constitutional amendment to be voted upon at the
next election when it was adopted by a vote of 90,526 to 35,450.
Subsequently, when the Eighteenth Amendment came before the
Idaho Legislature it was ratified unanimously.
It is very significant that in all the ten-year period prior to
1917, during which twenty states went dry, the only close state
where the legislature took the direct responsibility for the en-
actment of the law was a state where all parties were committed
to prohibition by platform declaration. With all parties com-
mitted to prohibition the liquor traffic could not wield the balance
of power.
Idaho thus stands exalted in a class by herself. Aside from
THE PROGRESS OF PROHIBITION, 1914-1919 433
that state, in not a single close state did a legislature take the
responsibility for enacting a prohibition law. And in only two
close states did the legislature even so much as submit. the
question to the people to let them decide. In both of those two
states, West Virginia and Montana, there were unusual situa-
tions. West Virginia was discussed in an earlier chapter. The
vigorous activity of the Prohibition party was a factor in obtain-
ing submission as a concession. In Montana the measure stub-
mitted provided that if adopted it should not go into operation
for more than two years after it received the vote of a ma jority
of the people. The liquor interests helped to make the proposal
drastic under the mistaken notion that by so doing they would
make its defeat more likely.?
Summarizing this analysis, in not a single state where the liquor
trathe was able to wield the balance of power did the legislature
enact a prohibition law and in only two such states were the legis-
latures even willing to submit the question to the people, not-
withstanding the remarkable growth of sentiment in that ten-
year period.
Prohibition was obtained by the people, separate from political
parties. So far as the writer has been able to discover, there have
been only three states where either one of the major parties
adopted a clear cut platform declaration for prohibition prior to
its enactment. Besides Idaho, these states were Washington and
Utah where the Democratic platforms contained such planks in
1910, and in the latter state in 1916.
Nearly everywhere where the parties were approximately equal
in size the politicians feared to incur the enmity of the liquor
trafhe. The traffic maintained its power because it was able to
elicit the obedience of the parties and party managers.
From 1917 to 1919 ten more states adopted prohibition, all
but three of which took a popular vote either upon the adoption of
prohibition or upon the question of placing it in the state con-
stitution. In Idaho in 1915, in Utah in 1917, and in Texas in
1918 the Legislatures passed statutory prohibition and submitted
constitutional prohibition to a popular vote, it carrying in each
case.
In Utah the Legislature of 1915 passed a prohibitory bill by a
large majority but it was vetoed by the Republican Governor at
the close of the legislative session when it could not be repassed
2 Brewing and Liquor Interests and German and Bolshevik Propaganda, Report
and Hearings of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-
sixth Congress, First Session (1919), p. 1175.
434 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
over his veto. In 1916 the Democratic party adopted a strong
prohibition plank and elected its ticket. So intense was the feeling
that the whole Republican party was swept out of power in a state
which in the preceding presidential election it had carried for
Taft when only one other state, Vermont, had been carried. A
Democratic dry Hebrew was elected Governor on a prohibition
platform. The outcome was that the first act of the 1917
Legislature was the passage of a drastic prohibition law by a
unanimous vote in the Senate and with but one dissenting vote in
the House. The Legislature also submitted a prohibition con-
stitutional amendment. In the two states where prohibition was
made a party principle in the platform of the successful party,
Idaho and Utah, it went through the most successfully of any
of the states.
By the close of 1919 thirty-three states had adopted prohibi-
tion, eight by legislative enactment and twenty-five by popular
vote. Of the twenty-five, nine obtained prohibition by means of
the initiative as well as the referendum.
That prohibition had the overwhelming support of the people
is shown by the fact that on the adopting vote the total prohibi-
tion majority in these twenty-five states amounted to 662,717.
If a vote had been taken in the other eight states the aggregate
majority would have been much larger.
POPULAR VOTES AND PROHIBITION
In the early years of national prohibition wet propagandists
persistently asserted that prohibition had been “put across”
against the will of the majority of the people.
In three-fourths of the states there has been an expression of
the will of the people through direct, popular elections, the results
of which had the binding effect of law. In these elections pro-
hibition has received a majority vote in thirty of the thirty-two
states. Some states have voted repeatedly, and in every case the
latest vote has been the strongest for prohibition. The people
have progressively supported prohibition. A study of the votes
is absolutely convincing.
The table below gives the list of prohibition states with the
year of adoption; whether the prohibition was constitutional or
statutory; whether enacted by the legislature or submitted by the
legislature to a popular vote or obtained through the initiative
and referendum; and also the popular majority in those states
where the people voted directly.
a ee a
THE PROGRESS OF PROHIBITION, 1914-1919
435
TABLE SHOWING WHEN, HOW AND BY WHAT MAJORITY STATE
PROHIBITION WAS ADOPTED
Legislature
When Statutory or Submission Vote Vote Majority
State Adopted Constitutional Initiative For Against For
1— Maine 1851 Statutory Legislature
Maine 1884 Constitutional Submission 70,783 23,811 46,972
2—Kansas 1880 Constitutional Submission 92,302 84,304 7,998
3—North Dakota 1889 Constitutional Submission 18,552 £73393 1,159
4—Georgia 1907. Statutory Legislature
5s—Oklahoma 1907 Constitutional Const’l Conv. 130,361 Tih2.256 18,103
6—Mississippi 1908 Statutory Legislature
7—North Carolina 1908 Statutory Submission 113,612 69,416 44,196
8—Tennessee 1909 Statutory Legislature
o—West Virginia 1912 Constitutional Submission 164,945 72,603 92,342
1o— Virginia 1914 Statutory Enabling Act 94,251 63,886 30,365
r1—Oregon 1914 Constitutional Initiative 136,842 100,362 36,480
12—W ashington 1914 Statutory Initiative 189,840 171,208 18,632
13—Colorado 1914 Constitutional Initiative 129,589 118,017 11,572
14—Arizona 1914 Constitutional Initiative 25,887 22,743 3,144
15—Alabama 1915 Statutory Legislature
16—Arkansas 1915 Statutory Legislature
17—lowa 1915 Statutory Legislature
18—Idaho 1915 Statutory Legislature
Tdaho 1916 Constitutional Submission 90,576 25s450i) Be 720
to—South Carolina 1915 Statutory Submission 41,735 16,809 24,926
20—Montana 1916 Constitutional Submission 102,776 73,890 28,886
2I—South Dakota 1916 Constitutional Initiative 65,334 53,360 1,974
22—Michigan 1916 Constitutional Initiative 353,378 284,754 68,624
23—Nebraska 1916 Constitutional Initiative 146,574 Tes ata 2 One Ate
24—Indiana 1917 Statutory Legislature
25—Utah to17 Statutory Legislature
Utah 1918 Constitutional Submission 42,691 15,780 26,911
26—New Hampshire 1917 Statutory Legislature
27—New Mexico 1917 Constitutional Submission 28,732 32,147 || 16,585
28—Texas 1918 Statutory Legislature
Texas 1919 Constitutional Submission 150,723 140,099 19,624
29—Ohio 1918 Constitutional Initiative 463,054 437,895 25,750
30—W yoming 1918 Constitutional Submission 31,439 10,200 21,239
31—Florida 1918 Constitutional Submission 21,851 13,609 8,242
32—Nevada 1918 Statutory Initiative 13,248 9,060 4,188
33—Kentucky 1919 Constitutional Submission 208,905 198,671 10,234
Total ..... 2,837,580 2,274,863 662,717
Total prohibition majority twenty-five states .........ccccccceceee 662,717
More striking as evidences of prohibition sentiment have been
the second or subsequent votes in those states which have voted
upon the question more than once, the later vote having been taken
after the people had an opportunity to experience the benefits and
test the results of prohibition. Between 1916 and 1922 there
were six states which previously had adopted prohibition by a
popular vote which held a second referendum upon the question.
In five of the six states the question at issue was whether the law
should be modified to permit the return of beer or beer and wine.
In every case a much larger majority was given after prohibi-
tion had been tried than before. These six states in earlier elec-
tions when prohibition was adopted gave a total prohibition
majority of 164,211. But in the later votes they more than
quadrupled the dry majority, increasing it to 695,057.
436 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Tabulated, the votes were as follows:
Adopting Election Later Election
Pro. For Against Pro.
Year Majority Year Prohibition Prohibition Majority
PLEIZONA Wino) i IQI4 3,144 1916 28,473 17,379 11,094
Golorado.asdiwa IQI4 I1,572 NOLO) “163.1 34 77 3245 85,78
isreson | ieee 1914 36,480 IQI6 =: 140,599 85,973 54,626
Washington .. I914 18,632 I9I6 = 245,399 98,843 146,550
Michigan .... 1916 68,624 IQIQ 530,123 22,603 207,520
CHIO" Sam hare 1918 25,759 1922 908,522 719,050 189,472
164,211 2,016,250 1,321,193 695,057
Ificreased’ majorieyrover first” VOtets. 2 Pecks coe cele eee ee eee 530,846 3
The prohibition majority on the later votes was increased by
530,846 which, added to the majority of 662,717 by which state
prohibition was originally adopted makes the total later prohibi-
tion majority 1,193,563 in the twenty-five states where prohibi-
tion was originally adopted by a popular vote.
In addition to the twenty-five states which adopted state pro-
hibition as the result of popular votes there have been five other
states which have given popular majorities for prohibition. In
Arkansas, where the Legislature originally passed the prohibitory
law, the wets brought on a vote in 1916 to try to repeal it and
prohibition was upheld by a majority of 51,633. In Minnesota
in 1918 a proposed amendment to the state constitution was sub-
mitted and received a majority of the votes cast on the proposi-
tion of 15,959. But inasmuch as that state has a provision
requiring that to amend its constitution there must be a majority
of all the votes cast in the election for any office, the prohibition
amendment lacked 756 votes of the required constitutional ma-
jority, due to the fact that it is seldom that as many votes are
cast on a submitted proposition as there are for the candidates
for office.
In Missouri, in 1920, the wets brought on a referendum upon
a prohibition enforcement law and the prohibition law was sus-
tained by a majority of 61,299. I Jan. 20.1910,)-a3nte .03
C23 Fe Vermonty yey 2 Jan. 16, 1919, 26 to 3 Jan." 20, FoTO Tse tay .58
(44) New Laid a a Jan. 20, 1919, 27 to 24 Jan. 23, I919, 81 to 66
(45) Pennsylvania ..... Feb. 25, 1919, 290 to 16 Feb. A xLG190," TIO. to. “93
(49) New Jersey 2: )... Mar. 9, 1922, 12to 4 Mar. Fs 1Oeee we Ss, tO 724
Chapter X XIV
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925
During the movement for war prohibition in 1917 and 1918
the Prohibition party was in the forefront of activity in its
behalf, many Prohibitionists believing that from the standpoint
of patriotism no greater service, outside the battlefield itself,
could be performed than in overcoming the greatest enemy at
home. |
A summary by National Chairman Hinshaw in December,
1918, included the following among the activities of the Pro-
hibition National Committee that year:
Initiated and successfully carried out one of the most intensive,
effective and practical campaign programs ever undertaken in be-
half of Prohibition, including:
I. Secured endorsement of war prohibition by city councils,
boards of trade, chambers of commerce and other commercial
bodies.
2. Inaugurated a chain of telegrams to Congress from church,
women’s and many patriotic organizations demanding war _pro-
hibition.
3. Conducted a newspaper advertising campaign.
4. Reached labor unions and laboring men for war prohibition
through Unionist speakers.
5. Enlisted fraternal orders in Amendment fight.
6. Arranged auto tours and a series of public meetings during
recent fall campaigns.
7-_ Sent special state editions of the Prohibition national organ,
the Patriot Phalanx, into over one million homes in twelve states
where ratification or statewide campaigns were on.
8. Returned to Congress Charles H. Randall.
9. Actually “adjourned politics” and worked in every state with-
out regard to party to elect dry legislatures.
10. Worked hard for ratification.
11. Entered upon a campaign for worldwide Prohibition.
In addition Prohibitionists under the leadership of National
Chairman Hinshaw and Dr. Charles Scanlon of the Presbyterian
Temperance Board were largely instrumental in forming in 1918
452
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 453
the National Dry Federation in which the more advanced temper-
ance and prohibition organizations and church temperance boards
cooperated for the promotion of war prohibition and the rati-
fication of the Amendment. Its president was William Jennings
Bryan who addressed a number of the state legislatures and many
large public meetings in behalf of ratification,
In the war period the various temperance and prohibition
groups cooperated in forming the United Committee for War
Temperance Activities in the Army and Navy. This Committee
carried on a large educational prograin against drink among the
soldiers and sailors.
By means of lectures, literature, posters, slides and stereomotor-
graphs it presented to the soldiers and sailors the efficiency facts
regarding the use of intoxicants, furthered a sympathetic under-
standing of the reasons for the military regulations against drink,
and fortified them to meet the temptations of military life, warn-
ing them particularly of the dangers of wine.
After America had adopted constitutional prohibition it pre-
sented some of the economic and industrial facts underlying the
reasons for prohibition, counteracted propaganda against the >
Constitution and helped many to return to civil life better citizens,
proud of the fact that the United States had placed prohibition
in its Constitution.
The work of the United Committee was semi-official, having
been done with the approbation of the War Department.
Its chairman was Daniel A. Poling and its first executive secre-
tary was Harley H. Gill.
THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
In September, 1919, the Prohibition party celebrated its fiftieth
anniversary at a national gathering in Chicago near the site of
Farwell Hall, the Y.M.C.A, building, where it had been organized
in 1869.
At this gathering the predominant sentiment was that of con-
gratulation and jubilation that the fifty-year struggle had been
crowned by the ratification of the National Prohibition Amend-
ment which had been accomplished the preceding January.
Since early in its history the Prohibition party had been com-
mitted to a national prohibition constitutional amendment. It
had been a pioneer in the advocacy of constitutional prohibition.
1See Anti-Alcohol Activities Among American Soldiers and Sailors During
the War, Final Report of the United Committee, 1920, 28 pp.
454 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
The platforms of 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1908, and 1916 had
mentioned a constitutional amendment specifically. As no other
organization, the Prohibition party had been the loyal, faithful,
persistent, indefatigable, never-say-die champion of National Pro-
hibition which had now been established in the Constitution of
the United States.
The Prohibitionists had good reasons for congratulations on
their fiftieth anniversary. The Prohibition party had a record
of having been the longest-lived minority party in the history of
the country.
For fifty years it had been the perennial advocate of national
prohibition; for fifty years it had carried on the fight against
license and against every form of liquor perpetuation; for fifty
years it had stood against compromises of every kind; for fifty
years it had declared that law should uphold the right, prohibit
the wrong and reflect the best; for fifty years it had proclaimed
the gospel of national righteousness, that “righteousness exalteth
a nation’; for fifty years it had held aloft a great national ideal
and had maintained a vision of a greater and better nation; for
fifty years it had advocated a higher standard of politics and a
realignment through which the better elements of our citizenship
might prevail; for fifty years it had exalted conscience in politics,
had emphasized the citizen’s responsibility for the use of the
ballot; for fifty years it had taught that voting is a part of
conduct and that one’s ballot should express one’s convictions,
aspirations and desires with respect to public affairs; for fifty
years its members had gone to the polls every election day and
“thrown away” their votes for a great principle, “planted” them,
as John Russell used to say, in faith that they would spring forth,
grow and bring to fruition a nation redeemed from the crime and
curse of the legalized liquor traffic.
Now the liquor traffic was no longer licensed or legalized. It
was an outlaw and a criminal, a violator of the Constitution of
the nation. All the force of law, all the supreme authority of
organized society was arrayed against the arch enemy of the
race,
To have amended the Constitution and embedded in that instru-
ment the principle of prohibition was a tremendous achievement ;
an achievement of so great magnitude as to reflect plenteous credit
on all the various groups which had a part in bringing it about.
At the anniversary meeting, although the predominant spirit
was that of congratulation, there was a recognition that the work
was by no means finished, that the objectives of the Party were
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 455
still far from being reached. It was realized that prohibition had
not come by a method which would presage effective adminis-
tration. It was foreseen that enforcement entrusted to the old
parties would not work out satisfactorily.
The Prohibitionists realized as perhaps few others that the
non-partisan adoption of a constitutional amendment was by no
means the “final step” in the solution of the liquor problem as had
been asserted by some of the leaders of the Anti-Saloon League.
Obtaining the law was a step, and an important one, but it was
only a step. Ahead stretched the more difficult task—the admin-
istration of the law.
In the minds of the Prohibitionists a party in power committed
to prohibition as a party principle was essential to effective pro-
hibition. They had always purposed, as expressed in the plat-
form of 1888, that an amendment should be “enforced by ade-
quate laws adequately supported by administrative authority.”
Long experience had demonstrated the inadequacy of enacting
prohibitory laws, constitutional or statutory, without a party in
power to administer them. An amendment without a party sup-
porting it to vitalize it was like a locomotive without steam, like
an ax without a man to wield it.
Said Dr. Daniel A. Poling, in 1914:
It would be a monumental tragedy to achieve national prohibition
by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States without
capturing for the administration of that law the executive depart-
ment of the government.
Notwithstanding that the Prohibitionists recognized the inade-
quacy of a mere amendment most of them had joined earnestly
in the general movement for the Eighteenth Amendment and had
toiled hard in developing sentiment in its behalf. Some had
thought that the struggle to secure the Amendment would reach
such intensity that the foes of the liquor traffic would be com-
pelled to unite in a political army to rout the enemy. But asa
consequence of the Congressional situation created by the move-
ment for war prohibition and as a result of the exalted patriotic
fervor of the war period the Amendment was adopted sooner than
had been anticipated. There was no political union of the dry
forces. The preexisting partisan alignments continued. Parties
which had always sought the votes of two diverse elements, the
wets and the drys, and both of which were comprised of both
elements, remained in power.
Notwithstanding this many Prohibitionists hoped for the best.
456 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
It was naturally assumed by most people that after a measure
had been placed in the Constitution by such an overwhelming ma-
jority of the representatives of the people, after the sovereign
power of the nation had spoken, sheer respect for the Constitution
would cause acceptance of and committal to a principle of the
Constitution by all parties.
So general was this assumption that the leaders of several of
the temperance and prohibition organizations almost immediately
turned their attention to extending the principle of prohibition
around the world. Some of the party leaders organized the Pro-
hibition Foundation whose purpose was primarily to raise and
administer funds for world work somewhat similar to the Pro-
hibition Trust Fund Association which had been organized in
1890 to receive and administer gifts and bequests for prohibition
work in this country and which still continues to function.
Several of the leading workers were sent to foreign fields. Mr.
Chafin, and later Mr. Calderwood, was sent to Australia. Mr.
Hinshaw, Mr. Hohenthal and others went to Europe. Simi-
larly, other organizations became imbued with the missionary
spirit to bring about world prohibition.
But there was a rude awakening at home. Neither the liquor
element nor the wet politicians paid any more respect to the
Constitution of the United States than they did to a state con-
stitution or a statutory law which they wished to disregard.
Furthermore, after the law was violated it was only rarely that
adequate penalties were applied. It was found that an astonishing
proportion of wet men had been appointed to enforce dry laws.
Still worse, it was found that men in positions of high responsi-
bility relating to the administration of the law were men with
notoriously wet records. In short it was found that the govern-
ment was not functioning except to a very limited extent.
The remarkable victory achieved in placing prohibition in the
Constitution had been merely partial. Prohibition had won on
the constitutional law side of government, it had not yet won on
the politics side of government. It had not obtained control of
the agencies by which the Constitution is put into operation.
The people had wrought a revolution in placing prohibition
in the Constitution. But there had been no revolution in politics.
The old political régime continued. The existing dominant
parties were no more committed to an aggressive policy of en-
forcing the Eighteenth Amendment than they were to an aggres-
sive policy relating to that part of the Fourteenth Amendment
which relates to the reduction of representation in Congress. _
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 457
Prior to the national conventions of 1920 there was a wide-
spread movement to get both major parties to adopt planks com-
mitting those parties to the maintenance and enforcement of
prohibition. The Prohibition party showed its self-effacing in-
terest in getting each of the larger parties to adopt a dry plank
by spending thousands of dollars and sending out 252,000 letters
to leaders of organizations of all kinds asking them to bring
influence to bear upon the national conventions to adopt such
planks. It was estimated that groups representing constituencies
of more than 20,000,000 people requested platform declarations
in support of prohibition.
The Republican Committee on Resolutions voted against men-
tioning the subject in the platform, only three members voting
favorably. Finally the Kansas member agreed to sign a resolu-
tion in the form of a minority report but would not agree to
present it to the convention. He offered to give his proxy to the
Governor of Kansas or any other dry leader who would intro-
duce it and make the fight. The Governor of Kansas declined
on the ground it might hurt the chances of the man he was going
to nominate for President. No one else was found willing to
present the minority dry report and make the fight.
At the Democratic convention although a dry plank was cham-.
pioned by William Jennings Bryan no better result was achieved.
Thus the splendid effort to commit the major parties to the new
moral provision of the Constitution met with ignominious defeat.
The nominations were in harmony with the platforms. The
decidedly unsatisfactory record of the Republican nominee for
President was described in Chapter X XI.
On the Democratic side the candidate was regarded as so
associated with wet interests that there occurred one of the most
astounding situations in the history of presidential elections.
William Jennings Bryan, himself three times the Democratic
nominee for President, warned the country to prepare for the
impeachment of the incoming President for failure to enforce
the Constitution.
In this situation there was nothing for the Prohibition party
to do but to again raise aloft the standard and continue the fight
for prohibition in administration as well as in law.
THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF I920
The National Convention was held at Lincoln, Nebraska, July
21 and 22. Aaron S. Watkins was Temporary Chairman, and
458 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Miss Marie C. Brehm, of California, Permanent Chairman.
This was the first time that a woman was ever elected to that
position in any national political convention. In addition a
woman, Mrs. Ida B. Wise Smith, of Iowa, was elected Vice-
Chairman of the National Committee, the first time a woman was
ever thus honored. E. L. G. Hohenthal of Connecticut was
Secretary of the Convention, with Miss Minnette Murphy of
Iowa as assistant.
Striking platform planks included a condemnation of nullifica-
tion and a pertinent one relating to presidential qualifications.
THE PLATFORM OF 1920
The Prohibition party assembled in National Convention in the
city of Lincoln, Nebraska, on this twenty-second day of July, 1920,
expresses its thanks to Almighty God for the victory over the
beverage liquor traffic which crowns fifty years of consecrated ef-
fort. The principles which we have advocated throughout our
history have been so far recognized that the manufacture and traf-
fic in intoxicating drink have been forever prohibited in the fun-
damental law of the land; Congress has rightly interpreted the
Eighteenth Amendment in laws enacted for its enforcement; and
the Supreme Court has upheld both the Amendment and the law.
Asking that it be clothed with governmental power, the Prohibi-
tion party challenges the attention of the nation and requests the
votes of the people on this Declaration of Principles.
Nullification Condemned
The organized liquor traffic is engaged in a treasonable attempt
to nullify the Amendment by such modification of the Enforcement
Act as will increase the alcoholic content in beer and wine and thus
thwart the will of the people as constitutionally expressed.
In the face of this open threat the Republican and Democratic
parties refused to make platform declarations in favor of law en-
forcement, though petitioned so to do by multitudes of people. Thus
the Prohibition party remains the sole political champion of Na-
tional Prohibition.
The Prohibition party in its platform in 1872 declared: ‘There
can be no greater peril to the nation than the existing party com-
petition for the liquor vote; any party not openly opposed to the
traffic, experience shows, will engage in this competition, will court
the favor of the criminal classes, will barter away the public morals,
the purity of the ballot, and every object of good government for
party success.” Notwithstanding the liquor traffic is now out-
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 459
lawed by the Constitution this fitly describes the present political
attitude of the old parties. The issue is not only the enforcement
but also the maintenance of the law to make the Amendment ef-
fective.
The proposed increase in the alcoholic content of beverages would
be fraught with grave danger in that it would mean the return of
the open saloon with all its attendant evils.
The League of Nations
The League of Nations is now in existence and is functioning
in world affairs. We favor the entrance of the United States into
the League by the immediate ratification of the treaty of peace,
not objecting to reasonable reservations interpreting American
understanding of the covenant. The time is past when the United
States can hold aloof from the affairs of the world. Such a course
is short-sighted and only invites disaster.
Peace
We stand for a constitutional amendment providing that treaties
of peace shall be ratified by a majority of both Houses of Congress.
We stand by our declaration of 1916 against militarism and uni-
versal military training. Without it our boys were in a short
time trained to whip the greatest army ever assembled and with
national prohibition to make sure the most virile manhood in the
world we should encourage universal disarmament and devotion
to the arts of peace.
Education
We stand for compulsory education with instruction in the Eng-
lish language, which, if given in private or parochial schools must
be equivalent to that afforded by the public schools, and be under
state supervision.
Suffrage
The Prohibition party has long advocated the enfranchisement
of women. Suffrage should not be conditioned upon sex. We
congratulate the women upon the freedom which the Party has
helped them to achieve.
Woman and the Home
We approve and adopt the program of the National League of
Women Voters providing for:
460 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
The prohibition of child labor ;
Adequate appropriation for the Children’s Bureau ;
Protection for infant life through a Federal program for maternity
and infancy care;
A Federal department of education, Federal aid for the removal
of illiteracy and the increase of teachers’ salaries ;
Instruction of the youth and the newcomer to our shores in the
duties and ideals of citizenship.
Vocational training in home economics ;
Federal supervision of the marketing and distribution of food, the
enactment and enforcement of such measures as will open the
channels of trade, prevent excess profits, and eliminate unfair
competition and control of the necessities of life.
The establishment of a Woman’s Bureau in the Department of
Labor to determine standards and policies which will improve work-
ing conditions for women and increase their efficiency ;
The appointment of women in the mediation and conciliation serv-
ice and on any industrial commissions and tribunals which may be
created ;
The establishment of a ioint Federal and State employment service
with women’s departments under the direction of qualified women ;
The merit system in the civil service free from discrimination on
account of sex with a wage scale determined by skill demanded for
the work and in no wise below the cost of living as established by
official investigation ;
Appropriation to carry on a campaign against venereal diseases and
for public education in sex hygiene;
Federal legislation permitting an American born woman to retain
her citizenship while resident in the United States, though married
to an alien;
And further, that an alien woman who marries an American citizen
must take the obligation of citizenship before she can become a
citizen.
Economy in Administration
We believe in the budget system and we stand for economy in
governmental administration. There should be a reduction in
boards, committees, commissions and offices which consume taxes
and increase expenses.
Labor and Industry
We stand for Industrial Peace. We believe the time has come
for the government to assume responsibility for the protection of
the public against the waste and terror of industrial warfare, and
to that.end we demand legislation defining the rights of labor and
es ee ee ee
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 461
the creation of industrial courts, which will guarantee to labor and
employing capital equal and exact justice, and to the general public
protection against the paralysis of industry due to this warfare.
Profiteering
The Prohibition party pledges the nation to rid it of the profiteer
and to close the door against his return. It will endeavor to eli-
minate all unnecessary middlemen by the encouragement of or-
ganizations among producers that will bring those who sell and
those who use nearer together. It will enact and enforce laws
needful to effectively prevent excessive charges by such middlemen.
To this end it will demand legislation subjecting to the penalties of
the criminal law all corporate officers and employees who give
or carry out instructions that result in extortion; it will make it
unlawful for any one engaged in Interstate Commerce to make the
sale of one article dependent upon the purchase of another article
and it will require such corporation to disclose to customers the
difference between cost price and selling price or limit the profit
that can be legally charged as the rate of interest is now limited.
Agriculture
We pledge our aid to the farmer in working out a plan to equal-
ize prices, to secure labor, and to organize a system of cooperative
marketing, including public terminals, mills and storage for the
purpose of encouraging agriculture and securing for the farmer
such return as will tend to increased production.
We favor such extension of the parcel post as will further facili-
tate the direct traffic between the producer and consumer.
Presidential Qualifications
. The qualifications for President stated in the Constitution have
to do with age and citizenship. We call attention to the fact that
of greater importance are those not so stated referring to moral,
intellectual and spiritual endowments. The President of the United
States in his daily life, his home and family relationships and in
his official career, is expected to typify the finest and best the coun-
try can produce. He is the leader of the nation. The moral force
and power of his example are immeasurable. No man or woman
should ever be elected to the high office who is out of harmony
with the purposes of the people or who lacks sympathy with their
highest and holiest ideals, and with the Christian principles upon
which the nation was founded.
462 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Law and Order
A crying evil of the day is the general lax enforcement of law.
Without obedience to law and maintenance of order our American
institutions must perish.
The Prohibition party now, as ever, pledges impartial enforcement
of all law.
Conclusion
In this national and world crisis the Prohibition party reminds
the people of its long-time faithfulness and its wisdom, proved by
the many reforms which it was the first to advocate; and on its
record as the oldest minority party—one which has never sold its
birthright for a mess of pottage but throughout the years has stood
for the best interests of the country—it asks the favorable con-
sideration of the voters, believing that by its support they can make
it necessary for all political organizations to come up to a higher
level and to render a finer quality of service.
It pledges itself resolutely to stand for the right and oppose the
wrong and dauntlessly to lead in the advocacy of righteous and
patriotic principles. On its record and on this Declaration of Prin-
ciples it submits its case to the American people.
THE NOMINEES
For President. Aaron S. Watkins, of Ohio, was nominated.
He had been twice the candidate for Vice-President, in 1908 and
1912. A sketch of his life was given in the chapter covering
those campaigns. He had served the cause with such signal
ability through his platform work all over the country that his
nomination for President was regarded as a well merited
promotion.
For Vice-President. D. Leigh Colvin, of New York, was
nominated, The following is from a sketch published during
the campaign:
Born at South Charleston, Ohio, January 28, 1880. Few men
have had.an education so definitely directed towards national pub-
lic service as Dr. Colvin. His senior preparatory year was spent
at the American Temperance University, Harriman, Tennessee.
After having been graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University in
1900, he spent five years in postgraduate study in the three largest
universities in America, the University of California, the Univer-
sity of Chicago, and Columbia University. He received the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy from Columbia. His field of study was
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 463
all in those subjects relating to government, politics and the public
problems of our time. His studies included courses in political
science, economics, history, constitutional, international and ad-
ministrative law, sociology, statistics and political philosophy.
He served for sixteen years as National President of the Inter-
collegiate Prohibition Association which under his presidency be-
came by far the largest student organization of a civic character in
the history of the country.
No candidate of any party has a better knowledge of all parts
of our country than the Prohibition Vice-Presidential candidate.
For the greater part of the time for twenty years he has traveled
from Coast to Coast, having spoken in more than three hundred and
fifty colleges and universities, in many of them repeatedly. He
knows the spirit of America.
He is the author of The Bicameral Principle in the New York
Legislature, a study of actual government in the Legislature of
New York. He has also written several authoritative studies of the
prohibition question.
In his prohibition service Dr. Colvin has been not only at the
head of the college movement but he has been also Vice-President
of the National Temperance Council; Secretary of the Committee
of Sixty; Secretary of the National Legislative Conference, com-
posed of official representatives of all the important national tem-
perance and prohibition organizations; Treasurer of the United
Committee on War Temperance Activities in the Army and Navy;
Director of the World Prohibition Federation and of the Interna-
tional Reform Bureau. In 1916 he was Executive Secretary of
the Prohibition National Campaign Ccismittee. He has taken a
leading part in securing fuller cooperation among the various anti-
liquor organizations. He was Prohibition nominee for the United
States Senate from New York in 1916 and for Mayor of New York
yin LOL:
In 1918 he served as a Captain in the United States Army. In
1919 he visited about half of the universities of France, England,
Scotland and Belgium in the interest of world prohibition.
In the campaign both candidates made extensive speaking tours
reaching from Coast to Coast. Owing to the disintegration of
the party organization, the ticket was on the ballot in only twenty-
five states. Many people thought they had to vote for the less wet
of the two major party candidates in order to keep the wetter
one out of the Presidency.
Interesting features of the election were the splendid votes for
United States Senator received by two women, who were the
Prohibition candidates in their respective states. Mrs. Ella A.
464 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Boole in New York polled 159,477 votes, and Mrs. Leah Cobb
Marion in Pennsylvania polled 132,610.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1924
Because of the intolerable situation in relation to adminis-
tration, the very function preeminently stressed by the Prohibition
party throughout its history, the Prohibitionists, although badly
disorganized, determined they could not do otherwise than con-
tinue the battle for prohibition administration.
Only a few, however, as yet discerned the real situation and
those were largely the ones who were both grounded in the Pro-
hibition party philosophy and well posted on current events.
The convention of 1924 was held at Columbus, Ohio, where
the first nominating convention had been held fifty-two years
before. It was held June 5 and 6, before the conventions of
the other parties which many regarded as a mistake from a tactical
standpoint, although there was nothing which ‘transpired at the
other conventions to lessen the need of the Prohibition party.
Mr. H. P. Faris, of Missouri, was Chairman of the convention
and Mr. William F. Varney, of New York, Secretary.
There were a few present who were opposed to the party con-
tinuing, not because there was not, as their leading spokesman
said, great need of a party but because under the existing condi-
tions the Prohibition party was not able to perform the great work
of amalgamating the millions of voters who desired proper en-
forcement of law. However, most of those present, seeing no
prospect of any other party arising, went ahead and adopted a
platform and made nominations.
PLATFORM OF 1924
The Prohibition Party in National Convention at Columbus, Ohio,
this sixth day of June, 1924, recognizing Almighty God as the source
of all governmental authority and that the principles enunciated by
His Son, Jesus Christ, should guide in all matters pertaining to
government, makes the following declaration of principles:
Our Party and Its Philosophy
Four years of nullification of the Eighteenth Amendment by the
Democratic and Republican officials have demonstrated the sound-
ness of the philosophy of the Prohibition party that a law con-
ferring a right will enforce itself, but a law prohibiting a wrong,
financially and politically entrenched, requires a party thoroughly
committed to its maintenance and enforcement. Little or no im-
provement can be expected so long as the friends of the prohibitory
law divide themselves among political parties seeking the votes of
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 465
the law violators and the nullificationists, which votes are regarded
to be as necessary to the success of those political parties as are the
votes of the law-abiders.
The astounding revelations of corruption and maladministration
in government, extending to the Cabinet itself, are but the inevitable
consequences of the moral bankruptcy of a political party which,
perpetuating the old liquor régime, is dependent upon the wet vote
for its margin of plurality.
International Relations
The time is past when the United States can hold aloof from the
affairs of the World. We support the proposal for the entry of
this country into the Court of International Justice, as an important
step for substituting law for force in the settlement of international
disputes.
Labor, Capital and the General Public
While adhering to our time-honored position of demanding justice
for both Labor and Capital, we declare that the interests of the
general public are paramount to both. Therefore, we favor the
speedy enactment by Congress and the several state Legislatures,
each in its respective jurisdiction, of such legislation as shall im-
partially protect all three of these classes.
Agriculture
In the constantly increasing trend of population from the country
into the towns and cities, with the constant abandonment of the
farms, this country faces a grave peril. It is self-evident that the
farmer, with his investment in his lands, buildings, live-stock,
machinery, tools, and labor, ought to receive more than one-half of
the dollar paid by the consumer for the products of the farm, where
no process of manufacture intervenes. If given power, we will by
appropriate legislation endeavor to secure to the farmer his just
share of the proceeds of his toil.
Conservation
All natural resources, including mineral, oil, and timber lands,
water powers and other wealth still remaining to the United States
after the wasteful and profligate administration of corrupt old party
officials should be held perpetually and operated to produce revenue
for the use of the Government. They must not be ruthlessly
squandered by men or corporations for their own enrichment, nor
must they become the collateral of political parties for promissory
notes issued for value received.
Unjust Ballot Laws
We denounce the enactment by the Republican and Democratic
parties in many states of unjust and discriminatory election laws,
4.66 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
that make it almost, and in some states entirely impossible for minor
parties to retain their place on the official ballot, or for new parties
to be formed, and we demand their repeal.
The Bible in the Schools
The Bible is the Magna Charta of human liberty and national
safety and is of highest educational value. Therefore it should
have large place in our public schools.
Americanization of Aliens
Recognizing the fact that there are large numbers of unassimilated
aliens now in this country who, in their present condition and en-
vironment, are incapable of assimilation, and are therefore a menace
to our institutions, we declare for an immediate, scientific investi-
gation, looking forward to a constructive program for American-
izing these aliens.
Separation of Departments of Government
We deplore the prevailing disregard by the parties in power of
the Constitutional division of governmental powers into Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial branches, and when placed in authority we
pledge strict observance of such division.
Woman and the Home
We approve and adopt the program of the National League of
Women Voters for public welfare in government in so far as a
strict regard for the division of powers under our dual form of
government will permit.
Civil Service
We favor the extension of the merit system to all the agencies
of the Executive branch of our government.
Free Institutions
We favor freedom of speech, a free press, our free public school
system, and compulsory attendance in our public schools. We are
unalterably opposed to public monies being used for sectarian pur-
poses. We favor keeping open to public inspection all places where
public wards are cared for.
Conclusion
On this record of principles, and on its record of long-time faith-
fulness and vision, proved by the many reforms which it was the
first to advocate, the National Prohibition Party summons all those
who favor suppression of the liquor traffic, the enforcement of
law, the maintenance of constitutional government, the purification
of our politics, honesty and efficiency in administration, and the
building of a better citizenship, to join with us in a new alignment
in a political party to achieve these transcendent objectives.
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 467
THE NOMINEES
For President. Herman P. Faris, of Missouri, was nominated
for President. He was a man with a long record of devoted
service to the cause of prohibition. He had been three times can-
didate for Governor of Missouri and for twenty-four years had
been a member of the Prohibition National Committee, having
served twelve as its Treasurer. He was an indefatigable and
aggressive worker for prohibition. In 1916 almost single-handed
he inaugurated a prohibition campaign in Missouri even against
the opposition of more conservative organizations. The state
outside of St. Louis rolled up a majority for prohibition, Kan-
sas City voting for prohibition. He had spoken for prohibition
in many states. Mr. Faris was a well-known banker and an
active layman in the Presbyterian church, having been several
times a commissioner to the General Assembly of that church.
In his address as temporary chairman of the convention he
emphasized putting religion into politics.
For Vice-President. For the first time in the history of the
regular political parties a woman was nominated on the national
ticket. Miss Marie C. Brehm, of California, was nominated for
Vice-President. She, like Mr. Faris, had given a lifetime of
service to the prohibition cause. Both Mr. Faris and Miss Brehm
had been born in Ohio, As a young woman Miss Brehm be-
came identified with the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.
Miss Willard made her national superintendent of the Franchise
Department of the national Woman’s Christian Temperance
Union. She served as state president of the Equal Suffrage
Association of Illinois and for some years as state president of
the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of that state. She
was twice appointed by the President as a representative of the
United States at the International Anti-Alcohol Congresses held
in Europe.
She possessed very superior intellectual endowment. She was
a woman of dignity, ability and an exceptionally able parlia-
mentarian. She would have made a very distinguished presid-
ing officer of the United States Senate.
At the meeting of the National Committee Dr. B. E. P. Prugh,
of Pennsylvania, was chosen National Chairman. For some
years he had been State Chairman in Pennsylvania.
During the campaign the candidates spoke in a number of the
states but owing to the disorganized condition of the Party and
468 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
the difficulties in many states in getting on the ballot, the ticket
was on the ballot in only fifteen states.
A meeting of the National Committee was held in Washington,
D. C., in December, 1924. The situation regarding both the
enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment and the condition of
the party was considered and it was agreed that the Prohibition
party should continue to carry on its work.
Another meeting of the Prohibition National Committee was
held in December, 1925. By that time the unsatisfactory char-
acter of prohibition enforcement and the political reasons therefor
had become still more evident. There was an increasing convic-
tion that the objectives of the Great Reform would not be ac-
complished until there should be a political party in power com-
mitted to prohibition as a matter of principle. The old political
parties permeated through and through with subserviency to
liquor politics had demonstrated themselves unworthy and in-
capable of effectuating the Reform. There was felt to be an
overwhelming need for a new politics inspired by high moral
ideals, a new politics which should exalt righteousness in govern-
ment, a new politics with vision and capacity commensurate with
the possibilities of the new age.’
After fifty-six years of history the Prohibition party faced
anew its unfinished task, its greater objectives ahead. At the
fiftieth anniversary in I919, soon after the ratification of the
Eighteenth Amendment the Prohibitionists looked to the past.
In 1926 they look to the future.®
2 At this meeting D. Leigh Colvin was elected Chairman of the Prohibition
sae Committee. Headquarters were moved to 150 Fifth Avenue, New York
ity.
3In writing this book it was planned until the last to have a chapter sum-
marizing the Prohibition party’s remarkable record of statesmanship upon the
other governmental problems confronting the nation. A party which has the
record of having been the first party to advocate each of the last four amend-
ments to the Constitution and which had enunciated such sound and constructive
policies relating to world peace, labor and many other questions deserves to
have it more widely appreciated. But as the book had so lengthened it was
decided to confine the special chapters to the various aspects of prohibition. The
platforms, which have all been given in full, speak for themselves.
The author prepared an extended chapter on “The Personalities of the Party”
which included tributes to many individuals and groups who through the years
performed loyal service to the Party. But after mentioning or listing about 2,500
prominent Prohibitionists, the space permitted compared with their deserts was so
inadequate, and the mere listing without telling more of their service was so un-
satisfactory without expanding an already large book into another volume, that the
publication was given up. This accounts for some omissions in this book which
had been planned to include a fuller recognition of the orators, editors, political
philosophers, book writers, prominent contributors, organizers, field workers, state
and county chairmen and the many consecrated, faithful workers of the rank and
file who labored and sacrificed to make a better country.
In the Appendix are included the names of the official leaders of the Prohibition
party, including every candidate for Governor in every state from 1869 to 1925,
the members of the Prohibition National Committee, and the State Chairmen.
ee
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 469
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY—I920-1925
General.
Vitson, Harotp D.—Dry Laws and Wet Politicians, 1922,
108 pp.
SHAW, Etton R.—Prohibition Going or Coming, 1924, 493 pp.
Tirton, EvizaperH—Save America, 1923, 128 pp.
Miner, Duncan C.—Lincoln and Liquor, 1920, 155 pp.
Wuite, Cuartes T.—Lincoln and Prohibition, 1921, 233 pp.
Mires, WALTER R.—Alcohol and Human Efficiency, 1924, 298
pp:
Carver, THomas Nixon—The Greatest Social Experiment in
Modern Times, These Eventful Years (Cyclopedia Bri-
tannica), Vol. 2, pp. 583-600, 1924.
Watnut, T. HENry—Editor, Prohibition and Its Enforcement,
1923, 325 pp. American Academy of Political and Social
Science.
Haynes, Roy A.—Prohibition Inside Out, 1923, 308 pp.
SMITH, Frep B.—Editor, Law vs. Lawlessness, 1924, 186 pp.
FarRNuM, Pror. Henry W.—Confessions of a Prohibitionist,
10229 22: pp
Woopsury, NatHan F.—Prohibition in Maine, 1920, 30 pp.
BeMAN, Lemar T.—Prohibition: Modification of the Volstead
Law, 1924, 388 pp. Debater’s Handbook Series, Briefs
and reading material for and against.
CHALFANT, Harry M.—Father Penn and John Barleycorn,
1920, 291 pp.
Results of Prohibition.
The Prohibition Question viewed from the Economic and Moral
Standpoint, Manufacturers’ Record, 1922, 84 pp., 4 vo.
Pickett, DEets—How Prohibition Works in American Cities,
O21. Ol pap)... VO;
WILSON, CLARENCE TRUE, AND PicKETT, DEETtTs—The Case for
Prohibition, Its Past, Present Accomplishments, and Fu-
ture in America, 1923, 274 pp.
Witson, Puitre W.—After Two Years—A Study of Ameri-
can Prohibition (British Viewpoint), 1922, 115 pp.
Gorpon, C. M., anp Girrorp—Three Thousand Miles of Pro-
hibition (Australian Viewpoint), 1923, 295 pp.
Gorpon, GirForp—Hold Fast America, 1922, 16 pp.
STODDARD, Cora FRANcES—Prohibition in Massachusetts, 1922.
STODDARD, CorA FRANcES—Wet and Dry Years in a Decade of
Massachusetts Records, 1922, 54 pp.
470 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
STODDARD, CorA FRANCES, AND CORRADINI, R. E.—New York
City under Prohibition: I. Drunkenness and Public Or-
der; II. Prohibition and Public Health, 1923, 16 pp. and
8 pp., 4 vo.
CorrADINI, R. E.—The Record of One Hundred American
Cities, 1923, 80 pp., 4 vo.
The Passing of the Saloons in New York City, 1923, 16
Pp.» 4 VO.
The Bowery under Prohibition, 1923, 24 pp., 4 vo.
Broadway under Prohibition, 1924, 24 pp., 4 vo.
—A Ten Year Record of Arrests for all Causes and Arrests
for Intoxication in the Principal Cities of the United
States of America, 1924, 16 pp., 4 vo.
Saloon Survey of New York City, 1925, 32 pp., 4 vo.
PoLtock, Dr. Horatio M., and Forsusu, Epirn M.—De-
cline of Alcohol and Drugs as Causes of Mental Diseases,
1921. Mental Hygiene, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 123-129. Also,
Alcoholic Psychoses Before and After Prohibition.
GEMMILL, JuDGE WILLIAM N.—Results of National Prohibition
in Chicago, 1923. Pamphlet.
Jones, WesLey L.—Results of National Prohibition, Speech
in U. S. Senate, Congressional Record, November 13,
1921.
Cramton, Hon. Louis G.—Results of Three Years of Na-
tional Prohibition; Congressional Record, February 24,
1922.
Survey of the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic and the Enforcement of
the Eighteenth Amendment, Report of Subcommittee on
Alcoholic Liquor Traffic, House of Representatives, 68th
Congress, Second Session, 1925, 14 pp.
WHEELER, WayNE B.—Facing the Facts of Prohibition, Cur-
rent Fistory Magazine, May, 1922.
WILson, SAMUEL—Answered 77 Questions and Quibbles Re-
garding National Prohibition, 1922, 26 pp.
Current issues of The Union Signal, the national organ of the
W. C. T. U., frequently contain many facts about the
benefits of Prohibition.
Beer and Wine.
MacDonatp, A. B.—Whirlpools of Beer, Ladies’ Home Jour-
nal, November, 1923.
Can We Trust the Brewers?, Ladies’ Home Journal.
STODDARD, CorA FrRANcEs—Massachusetts’ Experience with
Exempting Beer from Prohibition, 1921.
5
THE PROHIBITION PARTY, 1917-1925 471
Vorsteap, Hon. A, J.—Light Wines and Beer and Prohibition
Enforcement, Address reprinted from the Congressional
Record, May 4, 1922, 16 pp.
Witson, SAmuEL—Beer, Is It Intoxicating Liquor? 1923, 20 pp.
The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommit-
tee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, Sixty-ninth Congress, First Session, 1926. 2 vols.
1660 pp.
Chapter X XV
NATIONAL PROHIBITION AND ITS ADMINISTRATION
1920-1925
The purpose of this chapter is to present an authoritative but
condensed summary of the results of National Prohibition in its
early years, together with an analysis of the adverse governmental
and political conditions underlying its administration which have
obstructed its more perfect operation.
National prohibition did not come suddenly. In addition to
the generations of agitation, education and legislation, the later
stages immediately preceding its adoption gave ample notice of
its approach. Before the United States entered the World War
in April, 1917, twenty-six of the forty-eight states, two more
than half, had adopted state prohibition. A twenty-seventh was
added before the proposed Eighteenth Amendment was submitted
in December, 1917, and by the time it went into operation in
January, 1920, thirty-three states had adopted state prohibition.*
The federal war restrictions began to be adopted in May, 1917.
The chief war measures were as follows:
1. The Selective Draft Act of May, 1917, forbade the sale of
liquor to any officer or member of the military forces in uniform.
Later the regulations also forbade the giving or serving of liquors
to soldiers in uniform. Dry zones were established around camps
and training stations. By the close of hostilities in November,
1918, there were more than five million men in the military
forces under the operation of prohibitory regulations.
2. In the Food Control Act which became law, August Io,
1917, Congress prohibited the use of foods, fruits, food materials
and feeds in the production of distilled spirits for beverage pur-
poses to go into effect in thirty days. The distilleries were com-
pelled to shut down by September 10, 1917. This act also
authorized the President to regulate or prohibit the production
of malt or vinous liquors.
Bp aa a fuller discussion of the progress of state prohibition, see infra, Chapter
XXIII.
472
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 473
3. On December 8, 1917, President Wilson issued a proclama-
tion prohibiting after January I, 1918, the production of malt
liquor containing more than 2.75 per cent of alcohol, except ale
and porter. He also reduced by 30 per cent the amount of food
materials which could be used in the production of malt liquor.
4. On September 16, 1918, the President issued a proclama-
tion prohibiting after December 1, 1918, the production of malt
liquors for beverage purposes including near-beer, whether or not
such liquors contained alcohol, on account of the fuel necessities
of the war industries. On October 1, 1918, the Food Adminis-
tration prohibited the use of grain for making beer. These
executive restrictions and prohibitions were relaxed, however,
soon after the Armistice.
5. The War Prohibition provisions of the Agricultural Ap-
propriation Bill passed Congress in August, 1917, but the bill as
a whole became a law on November 21, 1918. It provided for
the prohibition of the production of malt and vinous liquors after
May 1, 1919, and for the prohibition of the sale of all liquors
after June 30, 1919, until the conclusion of the war and the ter-
mination of demobilization. Under war prohibition the saloons
were illegal after June 30, 1919.
6. The Volstead Act to enforce war prohibition, and also con-
stitutional prohibition when it should become operative, was
repassed over the President’s veto, October 28, 1919.
7. The Eighteenth Amendment went into effect on January
16, 1920, one year after its ratification by the thirty-sixth state.
The going into effect of the Eighteenth Amendment was thus
the culmination of a succession of widely known prohibitions
which helped to prepare the people for the notable day, January
16, 1920, when the death of John Barleycorn was celebrated in
many parts of the country. The stopping of the manufacture of
malt and vinous liquors on May 1, 1919, had shut off from the
saloons their supply of beer, the beverage which had comprised
more than nine-tenths of all intoxicants sold.
Notwithstanding false and persistent wet propaganda that pro-
hibition had been “put across” in some unaccountable manner
the people generally were well prepared for it, with the possible
exception of some urban centers on the Eastern seaboard.
The great majority of citizens assumed that prohibition had
become the established policy of the nation. Of those who had
been opposed to it a large proportion acquiesced in its observance.
One popular magazine after making a survey estimated that the
47 4 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
number of drinkers had been reduced from 20,000,000 to
2,500,000,”
The liquor interests had made dire prophecies of rebellion.
They claimed that the laboring men would rally to the wet slogan,
“No beer no work,” and lay down their tools, but the aggressive
propaganda carried on to this end fell flat. They fought prohibi-
tion in the courts and employed high priced lawyers, including
Elihu Root, but they were defeated in every case and at every
point. They carried on a propaganda trying to discredit prohibi-
tion by asserting that it had been “put across” contrary to the
wishes of the soldiers and by a minority. But at the elections
held after the soldiers returned from the army greater majorities
were given for prohibition than before.
The first year of national constitutional prohibition brought
such a widespread compliance with the law that the results pro-
duced were so decisive and the benefits were so extraordinary that
they may be described as almost miraculous.
Some of the results are summarized in the next few pages.
The aim has been to assemble in a condensed form the results
of the most authoritative investigations which have been made
and to present in broad outline some of the benefits which have
accrued. Where statistics are available the aim has been to com-
pare those for the period preceding 1917, when the war restric-
tions began, with the first year of national prohibition, 1920.
RESULTS OF PROHIBITION
I. Social.
A, Arrests for drunkenness. The arrests for drunkenness in
fifty leading cities, the statistics of which were collected by Judge
Gemmill of the Municipal Court of Chicago, fell from 302,074
in 1917 to 110,149 in 1920, a decrease of O2 DET ACen be
A study made by Mr. Robert E. Corradini shows that, in 185
cities from which complete statistics were obtained, the average
annual number of arrests for intoxication per thousand of popu-
lation in the four years preceding 1917, IQ13 to 1916, was 23.4,
and that the number in 1920 fell to 8.7, a reduction of 62 per
cent. ;
Even in the statistics gathered and promulgated by the wets it
was revealed that in 349 cities, for each 100 arrests for drunken-
ness in 1914 there were only 37 1n 1920 in proportion to popu-
2 Cosmopolitan Magazine, December, 1921; article by William G. Shepherd,
8 The New York Times, June 3, 1923.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 AN5
lation, a decrease of 63 per cent. Arrests for drunkenness were
at their maximum in 1916 from which their fall by 1920 was
over 64 per cent.*
In a later assembling of data covering statistics from 626 cities,
from 1917 to 1924, the index number of arrests for drunkenness
fell from 116.1 in 1917, the first year in which statistics from
this number of cities are available, to 41.3 in 1920. In other
words, the proportion of arrests for drunkenness in all these 626
cities was less than 36 per cent as great in 1920 as in I9QI7.
These figures were presented at the hearings before the Sub-
committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, April, 1926, page 1470.
It should be said that the number of arrests for drunkenness
is by no means an accurate measure of the actual amount of
drunkenness, in many sections not even a close approximation.
The arrests for drunkenness reflect primarily the attitude of the
police administration, and the attitude of the police administration
may be affected by several factors, such as the changing moral
standards of the community, political influence, the desire to make
a record, or the desire to influence public policy.
It is generally recognized that as a general rule a much larger
proportion of the people actually intoxicated are arrested under
prohibition than under license. Under prohibition intoxication
is an indication that the law has been violated and it is natural
that the instances of drunkenness should be brought more con-
spicuously to public attention than was the case when the saloon
was recognized as a part of the current social order.
Prohibition having set up a higher standard relating to liquor,
having made a traffic unlawful which was formerly lawful, the
natural effect would be that this higher standard would be re-
flected by the police. This, combined with the public attention
being directed to intoxication, would normally cause the police
to arrest a larger proportion of those who are intoxicated than
was the case under license. Under license drunkenness was the
common result of the system and unless it was accompanied by
disorderly conduct or flagrant breaking of the peace it was seldom
that arrests were made.
A more than 64 per cent decline in the arrests for drunkenness
the first full year of prohibition, remarkable as that decline was,
does not, therefore, reveal in full degree the contrast between
the license and the prohibition periods.
4 Report of Moderation League, 1925—supplemented by article in New York
Times, December 3, 1925, correlating arrests for drunkenness with growth of
population, giving index numbers.
476 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
B. Prison Population. Judge Gemmill collected the prison
statistics from a number of the leading states and he did not find
a single state or a single prison where there was not a marked
decrease in the prison population in 1919 and 1920. In Massa-
chusetts the prisoners in all prisons in 1915 numbered 6,663; in
1920, 2,352.
In the Chicago Bridewell the prison population, January 1,
1917, was 1,818; on January I, 1920, after six months of national
war prohibition, it was 717.°
In New York State the prison population decreased from 5,486
in 1916 to 3,879 in 1920. The prison population in 1923 in-
creased over 1920. But the United States census report shows
that the penal population of the country dropped from 121.2 per
100,000 in 1910 to 99.7 per 100,000 in 1923, a remarkable de-
crease notwithstanding that prohibition had made the traffic in
liquor a new crime, thereby adding to the prison population those
violators of the prohibition law who received jail sentences.
C. Commitments to Prison. In Indiana the average annual
number of commitments to jails and to penal and correctional
institutions in the years 1913-1916 was 42,128. In 1920 the
number was 17,182, a decrease of 59 per cent.®
In Washington, D. C., the average number of commitments
to the workhouse in the years 1914-1916 was 6,506. In 1920
there were 883, only slightly more than one-eighth as many."
In New York State the Annual Report of the State Commis-
sion of Prisons for the year 1920 shows that the commitments
to prisons, reformatories, penitentiaries, county jails and penal
institutions fell from an average of 113,582 in 1913-1915 to
59,033 in 1920, a decrease of 48 per cent. The Report attributed
the reduction in prison population to the curtailment of the
liquor traffic and to the opportunities for employment at high
wages. The maintenance of high wages, as will be shown, was
attributable largely to prohibition.
In Connecticut the penal and reform commitments fell from
1,166 per 100,000 in 1916 to 378 in 1920, a decrease of 67 per
cent. County jail commitments fell from 1,105 per 100,000 in
1916 to 322 in 1920, a decrease of 70 per cent.®
Prohibition was indeed providing a vital personal liberty to
5 Hon. Louis C. Cramton, Congressional Record, February 14, 1923, speech on
“Three Years of National Prohibition.”
6 E, S. Shumaker, Indiana Wet and Dry.
7 Senator Wesley L. Jones, Congressional Record, November 15, 1921; speech
on “‘Results of Prohibition.”
8T, Justin Steuart, $100,000,000°' Saved Connecticut in Three Dry Years
(pamphlet).
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 ATT
the thousands who otherwise would have been incarcerated—de-
prived of all liberty.
D. Decrease in Crime. There was a decided: decrease in the
more serious crimes following the going into effect of prohibi-
tion. In New York City offenses against the person decreased
from 15,147 in 1916 to 9,862 in 1920. Offenses against chastity
decreased from 5,594 in 1916 to 3,610 in 1920. Offenses against
family and children fell from 5,948 in I916 to 3,869 in 1920.9
In 1925 the Police Commissioner of New York City reported
that serious crimes of violence such as murder, felonious assault,.
assault and robbery, and burglary had decreased from 1 3,143 in
1917 to 8,548 in 1924.
In Massachusetts the average annual number of arrests for all
causes in the years 1913-1916 was 177,153, with the number
steadily increasing. In 1920 the number of arrests for all causes
was 115,626, a decrease of 61,527, or nearly 35 per cent. Be-
tween 1917 and 1920 the decrease was over 40 per cent,??
In Chicago, the felonies, misdemeanors and quasi-criminal
cases filed in the Municipal Court diminished from 129,817 in
1918 to 109,899 in 1920. The cases in the Morals Court fell
from 7,745 in 1918 to 4,844 in 1920, a decrease of 37 per cent.
In Connecticut commercialized sex offenses fell from 2 7ee
100,000 population in 1916 to 7 in 1920, a decrease of 74 per
cebhd?
E. Offenses of Women and Children. In Massachusetts the
average number of women annually arrested for drunkenness in
the years 1913-1916 was 7,488, with the number increasing. In
1920 the number of women arrested for drunkenness was 1 868.
The number saved from arrest by prohibition was 5,020, or over
75 per cent.%®
The number of women in all penal institutions in Massachu-
setts fell from an average of 762 at the close of the institutional
years 1913-1916 to 269 in 1920, a decrease of 64 per cent.**
The arrests in Boston of youths under fifteen years fell from
an average in the period 1913-1916 of 2,386 to 1,828 in 1920, a
decrease of 23 per cent. Arrests of minors for drunkenness fell
9New York City Under Prohibition; data compiled for the Committee on
Prohibition Studies appointed by The National Temperance Council, edited by
Miss Cora Frances Stoddard and Mr. Robert E. Corradini.
10 Cora F. Stoddard, Wet and Dry Years in a Decade of Massachusetts Public
Records, p. 13.
11 Clarence True Wilson and Deets Pickett, The Case for Prohibition, p. 1209.
12 Steuart, op. cit., p. ro.
13 Miss Stoddard, op. cit., p. 14.
14 Ibid., p. 16.
478 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
from an average of 644 in those years to 326 in 1920, nearly
one-half.*°
It should be said that the best social statistics available are
those in Massachusetts and an excellent study of them has been
made by Miss Cora Frances Stoddard, the results of which were
published in a 54-page book, Wet and Dry Years in a Decade
of Massachusetts Public Records. ‘This is the best study thus
far made from official records. Massachusetts however does not
afford as good an example of the benefits of prohibition as many
other states, as not until late in 1924 did that state have even a
moderately satisfactory state enforcement law to provide for
the cooperation of the state officials in the enforcement of the
Eighteenth Amendment.
In Chicago the cases of juvenile delinquency for the three years
1917-1919 averaged 3,148 and in the three years 1920-1922 they
averaged 2,294. In the years preceding national prohibition the
number of cases of juvenile delinquency had been going up each
year. Beginning with 1920 the number went down each year.
In the first three years of prohibition 2,563 less children were
delinquent in Chicago than in the three years before prohibition.*®
In New York City the cases of juvenile delinquency decreased
from an average of 977.09 per 100,000 population, ages 7 to 15
years, in the five-year period 1910-1914 inclusive, to 646.25 in
1920 and decreased further to an average of only 547.21 in the
five-year period 1920-1924. In other words, the statistics demon-
strate the striking fact that the number of cases of juvenile
delinquency in New York City in the first five-year period under
prohibition was only 56 per cent as great as in the corresponding
period a decade earlier, 1910-1914.
PF, Alcoholic Cases. In Bellevue Hospital, New York, the
alcoholic cases fell from 10,691 in I9g10 to 2,001 in 1920, a
, decrease of 81 per cent. Compared with the total number of
cases treated the alcoholic cases fell from 31.9 per cent in 1910
to 5.8 per cent in 1920.
In the Washingtonian Home in Chicago, an institution for the
care of drunkards, in the years 1910-1919 the average number of
cases treated was 921, of which 56 per cent had delirium tremens.
In 1920 the number of cases of all kinds was only 125, of which
only three had delirium tremens. Out of about 240 institutions
for the care of inebriates which had treated hundreds of thou-
sands of patients, nearly all were closed. There had been 68
15 Miss Stoddard, op. cit., p. 19. .
16 Judge William N. Gemmill, Prohibition in Chicago.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 479
Neal Institutes which in the last twelve years before prohibition
had treated 125,000 patients. After two years of prohibition
they were all closed. There had been fifty Keeley institutes, some
of them very large. Nearly all went out of business.
G. Deaths from Alcoholism. This is a field where the statistics
are by no means an accurate register, due especially to the long
existing disinclination to report a death as due to alcoholism if
there was any other attributable reason. It is probable that
under prohibition a much larger percentage of the deaths actually
due to alcoholism are so reported due to the fact that the extra
poisonous character of the illicit liquors, which some persist in
drinking, produces sudden death, the reason for which is evident
and unescapable. But taking the figures as given in official
statistics, the deaths from alcoholism in the registration area of
the United States, comprising about 82 per cent of the total
population of the country, were reduced in 1920 to less than one-
fifth, in proportion to population, of what they averaged in the
five-year period ending in 1916. The rate fell from an average
of 5.2 per 100,000 in those years to 1.0 in 1920.
In nineteen large cities, each over 300,000 population, the
reported deaths from alcoholism fell from a total of 1,954 in.
IQ16 to 321 in 1920, a decrease of 83 per cent.
In New York City the deaths from alcoholism fell from 687
in 1916 to 98 in 1920.
Among the millions of industrial policyholders of the Metro-
politan Life Insurance Company the alcoholism death rate fell
from a rate per 100,000 policyholders of an average of 4.9 in
the five years ending in 1916 to .6 in 1920.27
H. Decline in General Death Rate. There was a decided de-
cline in the general death rate. It declined from an average of
13.84 in the five-year period, 1912-1916, to 12.12 in the five-year
period, 1920-1924, a reduction of nearly one-eighth. Based upon
the present population, the decline in the death rate means over
192,000 less deaths per year than in the pre-prohibition period.
The decline was not due entirely to prohibition but a large
share should be so attributed.
The steady decline in the death rate from tuberculosis was
notable, it having fallen 36 per cent from the period 1912-1916
to 1923. Among the reasons were better home conditions and
better nutrition made possible through the economic benefits of
prohibition, as well as the diminished consumption of alcohol.
17 Cora F, Stoddard, “Alcoholism Mortality in Large American Cities” in Scien-
tific Temperance Journal, Spring, 1924,
480 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
There were also large decreases in the death rate from other
diseases in which alcohol had been a factor due to its depression
of vitality and its breaking of protective barriers.*®
I, Alcoholic Insamty. Alcoholic insanity cases admitted to
the New York State hospitals decreased from an average of 5.4
~ per 100,000 population in the eight-year period ending 1916, and
5.6 in 1916, to 1.2 per 100,000 in 1920."°
In Massachusetts the first admissions to insane hospitals fell
from the average of 313 for the five years ending 1916 to 102
in 1920.”°
In Massachusetts in 1917 of all the first admissions to the
insane hospitals 27.67 per cent were known to be of intemperate
habits. In 1920 only 10.57 per cent.
J. Decrease in Pauperism. Throughout the country there was
a decided decrease in pauperism and poverty. In Boston the
admissions to almshouses which during the five years preceding
1917 averaged 3,836, fell to 1,261 in 1920, a decrease of 67 per
Cent
In Chicago the number of the inmates of the Oak Forest In-
firmary, or poorhouse, fell from 8,904 in 1916 to 6,283 in 1920.
In New York the daily average of lodgers in the Municipal
Lodging House for the years 1914-1916 was 661, in 1920 it
was 70.
Most of the statistics thus far given are from the large centers
of population where the saloon was the most deeply entrenched,
where alcohol had debauched the people the worst and where
naturally it would be the most difficult to reform conditions and
achieve a full degree of the social benefits of prohibition.
Only a minute fraction of the benefits of prohibition can be
measured by the statistics relating to such subjects as arrests for
drunkenness, crime, insanity and pauperism above recorded. Not-
withstanding the very remarkable statistical facts above given of
the results of national prohibition in its first year, by far greater
benefits were experienced by the vast multitudes of people who
are never included in such statistics.
KK. Removal of the Saloon. Prohibition to a very large degree
removed the temptation of the open saloon with its ubiquitous
invitation to drink. Before prohibition, in 1916, there were
18 Dr. Howard A. Kelly, “Health and Morals Under Prohibition” in Health,
February, 1924, republished in Congressional Record of December 20, 1924,
under ‘‘Extension of Remarks” of Hon. William D. Upshaw.
yi Dr. Horatio M. Pollock, Alcoholic Psychosis Before and After Prohibition,
toa
20 Cora Frances Stoddard, Wet and Dry Years in a Decade of Massachusetts
Public Records, p. 55.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 481
184,718 retail liquor selling places holding federal internal reve-
nue receipts, most of which were saloons. Allowing twenty-five
feet front, these would extend in unbroken line side by side
farther than from New York to Chicago. Nearly every one was
a center of degraded sociability, debauchery, degeneracy and law-
lessness. It is significant that even the most aggressive wet
propagandists have nothing good to say of the saloon. They
‘admit that the saloon was bad and they profess they do not
wish it to return. Prohibition closed most of the saloons and
outlawed the rest. Those saloons which continued illicitly sold
only a fraction of the liquor they formerly sold.
2. Economic.
Prohibition has wrought an economic revolution, the most sig-
nificant and far-reaching since the industrial revolution of over
a century ago.
A. Diversion of Drink Expenditure. Despite the fact of very
imperfect enforcement, prohibition has diverted the expenditure
of approximately two billion dollars a year from a wasteful and
injurious traffic to industries which are useful and beneficial. In
fact it undoubtedly diverted more because the nearly two and a
half billion dollars which were wasted annually before the war
would have greatly increased if it had not been for prohibition.
If the drink bill had increased in the eleven years from 1914 to
1925 in the same proportion as it did in the eleven-year period
preceding 1914, before the progress of prohibition had checked
the liquor consumption, by 1925 the drink bill would have
amounted to about three and a quarter billions, not taking into
account the post-war moral reactions and the general rise in the
scale of prices. The latter would have increased this amount
about 60 per cent, or to over five billions.
Furthermore, the liquor industry was a parasitic industry which
employed only a relatively small amount of labor in the manu-
facture of its product, compared to other industries, and required
only a relatively small amount of raw materials. According to
a study based on the statistics of the census of 1910, the manu-
facture of liquor required only about 40 per cent as much raw
materials as the average of twenty other leading industries and
employed only about one-third of the labor.**
Prohibition thus diverted the expenditure to other industries
which employed much more labor and required much more raw
21 American Prohibition Year Book, 1915, article on “Economic Aspects of
the Liquor Problem,” p. 44; also, Waldron, Prohibition Handbook, pp. 20-34;
and H. S. Warner, Social Welfare and the Liquor Problem, pp. 103-111.
482 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
materials, which in turn required a correspondingly larger amount
of labor to produce. Prohibition thus not only withdrew billions
of expenditure from an injurious traffic but by diverting them to
legitimate industries it set in operation an ever- -expanding series
of economic forces unprecedented and unparalleled in scope and
beneficence.
B. Increased Productivity. Prohibition has greatly increased
productive capacity. To the extent that men have become free
from the incubus of alcohol, they have clearer minds, steadier
nerves, better judgment, are more industrious, more ambitious
and more inventive. The efficiency of workingmen has greatly
increased.
Factories have been able better to utilize their machine power.
Fewer machines are idle through the absence of workers on ac-
count of illness or drink. Thus the productivity of both the
machinery and the workmen has been increased.
Many employers have reported that under prohibition the tape
turnover is smaller. The men are steadier and the industry does
not lose in output by reason of having to break in new men.
Industrial accidents, a great drain upon industry as well as
disastrous for the victims, have greatly decreased under
prohibition.
With productivity greatly enhanced, there has been made pos-
sible a largely increased return to both labor and capital. Accord-
ing to generally accepted economic theory productivity is the basis
of returns to both labor and capital. Prohibition thus has made
possible higher wages for labor as well as greater prosperity for
capital.
C. Enlarged Demand. The diversion of a large proportion of
the colossal drink bill, plus the fact that the expenditure is for
commodities requiring much more labor and raw materials to
produce, plus the greater productivity of industry with higher
wages and more to spend have created an unprecedented demand
for the products of legitimate industries. Prohibition has made
possible new markets and stimulated production to supply the new
demands. Better homes, better furniture, better clothes, better
food and better recreation are demanded. More raw materials,
more products of the farm, the forest, the mine and the oil well
have been required. These, in turn, have demanded more labor
for their production and more factories and labor for their manu-
facture. The increased demand for labor has helped to keep
wages high and thus there has been prosperity for all.
ee ee eee
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 — 483
D. Higher Standard of Living. Prohibition has raised the
standard of living. Sober workingmen have higher tastes than
those whose brains are perverted, senses blunted and _ tastes
coarsened by alcohol. Under prohibition labor produces more,
earns more, obtains higher wages, has more wages to spend. It
also spends both the money formerly spent for liquor and also |
the increased wages which increased productivity brings for com- ~
modities which require much more labor to produce than did
liquor. This in turn greatly increases the demand for labor which
results in maintaining higher wages wherewith to support the
higher standard of living. Prohibition thus furnishes the will
for a higher standard of living and also the means, the economic
basis, whereby it may be maintained.
This higher standard of living has been evidenced in a thou-
sand ways. American workingmen have been buying not only
necessities but comforts and luxuries on a tremendous and un-
precedented scale. Perhaps the most notable evidence of the
widespread rise in the standard of living has been the increase
in automobiles, increasing from 1,700,000 in 1914 to over
20,000,000 in 1925.
E. Benefits to Labor. Prohibition has brought immeasurable
benefits to labor. It has been an outstanding factor in main-
taining wages at the high level of war times and even higher. As
a result of prohibition, even though it is poorly enforced, labor
is more efficient, produces more, is worth more and receives more
real wages than ever before. Higher wages are due not only to
greater productivity but also to the effect of the tremendously
increased demand for labor.
Prohibition makes possible the maintenance and enjoyment of
a higher standard of living with increasing opportunities for
betterment and an expanding content to life for the masses of
the people.
Prohibition has strengthened the cause of organized labor. It
has increased reserve power, poise and judgment in labor diff-
culties, rendering conflicts less frequent and strikes less common.
Says Congressman John G. Cooper, himself a labor unionist
and one of the foremost supporters of prohibition in Congress:
Prohibition is making a capitalist of the worker, creating a gen-
eral ownership of the means of production and solving a strife
that once seemed perpetual. Greater gains have been made by labor
since the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment, with fewer strikes,
than in any equal period of time. When the saloon closed, the
“poor man’s club” may have vanished, but we are replacing it today
484 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
with comfortable homes, fine labor temples and a chain of strong
labor banks.
Not only have workingmen in vast numbers been buying com-
fortable homes and automobiles but their accumulating savings
have come to be a not inconsiderable factor in the supply of
capital for the expansion of industry. Not only is labor establish-
ing an increasing number of labor banks, but it is supplying a
large and increasing number of small investors for various en-
terprises. Thomas’ Nixon Carver, Professor of Economics in
Harvard University, stated in 1925 that the investments of
workers in the shares of corporations are increasing so rapidly
that all statistics are “out of date before they are published.”
Prohibition is helping to wipe out the distinction between the
“haves” and the “have nots.” The American workingmen be-
long to the “haves.” Prohibition is promoting a better distribu-
tion of wealth, a greater equality of opportunity, a more ideal
economic society.””
F. Enhanced Credit. Prohibition has enhanced credit. This
is a factor exceedingly important in modern business. It adds to
purchasing power. The sober man is more dependable. The
bases of credit are tremendously increased, such as investments in
homes, in life insurance, savings banks, building and loan asso-
ciations and the securities of corporations. Mr. R. H. Scott,
President of the Reo Motor Car Company, says:
Prohibition has raised the credit of practically every human be-
ing in America. Defalcations are comparatively few. Families
are able to pay their current bills and meet their installments because
the liquor bill is gone. Men who could not have “hung up” the
bartender for a drink in the old days are now considered good risks
for a motor car.
G. Fiscal Results. Prohibition has produced fiscal results
which are amazing. It has made a broader base for taxation and
rendered easy the problem of finding new revenues to take the
place of the old license fees. By increasing productivity and
stimulating industry prohibition has added enormously to the
wealth of the nation capable of being taxed. ‘The increasing mil-
lions of people receiving taxable incomes testify to the rapidly
expanding and widely distributed national wealth.
In its effect upon real estate alone prohibition has caused a
marvelous increase in values. Not only has home building been
22 For a further discussion of the economic aspects of prohibition, see Chapter
XXVIII, ‘‘The Principle of National Prohibition.”
a Se ee a
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 485
promoted and have new buildings to house expanding enterprises
been required, all of which adds to realty values, but the saloon
sites themselves have been so transformed as to add much to
taxable values.
Saloons have been supplanted by banks, office buildings, depart-
ment stores, chain stores, grocery stores, restaurants, movie
theaters, art shops, soft drink shops, candy and coffee shops, and
other enterprises. Many ramshackle buildings, good enough for
saloons, have been supplanted by high class modern ones.
A comparative study was made of the assessed valuation of
forty-eight properties on Broadway, New York City, which in
1916 housed saloons but which were discontinued. The increase
in the valuation between 1916 and 1923 was sufficient that a tax
of only one per cent on the increase alone would supply about
five times the revenue, state and local, paid by the former saloons.
In 1924 motor vehicle taxes alone amounted to nearly one and
a half times the maximum ever received from liquor, national,
state, and local combined, except in the war fiscal years, 1918 and
1919. Experience under prohibition has proven the soundness
of Gladstone’s famous statement: ‘“Give me a sober nation and I
will find the revenue.”
H. Prohibition and Post-War Prosperity. Prohibition was
a great factor in maintaining and augmenting prosperity in the
United States in the critical period following the World War.
The stupendous economic benefits are all the more amazing con-
sidering that they were achieved in the face of an economic de-
pression almost worldwide in extent. Prohibition went into effect
just following the most destructive war of all history, a period
when nearly every nation was financially exhausted, when our
foreign markets were greatly curtailed and when the world was
beset by extremely serious post-war reactions, economic, political
and moral. Prohibition was undoubtedly a very great factor in
saving our country from a serious economic depression.
Contrary to popular impression abroad, the United States did
not grow rich out of the World War. On the contrary, she put
nearly forty billions into the war. A noted financial authority
writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1925 pointed out that
America lost heavily in the war but made its money afterwards.
He pointed out that the great concerns which furnished ordnance,
gunpowder, provisions and other supplies did not gain perma-
nently from the war but rather suffered. A large part of their
profits were placed in over-expanded plants or lost in the fall of
post-war inventories. This writer says that after the war Amer-
486 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
ica went to work, paid higher wages and multiplied the output of
men and machines in peaceful pursuits and that it was this which
made us prosperous.
In this prohibition played a great part. It made men more
industrious and efficient. They produced more. This made them
worth higher wages. Higher wages together with enhanced
credit gave larger purchasing power. These factors together
with the diversion of billions from former liquor expenditure
and the higher standard of living vastly increased the demand
for commodities. The demand for labor to produce these com-
modities helped to keep wages high and the standard of living
high with expanding wants. Increasing wants together with the
increasing wealth of all classes expanded the home market and
stimulated industry to such a degree that the curtailment of for-
eign markets was not seriously felt, except by agriculture which
had depended upon foreign markets for a large export surplus.
But agriculture as a whole obtained a very much greater home
market for its products than would have been the case without
prohibition.
The stimulus to industry and increased output continuously
added to wealth and brought a prosperity hitherto unequaled and
unapproached. Prohibition was helping to make America pros-
perous beyond computation. Nor did the economic influence of
prohibition stop with our own country. Increasing production
resulting in increasing wealth followed by increasing wants
created additional demand for the products of other nations which
helped to revive international trade and to improve conditions
throughout the world.
For example, the widespread demand for automobiles required
additional rubber for tires, which was supplied by Great Britain
at a high price which, however, our productivity enabled us to
pay. The profits from rubber in turn helped that nation to
stabilize her economic system. The benefits were worldwide.
3. Educational and Moral.
A. Prohibition’s effect upon education has been most salutary
and far-reaching. Multitudes of young people who otherwise
would have been compelled to leave school and go to work to
help support the family have been enabled to continue in school
and become better fitted for efficient citizenship. More and larger
high schools have been required in all sections of the country
and the colleges and universities are filled to overflowing.
B, The church has a better opportunity to reach the masses
of the people and to initiate great constructive programs.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 487
Catholic and Protestant churches alike reported a larger church
attendance. In 1921, the second year of prohibition, church
membership increased 1,200,000.
Said Commander Evangeline Booth, the head of the Sal-
vation Army in the United States, after citing the benefits of
prohibition:
It seems that in the future we shall have less to do with the
grave and more to do with the cradle; less binding up of life’s
broken plants, and more training of life’s untrammeled vines; that
more of our energies will be thrown into work of prevention, which
in the final analysis must be so much more valuable to the home,
the nation and the Kingdom of God than even the most worthy
work totmenre.).', %
By the prohibition constitutional amendment a measure has been
enacted that will do more to bring the Kingdom of God upon earth
than any other single piece of legislation.
Space does not permit a further massing of facts and figures
regarding the benefits of prohibition. Sufficient to say is that
almost the whole field of social, economic and moral welfare has
shown a radical and unprecedented improvement under prohibi-
tion. Early in 1922 the Manufacturers’ Record sent a question-
naire to hundreds of leading men of affairs including large manu-
facturers, employers of labor, bankers and university professors
asking their judgment about prohibition. Ninety-eight and one-
half per cent favored prohibition in some form, The following
brief extracts suggest some of the moral and economic benefits
as they appeared to these men:
Happier homes with more contentment, cleaner and better social
life, families happier.
Increased buying of homes and food and clothes for women and
children.
A change in the habits and expenditures of the workers. Men
are buying their own homes, have saving accounts and own auto-
mobiles.
A tendency toward thrift and contentment, comfort and happi-
ness. Families are better cared for. An increase in savings de-
posits.
More and cleaner recreation, picture shows, parks, auto rides.
Contributing materially to clear thinking on the part of the work-
ingman regarding industrial questions, political matters and educa-
tional affairs. They no longer go to the polls partially stupefied
by liquor to vote at the behest of saloon politicians.
v
488 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Less lost time, less accidents, less incompetence, less carelessness
and inefficiency, better work, better homes, more thrift, happier
families and sober and more efficient men who are now finding out
what it means to really live whereas they formerly merely existed.
Children and young people getting a better education.
School attendance, both public and Sunday school, has improved.
Community morale has improved.
An incalculable economic and moral blessing to millions of our
people, and to the nation as a whole.
“From the point of view of public health prohibition has been
a wonder worker,” said Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, for many years
Chief Chemist of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Dr.
Haven Emerson, former Health Commissioner of New York
City, declared: “Nothing since the application of modern bac-
teriology to the control of communicable disease will have so
powerful an effect in reducing the incidence of disease and the
general death rate as prohibition.” |
Thus the testimony continued as to the results and benefits of
prohibition.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF PROHIBITION
Unfortunately the available measurements and indices indicate
that the social results of prohibition in the years following 1920,
1921-1925, have not measured up to those of that epochal year.
In a number of respects the improvement has continued. The
economic benefits, due partly to the accumulation of billions of
new capital, have been cumulative.
They have permeated the entire nation and brought increasing
returns to the whole people. Even the noisy and conspicuous
minority who refuse to respect the law of the Constitution share
in the general improvement in the economic environment.
The economic and moral welfare of untold millions of the
people has been vastly bettered. Despite violations of law the
great majority of the people are law observing and enjoy an
increasing measure of both individual and national benefits.
Most of the violations are committed either by the froth or by
the dregs of society. The great multitudes share in the general
advance in economic well-being as probably never before in
history.
Among other things the evidence shows a great and continuing
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 489
improvement in family life with very much less misery among
women and children, diminishing juvenile delinquency and a
marvelous increase in home comforts throughout the nation.
The enhanced opportunities for higher education and its rapidly
increasing diffusion signify the entrance upon a new epoch preg-
nant with unlimited possibilities of a richer content to life. The ~
national health has so improved that a leading authority has
declared that the year 1924 was the healthiest on record.
On the other hand Anti-Prohibitionists cite statistics as evi-
dence of the failure of prohibition. These relate chiefly to (a)
the increase of arrests for drunkenness since 1920, (b) the in-
crease in deaths from alcoholism since 1920, and (c) the increase
in insanity since 1920.
The arrests for drunkenness in 349 cities based on 100 as the
index number for the year 1914 rose to 108 in 1916, fell to 37
in 1920, but rose to 49 in 1921, 65 in 1922, 75 in 1923 and 74
in 1924, reaching the maximum since prohibition in 1923 with a
slight decline in 1924. In the latter year they were double what
they were in 1920 but less than three-fourths what they were be-
fore prohibition.
The alcoholism death rate of the registration area of the
United States which fell from 5.2 to I.o in 1920 rose to 3.2 in
1923.
In New York the admissions to insanity hospitals of alcoholic
insanity cases which had fallen from 594 in 1917 to 122 in 1920
rose to 226 in 1922. In 1924 after the repeal of the state en-
forcement law they increased to 373.
The facts revealed by these statistics are not as serious as ap-
pears on the surface for reasons already explained with reference
to arrests for drunkenness not being an accurate register of the
actual amount of drunkenness. Also increases in deaths from
alcoholism and in alcoholic insanity are the natural result of the
extra-poisonous alcohol purveyed by the criminal bootleggers.
Of the 50,000 samples of liquor seized in and around New York
City analyzed by government chemists in 1924 and 1925 over 98
per cent. contained poison from denatured alcohol.
It is to be observed that in the statistics quoted by the wet
propagandists the current conditions are compared with 1920 and
not with the wet period before. The proper comparison should
be between the prohibition period and the pre-prohibition period.
This the wet propagandists do not care to face. |
Nevertheless, although poorly enforced prohibition is far su-
perior to the licensed liquor traffic at its best, there has been a
490 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
widespread feeling that prohibition has not accomplished as much
as its first year held out the promise or as much as hoped for by
those who sacrificed for it through many years. Conditions
should have become better from year to year under national pro-
hibition instead of becoming not so good as the first year. The
reasons for the reaction demand analysis. They were chiefly
political and governmental. They involve a study of (a) the
law, (0b) the administration of the law, and (c) the political sys-
tem underlying the administration of prohibition.
The Volstead Law
To enforce the Eighteenth Amendment Congress passed the
Volstead Law. Some of its significant provisions were:
1. Construing the term “intoxicating liquor’ to include all
liquor fit for beverage purposes which contains one-half of one
per cent of alcohol by volume. This construction was merely a
continuation of what had come to be the established legal standard
of the nation upon this point. For many years the federal gov-
ernment had fixed the line of demarcation between taxable and
untaxable liquors at one-half of one per cent. The brewers
themselves in 1904 had actively supported this standard. The
United States Supreme Court in a decision upholding the Vol-
stead Law, Ruppert v. Caffey (251 U. S. 264), pointed out that
thirty-six states had adopted a standard at least as advanced
as one-half of one per cent and that eighteen states had gone
farther and prohibited all malt or vinous beverages no matter
how small the alcoholic content.”
Mr. Volstead pointed out that the legislative history of the
country, both state and national, showed that prohibition in-
cluded under its ban all liquors which contained as much as one-
half of one per cent of alcohol.
2. The act provided penalties for violations. ‘These came to
be regarded, notably by the Department of Justice, as too light
for the more serious offenses. For the first offense the maximum
penalty was $1,000 fine and six months in prison.. To provide
reasonably adequate punishment for the large scale violators
prosecutors frequently proceeded under other statutes such as
those against conspiracy or under the revenue or customs laws
because the penalties for violation of these laws were much
heavier.
23 For history of Supreme Court decisions upon prohibition, see infra,
Chapter XXVI.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 AQ
3. The injunction and padlock provisions were probably the
most effective provisions of the law.
4. The search and seizure provisions were weak, having been
patterned after similar provisions in the Espionage Act from
which the teeth had been purposely removed.** A man’s home
could be searched only in case a sale had been detected, not in
case of manufacture. This opened the way to the making of
home brew which temporarily threatened to become a fad in
some sections. This soon died out—not due to the efficiency of
the law, but because of the unsatisfactory character of the
product. Considerable small scale distilling has been carried on
in dwellings, ostensibly homes, because of the Act’s limited pro-
visions regarding the issuance of search warrants.
s. An unfortunate provision which engendered considerable
dissatisfaction especially among the poorer drinking classes was
that which permitted the retention of stocks of liquors obtained
before the Act went into effect.
6. The continuance of the policy of taxing a commodity which
had been outlawed by the Constitution, as provided for in section
35 of the Act, was very questionable and dangerous. It was like
prohibiting burglars’ tools but taxing them if found. It tended
to cause the administrators of the law to put the revenue feature
ahead of the prohibitory. Frequently they collected taxes and
failed to carry out the constitutional prohibition and suppress the
traffic. When the Volstead Law was passed the specious argu-
ment was made that by combining criminal punishments and tax
penalties enforcement would be made easier. But so long had
the liquor traffic been entrenched in the revenues that the inter-
mingling of criminality and the levying of taxes was exceedingly
unwise. The whole policy of commingling liquor prohibition and
liquor revenue was the outcome of the old party lack of con-
viction and absence of clear moral vision resulting from a half
century of governmental dependence upon liquor revenue. An
extremely questionable feature was a provision empowering the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury to compromise in the payment of
penalties. It was substantially a case of government officials
negotiating with criminals.
What has been the result? Although large penalties have
been assessed only a small amount has been collected. In 1925
it was testified in a Senatorial investigation that in 1924 the as-
sessments aggregated $16,909,855 but that after compromise
24 See debate on Volstead Law, Congressional Record, July 19, 1919, p. 2901.
4.92 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
only $704,696 was collected, a little over four per cent. One
example brought to light was of a brewery which was assessed
$105,000 but which was compromised for $5,000 and the brewery
continued to violate the law. Notwithstanding the large amounts
assessed, the amount collected under the tax and tax penalty
provisions of the Act went down each year, due partly to court
decisions adverse to the method, until in the fiscal year 1925
only $560,888 was collected.
7, The provision permitting breweries to make regular beer
with the supposition that before sale they would reduce the alco-
holic content to below one-half of one per cent was the colossal
blunder of prohibitory legislation. It contravened the first object
of prohibitory legislation which is to stop the traffic at its source.
Permitting brewers to make regular beer with the supposition that
they would dealcoholize it was something new in prohibitory
legislation. In the Congressional debate Mr. Volstead stated:
“For the first time we have written into a prohibition bill the per-
mission to make near-beer.”’ *°
What has been the result? The breweries have been left almost
intact as a fighting force striving to come back. Although of
about 1,332 breweries operating in 1916 something over two hun-
dred were dismantled, the large majority remain. In August,
1925, the Prohibition Unit gave out the information that at that
time, over six years after the selling of beer had ceased to be legal,
there were 1,126 potential brewery sites in the United States
scattered in thirty-six states and the District of Columbia.
That is, there remained 1,126 breweries all fitted up ready to
make beer practically upon twenty-four hours’ notice. The
brewers held to the hope that beer would come back and many of
them were holding on with that object in view.
When it is remembered that it was the breweries which made
over nine-tenths of the liquor consumed in the old days, that
brewery capital comprised 87 per cent of the whole liquor capital,
that it was the brewers who owned the large majority of the
saloons with all their colossal evils, that it was the breweries which
were the chief factors in corrupting and degrading politics and
that they were the chief factors in the old deterioration and de-
generation, it will be readily seen that to permit them: to remain,
even to lie dormant, was an egregious blunder. It was toying
with rattlesnakes.
Furthermore, there was no doubt that much of the propaganda
for the return of beer and light wines came from the brewers
25 Congressional Record, October 6, 1919, p. 6691.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 493
who would be the chief beneficiaries of such return. About
forty wet organizations were organized. Some of them seemed
to be well supplied with funds, and were no doubt camouflaged
agencies of the brewers. After several years of quiet, so far as
the public knew, the United States Brewers’ Association took on
renewed activity in 1925 and it was announced that there was a
large fund to carry on a campaign against prohibition.
It was understood that some of the breweries had set aside
large funds. One brewery in the Middle West, not one of the
best known either, was reported on good authority to have set
aside $5,000,000 as a war chest, a part of which was understood
to be invested, through a subsidiary corporation, in the stocks
and bonds of daily newspapers.
Notwithstanding the efforts of the breweries to create a market
for their near-beer, called cereal beverage, their production went
steadily down each year until by 1924 it was less than one-
thirteenth of the production of regular beer ten years before and
only a little more than half the production of 1921. This was
evidence that the beverage was not popular, despite the efforts to
create a demand, and that it was the alcoholic content, the kick in
it, which had enabled the brewers to sell so much beer in the pre-
prohibition period.
While the sale of real beer was not large enough to be a very
serious factor comparatively, having been probably not more
than one or two per cent that of the license period, the breweries
remained as a constant menace, made worse by the disgraceful
manner in which the law was administered. For a long time the
regulations made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with
the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, did not permit the
government officers, so it was said, to enter the breweries except
during office hours, notwithstanding that many of the law-defying
breweries carried on their illicit traffic at night. Furthermore,
breweries were allowed to put their beer in barrels and other con-
tainers which could be shipped. The system was practically
that of trusting the untrustable brewers to observe the law and
limiting the officers of the government to stopping the violations
after the high-powered beer was discovered in transit. Further-
more, owing to the large profits procurable in the illicit traffic and
the fabulous bribes brewers could offer, they were a great source
of temptation to, and corruption of, government agents.
The foolishness of trusting the brewers to observe the law
was indicated by the statement given out by the Prohibition Unit
that between August, 1921, and October, 1923, 382 breweries
494 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
had been reported for violations of the law. In Pennsylvania of
about 100 breweries operating in the state, 62 were caught in
violations of the law in 1924.
Notwithstanding the numerous violations the Government has
been very lax in enforcing penalties. It took away permits to
make cereal beverages from some but in a number of cases these
permits were restored after a short period.
In the two years, July 1, 1922, to July 1, 1924, there were 45
breweries seized. There were 100 convictions and pleas of
guilty. Of these about three-fourths were pleas of guilty, many
of which were called “‘consent” cases wherein the brewer con-
sented to be closed for a specified time and accepted a fine, the
maximum of which was $2,000, a mere pittance to a brewer.
There were only 28 jail sentences, and the total fines imposed
for all brewery violations amounted to only $201,000.”°
Jail sentences for brewery violations for the entire period from
July 1, 1921, to January, 1925, covering almost a presidential
term, aggregated only 13 years. Only fourteen permanent in-
junctions were obtained against breweries in the fiscal years 1924
and 1925 combined. Laxness toward breweries appears not to
have been due to a lack of authority given by the law as a few
breweries have been dismantled and in one case brewing ma-
chinery and equipment to the value of $225,000 were destroyed.
The laxness was obviously due to the lack of the will to enforce
on the part of the administration,
8. The final feature of the Volstead Law to be discussed is
the elaborate system of permits for regulating and controlling the
manufacture, use and sale of alcohol for non-beverage purposes.
No one was allowed to manufacture, sell, purchase or prescribe
any liquor without first obtaining a permit, except for certain
limited medical purposes.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue was given authority
over all such permits and had the power, subject to the approval
of the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe the forms of all
permits and applications. His power included the authority to
issue permits and regulations for industrial alcohol plants, for
breweries and wineries. He also had authority to compromise
tax penalties. In short, these two officers possessed almost abso-
lute control over all of the alcohol and alcoholic liquor existing
in the country with the exception of private stocks possessed
before the Volstead Act went into effect. Whether that control
26 Information obtained from the Prohibition Unit.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 495
was effective or not depended almost entirely upon the character
of the administration.
The Administration of the Law
Prohibition was hindered from producing greater beneficent
results not merely because of certain deficiencies in the law but
to a much larger degree because of the lax manner in which it
was administered. After sketching the machinery of the Pro-
hibition Unit, some of the ways in which prohibition was impeded
by the kind of administration it received will be enumerated. A
consideration of these will go far toward accounting for the
reaction from the high achievements of 1920. The advanced
thinkers of the prohibition movement for decades have em-
phasized that prohibition requires much more than law. The
essential requirement is the administration of the law.
A Prohibition Unit in the Bureau of Internal Revenue was
established with a Commissioner of Prohibition, together with a
series of state or regional directors and agents of various ranks.
At least three different systems of organization have thus far
been tried. By October, 1923, there were 1,522 prohibition field
agents, and by February, 1924, the number was given as about
1,600 to cover continental United States, the territories, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and distant possessions. There was one
federal enforcement officer to 2,340 square miles of territory and
about 70,000 population. In 1925 the number of prohibition
agents was very largely reduced.’
The salaries of the prohibition agents were small, many of
them received only $1680 a year. In 1925 the minimum was
increased to $1860 but in the proposed budget for 1927 about
eight-ninths of the agents and inspectors are scheduled to receive
less than $2000, clearly not adequate considering the temptations
and dangers. Forty-three prohibition agents have lost their lives,
and in 1925 alone thirty-nine were injured in the performance of
duty.”8
27 Information in address of Prohibition Commissioner Haynes at Governors’
Conference, October, 1923; also, address of Judge J. J. Britt, counsel for the
Prohibition Unit, before the National Republican Club, February, 1924, and
other sources.
28 Many of the statistics regarding the liquor situation and the enforcement
situation of the government are found in the Annual Report of the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, and in a pamphlet
issued by the Prohibition Unit in April, 1925, entitled, Statistics Regarding
Intoxicating Liquors. Other information has been obtained from bulletins issued
by the Prohibition Unit and the Department of Justice. For budget proposals,
see Message of the President of the United States Transmitting the Budget for
1927, p. 890.
496 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
In the fiscal year 1924 the prohibition agents made 68,161
arrests. This appears to be a large number until it 1s remem-
bered that in 1917 in Massachusetts alone there were 129,455
arrests for drunkenness, and if throughout the country there had
been the same number of arrests in proportion to the population
as in high license-local option Massachusetts, the arrests for
drunkenness in the nation that year would have aggregated
2,583,000.
Also when it is considered that 68,161 arrests is equivalent to
only one arrest per agent for a period of over eight days, one is
led to the conclusion that violations were not sufficiently numerous
and open as to be easily detected or the agents were not very
efficient, probably both of which were largely true. There was
a feeling, moreover, which was emphasized by the Department of
Justice, that too large a proportion of the arrests were for com-
paratively minor offenses and that too many of those guilty of
the more serious offenses escaped.
Among the ways in which prohibition suffered from malad-
ministration were:
1. Dry laws were being administered by wet officials. When
Mr. Harding became President he appointed as head of the de-
partment responsible for enforcement one who for nearly forty
years had been heavily interested in distilling. It is but stating
a fact to say that a study of the statistical evidence indicates that
social conditions relating to liquor began to get worse, as com-
pared with 1920, soon after he was appointed.
Below him was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue subse-
quently very severely criticized for his administration. Below
the latter, and a subordinate of his, was the Prohibition Com-
missioner, known as a dry, but whose power was progressively
reduced until he was practically deprived of administrative
authority. In 1925 he was described by a Washington observer
as being “hopelessly hedged about by adroit wet politicians.” ”
The appointment of prohibition directors and agents in the
various states was the subject of party patronage. Had the
party in power been committed to prohibition as a party principle
the party leaders would have been obligated to see that only those
favorable to the principle of prohibition should be appointed.
As it was, prohibition was not a party principle and, in the
absence of presidential leadership, no standard of loyalty to the
principle was required for appointment. Wet Senators and
29 Gilbert O. Nations, in a weekly Washington letter to the California Voice,
July 16, 1925.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 497
Congressmen, or wet county chairmen or party leaders, were per-
mitted to name enforcement officers. In some cases Congressmen
who voted dry in Congress secured the appointment of wet
officers. In at least a third of the states in 1921 and 1922 the
leading prohibition officers were men known to have wet records.
Although the United States had adopted a national law with
the object of establishing a uniform national standard through-
out the nation, the administration of the law so perverted this
objective as to make enforcement substantially a matter of local
option because it was administered to so large a degree by men
owing their appointment to local political influences and subject
to local political pressures. This was true not only of a large
share of the prohibition agents but applied likewise to United
States district attorneys, United States commissioners, United
States marshals and others involved in the enforcement of the
federal law. Furthermore, it was the worst form of local option
—the option of the local politicians to determine the extent to
which the law should be enforced, politicians, many of whom
were personally wet, others of whom wanted to placate a wet
element in their constituencies and all of whom belonged to
political parties which sought wet votes as well as dry ones.
There were many cases of appointments opposed by the better
citizens. One United States judge was appointed notwithstand-
ing he had recently been a member of the Association Against
the Prohibition Amendment. In the District of Columbia a
police judge who had been exceedingly lax toward bootleggers
was reappointed against the protests of the combined temperance
forces of the District. In some cases to obtain appointments as
prohibition agents required the approval of politicians notoriously
wet, and it was said in one section the approval of two brewers
was essential. Space prevents the enumeration of a long list of
disgraceful appointments. In an inquiry made in 1925 among
six hundred government employees having to do with prohibition
enforcement, the results of which were published in the Dearborn
Independent, only five per cent stated that they believed in pro-
hibition.
Still worse, many of the leading officials at the head of the
nation did not respect the principle. In 1923 President Harding
was understood to have taken a position in favor of total ab-
stinence but prior to that time it was currently reported in Wash-
ington that not only the President but also a number of members
of his Cabinet failed to set an example of abstinence from liquor,
the traffic in which had been prohibited by the Constitution the
498 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
President had sworn to preserve, protect and defend. So glaring
did the failure of high government officials to respect the Con-
stitution become that when Congressman Upshaw of Georgia,
who had given much of his life to the cause of prohibition, in an
address in the House of Representatives on December 20, 1922,
uttered a ringing call for sober officials and declared that, “Any
one who swears allegiance to the Constitution and then helps a
bootlegger to trample that Constitution underfoot is unworthy
to hold any office under the sun,” that address received unusual
demonstrations of approval throughout the country.
2. A number of aggressive dry officials were removed from
office. One notable case was the removal of Harold D. Wilson,
of Massachusetts, a capable and efficient officer, who believed in
enforcing the law against the rich and politically powerful as
well as against the ignorant foreigners. In the course of his
duties he raided a banquet being given to the Governor of the
state, which was attended by many prominent politicians, and
seized a large quantity of liquor which was being served in an
adjoining room. Subsequently Mr. Wilson wrote an able and
discerning book entitled, Dry Laws and Wet Politicians.
3. One complaint against federal administration was that,
in some instances at least, when a conscientious agent had suc-
ceeded in getting evidence against the men higher up, especially
those with political influence, the agent would be transferred to a
distant point where he would be comparatively innocuous. In
September, 1923, the Philadelphia North American, one of the
most vigorous supporters of prohibition of any metropolitan
daily paper in the East, declared:
Whenever prohibition agents grow dangerous the law breakers
have been able through politicians to reach influential ears in the
internal revenue bureau and cause a check.
4. Many of the United States district attorneys were regarded
as decidedly lax in the prosecution of liquor cases. The prohibi-
tion agents who gathered evidence against violators were only
a minor fractional factor in law enforcement. Their work
amounted to little unless their evidence was used in the prosecu-
tion of cases and such prompt and vigorous penalties imposed as
would deter the violators. In this the active cooperation of the
United States attorneys and judges was essential.
In many cases the federal prohibition agents, a number of
whom were faithful public servants, had good ground for com-
plaint that the United States attorneys would not take an interest
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 499
in prosecuting cases. This was conspicuously true in brewery
cases,
If the remedy for flagrant violations was to libel a brewery,
a prohibition agent could make no headway unless he had the co-
operation of the United States district attorney. Similarly if
the effective remedy was an injunction or a padlock, the agent
could not succeed unless he had the support of the United States
attorney, unless the cases were taken into the state courts, which
was sometimes done in some sections.
The records of the Department of Justice showed a great dif-
ference in enforcement in the territory of different United States
district attorneys. In some states there was a decided contrast
between two judicial districts in the same state.
By the system of decentralized administration put into opera-
tion by the Treasury Department late in 1925 the work of the
prohibition agents in getting evidence was correlated with, and
practically subordinated to, the work of the district attorneys in
using evidence. The prohibition administrative districts were
each made to be coterminous with a group of judicial districts and
the prohibition officers were instructed to work in harmony with
the district attorneys. It was of little value to obtain evidence
unless it would be used by the district attorneys. These had the
power practically to decide who should be prosecuted and who
should not be. Excuse was made that the courts were too con-
gested to try all cases and the district attorneys were compelled
to choose who should be punished. This power, which was sub-
stantially that of being able to bestow selective immunity, was an
exceedingly dangerous one, especially when exercised by officials
so highly political. There was a temptation, especially for the less
scrupulous, those who had been trained in, or associated with
liquor politics, to barter immunity for political influence or, as has
often been done by local officials, to use their authority to compel
the lawless element to support the party in power.
5. Another obstacle to enforcement was the attitude of some
of the United States judges. A report of a Congressional com-
mittee in 1925 stated that there was much evidence that the
penalties imposed were inadequate. In one federal judicial dis-
trict the average jail sentence was three-tenths of one day. In
another the average jail sentence was three days. In another
district, with a visiting judge sitting, out of 256 cases the average
fine was $24. Nine prisoners were fined $5, 132 were fined $10
each, five received $15 fines, 17 were fined $20, and 30, $25.
Only 63 of the 256 were fined more than $25 and the maximum
500 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
fine was $200 levied on two prisoners. Jail sentences were given
to 12 culprits of whom two received 30 days each. Two others
10 days, one 5 days, and seven were sentenced to one day in jail.
The total amount of jail sentences was 46 days or an average
of less than four days each for the 12 who were sentenced, or
Jess than one-fifth of a day for each of those who were guilty.*?
6. Perhaps the most serious criticism of the government was
in respect to the administration of the permit system. No liquor
or alcohol could be legally manufactured, stored, transported or
sold without a federal permit.
The success or failure in controlling the source of supply de-
pended upon the administration of the permit system. The
federal government had full and complete responsibility. It was
the government’s duty to dam up the sources of supply. If it per-
mitted a flood of alcohol to be let loose to be used as a supply
of beverage liquor, it rendered exceedingly difficult the stopping
of local and lesser violations of law. Enforcement officers would
have great difficulty in mopping up the wetness if a breach in the
dike was allowed to remain unrepaired.
There were about twenty different classes of permits issued and
there were as many as 157,000 permits outstanding. Some of the
important branches of the permit system related to distilled spirits,
the breweries, pure alcohol, denatured alcohol and wines.
A. With respect to distilled spirits, in 1921 there were 9,681,-
199 gallons, chiefly whisky, withdrawn. Whisky in bond was
gotten under reasonably good control following the action of
Congress providing for the concentration of the bonded whisky
from nearly three hundred warehouses into about twenty-eight.
In 1925 the tax-paid withdrawals were 1,972,058 gallons, with a
little less than 30,000,000 gallons left in the warehouses. The
withdrawals of distilled spirits, which in 1913 to 1916 had aver-
aged 135,000,000 gallons annually, were thus reduced to less
than 2,000,000 gallons.
B. The regulations respecting breweries were exceedingly un-
satisfactory as hereinbefore discussed. Still worse was the situa-
tion regarding denatured alcohol. There were three classes of
alcohol available. First, pure alcohol on which a tax of $2.20
per proof gallon was required; second, completely denatured alco-
hol, and, third, specially denatured alcohol.
There was an amazing increase in the production of denatured
80 Survey of the Alcoholic Liquor Trafic and the Enforcement of the Eighteenth
Amendment, Report of Subcommittee on Alcoholic Liquor Traffic, House of
Representatives, Sixty-eighth Congress, Second Session, 1025, pp. 5-6.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 501
alcohol. The number of proof gallons of alcohol withdrawn
for denaturation increased from 38,000,000 gallons in 1921 to
148,000,000 gallons in 1925. Perhaps about 18,000,000 gallons
of the increase can be accounted for by the diversion from tax-
paid alcohol, which decreased from 26 to 8 millions in the same
period. But taking all three classes of industrial alcohol there
was an increase of 142 per cent in four years. Specially de-
natured alcohol increased from less than 10,000,000 wine gallons
in 1921 to nearly 35,000,000 in 1925.
There were seven different formulas used in making com-
pletely denatured alcohol, and about fifty in making specially de-
natured alcohol. In some of these formulas permitted by the
Internal Revenue Bureau much of the denaturant could easily
be removed so that the alcohol was used in the illicit trade. Some
of the illicit sellers gave to each customer directions for removing
the denaturant. A Congressional committee investigating the
question estimated that 6,000,000 gallons of denatured alcohol
were diverted to the bootleg trade in 1924. In April, 1926, the
chief chemist of the Prohibition Unit estimated that between
thirteen and fourteen million gallons were so diverted. Denatured
alcohol was by far the chief source of supply for the illicit traffic
and the responsibility for such a large leakage was directly upon
the administration of the Treasury Department.
Governor Pinchot of Pennsylvania, who has made a. loyal and
courageous effort to enforce the law, having found that one of his
greatest obstacles was the bootleg supply permitted by federal
authority to get out in the form of denatured, or theoretically
denatured, alcohol, made numerous investigations in his state and
brought to light a sickening array of violations many of which
might have been prevented or stopped if the federal administra-
tion had been efficient.
In his message on law enforcement to the General Assembly
of Pennsylvania in February, 1925, Governor Pinchot said:
In the two years ending on June 30, 1923, the amount of specially
denatured alcohol removed and disposed of in the Philadelphia
district increased from less than 800,000 gallons to more than
5,000,000 gallons. . . . This enormous production and distribution
of specially denatured alcohol is at the present time checked by no
records which are effective to prevent its passage in huge quantities
into the bootleg trade.
He stated that federal permits had been issued to 151 manu-
facturers in Philadelphia authorizing them to make toilet waters,
hair tonics and tobacco sprays. Of these nearly every one did his
502 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
supposed manufacturing in a single small room or small building
utterly inadequate in size and equipment for the business alleged
to be conducted in it. Five permittees were authorized to with-
draw over 655,000 gallons in a single year. The 151 in the
first ten months of 1924 withdrew more than 1,100,000 gallons
of specially denatured alcohol, “which is probably alcohol enough
to make toilet water, hair tonic and tobacco sprays for the people
of the whole world.”
Nine permittees claimed to have used and sold more than 185,000
gallons of denatured alcohol in tobacco sprays during the first ten
months of 1924. I am informed that according to the formula used
by the largest manufacturers of tobacco in the country this was
tobacco spray enough to have treated twice over the whole tobacco
production of the United States in 1924, and half the production of
the entire world.
Governor Pinchot further stated that of five men who were
given permits to withdraw 590,000 gallons, four were without
published rating with the leading mercantile agencies, and one
was rated at from $500 to $1000. The permits of these had
been revoked but subsequently reinstated. Of the 130 manufac-
turers cited in 1924 for violation of law the permits of only 22
had been permanently revoked of which 17 made no defense,
and all these were minor offenders. The big violators whose per-
mits were revoked had them restored.
In the Philadelphia district, of 61 permittees, each authorized
to withdraw over 1,000 gallons of specially denatured alcohol
each month, and altogether to withdraw 2,671,000 gallons a year,
53 had been cited from one to three times for violation of the law
but only 15 had been put out of business.
In 1925 in New York City the United States district attorney
stated that there were at least 1,000 persons holding permits for
withdrawal of denatured alcohol for the manufacture of per-
fumes. Nationally known legitimate makers used from 40 to
120 barrels a month while persons of whom the public had never
heard withdrew from 300 to 1,000 barrels each for the alleged
manufacture of perfumes.
The Philadelphia North American in January, 1924, was ap-
parently justified when it declared: ‘A scandal even more ex-
tensive and dangerous than the immunity of lawbreaking brew-
eries is the illicit traffic in denatured alcohol.” During 1924 and
1925 the scandal appeared to become worse.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 503
In November, 1925, Governor Pinchot in a letter to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury stated that he was prepared to give the
details of more than 100 violations of law by holders of federal
permits for specially denatured alcohol. He said that the cases
showed, among other things, that the government had:
1. Granted permits to companies officered by known violators of
the law;
2. It had granted permits to companies whose equipment made
it physically impossible for them to manufacture alcohol in the
quantities the permits called for;
3. The government had restored permits to offending permittees
who were shown to have falsified their records and generally to
have violated the law and the regulations;
4. The government had refused to cancel permits when the
lawbreakers had finally been indicted;
5. It had been a habit of federal officials not to collect on the
bonds of lawbreaking permittees ; and
6. The final decisions relative to these permits were not made by
federal officers in Philadelphia but by government officials in
Washington. |
Governor Pinchot added that the men in Washington respon-
sible for granting or restoring permits under such conditions
have no proper place in the government service.
The administration of the permit system was so bad that even
the Democratic national platform of 1924 arraigned the Re-
publicans by declaring:
The Republican administration has failed to enforce the pro-
hibition law, is guilty of trafficking in liquor permits and has become
the protector of violators of the law.
7. Another respect in which action of federal administrative
authorities opened the way to the violation of the Eighteenth
Amendment was with regard to the making of wine. The In-
ternal Revenue regulations were such as to give the widespread
impression that by filling out a certain blank form furnished by
the Internal Revenue Bureau any person could make 200 gallons
of wine.
The wording seemed to imply permission to make 200 gallons.
This was taken advantage of by foreigners especially, and in the
grape growing sections, with the result that large quantities of
wine were made. It was stated that between 40,000 and 50,000
of these so-called permits were issued in California alone, which
at 200 gallons each meant a large amount. Late in 1925 this
504 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
system was discontinued.** Aside from the home-made wine,
that permitted to be made by the wineries was extra liberal in
quantity.
8. The federal government did not provide adequate facilities
for prosecuting the violators of the Eighteenth Amendment. Al-
though facts gathered by the Department of Justice and presented
to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1922 revealed that the
criminal business of the federal courts had increased about 800
per cent since 1912 and had increased from 8 to 4o per cent
of the total cases, only about 25 per cent additional federal
judges were provided.
Based upon the cases pending on June 30, 1921, the Depart-
ment of Justice reported that only 18 per cent of the criminal
cases were prohibition cases and of the total cases in the federal
courts only eight per cent were prohibition cases. It was very
evident that aside from the prohibition cases there was great need
for increased court facilities.
There was also great need for removing the barnacles which
had become attached to criminal law procedure. The thoughtful
public were becoming exasperated by the legal technicalities, the
long-drawn-out trials, the much speechmaking in court, the over-
solicitude for criminals rather than a predominant interest in
the welfare of society, and the many avenues for the guilty to
escape. :
Statistics given out by the Department of Justice and the Pro-
hibition Unit show that in the two-year period, 1923 and 1924,
a total of 94,899 criminal prosecutions for violation of liquor laws
were begun in the federal courts. The total number of convic-
tions was 71,248. Of these 62,618, or 88 per cent, were ob-
tained through pleas of guilty, which meant that the defendants
were commonly let off with a light fine or small penalty. In
some courts district attorneys conducted “bargain days” in which
offenders by pleading guilty were let off with light fines, hun-
dreds of cases being disposed of within a few days.
There were only 8,630 convictions during the two years in
cases where the defendants made a fight. In other words, taking
the United States as a whole, the number of convictions in con-
tested cases in federal courts was equivalent to an average of
one conviction to a county once in a period of eight and one-
half months. In 1925 they were still fewer, one to a county in
ten and one-half months. The preposterously small number was
81 Oliver W. Stewart, “Wine Making in the Home Unfairly Charged to the
Volstead Law”; National Enquirer, June 4, 1925.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 ° 505
not due to the lack of public sentiment or the failure of juries
to convict. These voted convictions in about three-fourths of the
cases. It was due chiefly to the lack of an aggressive enforce-
ment policy by the party in power.
In the two years 14,567 cases were nolle-prossed or dis-
missed. The average fine imposed was $187 but the average
collected was only $127 which was equal to only about one-eighth
of the customary high license fee in the pre-prohibition period.
The average jail sentence was 31 days. In 1925 it was 43 days,
less than one-fourth of the weak penalty permitted by the Vol-
stead Act for first offenders.
The light penalties, the lack of certainty and promptitude of
punishment, the many avenues of escape and the lack of earnest-
ness on the part of the higher officers of the government resulted
in failure to deter the lawless.
g. In addition to the glaring deficiencies in the federal ad-
ministration, local government in many sections was under the
domination of the old liquor politics and the office-holders con-
tinued wet. Volumes could be written regarding the infamous
political conditions in various parts of the country. Out of four-
teen counties in Ohio visited by the writer in 1924, a state which
on its last vote in 1922 gave a dry majority of 189,472, in only
three counties were the three officers most essential in law en-
forcement, sheriff, prosecuting attorney and county judge, classed
as dry.
In a section of a southern state having a Democratic Governor
and a Republican Congressman this situation was found in 1922.
The United States marshal was a former bootlegger. The internal
revenue collector was an ex-saloon-keeper. A deputy sheriff
was reported to be receiving a dollar a gallon for transporting
liquor from moonshiners in the outlying districts into the city.
The Congressman, although he had voted dry in Congress,
sought to have appointed as the chief prohibition officer in that
section a man who had been known as a bootlegger. In this
he was frustrated only after the good citizens had made a vigor-
ous fight at Washington. Some of the subordinate federal pro-
hibition officers were reported to be reselling to bootleggers liquor
which they had captured.
In another southern state, which had voted for prohibition by
a vote of more than two to one, a faithful prohibition agent be-
gan to be aggressive in doing his duty in enforcement. He re-
ceived three letters cautioning him to go easy. One was from
the state prohibition director, one was from the Republican na-
506 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
tional committeeman who controlled the distribution of the fed-
eral patronage in that state, and the third was from a former
Democratic Governor. Bipartisan politics was protecting the
criminals.
In a border state, where also the people had voted for prohibi-
tion by a vote of more than two to one, the following situation
was found in 1924. The United States Senator of the dominant
party was wet. The United States judge was wet, a federal
grand juryman stating that when the jury finished its work one
night the judge’s breath was strong with liquor. The United
States marshal was wet. The chief federal prohibition officer
was said to sell liquor himself and to receive protection money
from violators. A part of this was supposed to go to the support
of the political machine. Federal prohibition officers were said
to be allowing liquor to be smuggled across the border for a
rake-off of Sto acase. In the state capital the local officers were
Democratic and wet. The federal officers were Republican and
wet and both parties were competing for the wet vote. If arrests
were made the offenders were let off. Thus did the old type of
politics nullify the Constitution.
In another state, although the Governor was dry, having been
elected on the prohibition issue, local government in many sec-
tions continued under the control of the old wet politics to such a
degree that it was found that only one man in seventy of those
arrested for violation of the prohibition laws was sent to prison
for as much as one year.
10. Notwithstanding that one of the great objectives in plac-
ing prohibition in the Constitution was to establish a uniform
national standard and that it is the high duty of the national gov-
ernment to see that the Constitution is carried into effect, the
administrations of three Presidents thus far have made no
appropriate efforts to effectuate that standard. Ifa state failed to
respect the Eighteenth Amendment the federal administration re-
mained indifferent and failed to provide adequate means for
enforcement.
New York in 1923 repealed its state enforcement act, the only
state which has done so. Thereafter it was impossible to utilize
the state courts to help enforce the prohibition laws. Notwith-
standing that New York City with its large foreign element is
one of the most difficult places to enforce the laws, in late 1925
the federal government provided only about 150 federal prohibi-
tion agents to cover all of Greater New York, Long Island, a
territory extending 125 miles up the Hudson and all of Con-
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 507
necticut, comprising in all about nine million people. Only about
one-half of these agents were doing enforcement work proper.
The rest were handling alcohol permits, drug store permits, and
so forth.
Still worse, federal court facilities for the trial of cases were
not provided. The United States district attorney for the
Southern District of New York in 1925 was enabled to have only
about one-third of the time of one judge to try prohibition cases.
This was absolutely the only court, national, state or local, capable
of trying cases and imposing penalties for a district including
Manhattan, the Bronx and a territory 12 5 miles up the Hudson
comprising over four and a quarter million people.
The Republican federal administration’s shameful abdication
of responsibility for enforcement was equalled only by the
Democratic state administration’s attempted nullification as a
factor in bringing constitutional prohibition into disrepute in the
leading city and preeminent publicity center of the nation. |
11. The manner in which the Amendment was administered
thus violated in several respects the fundamental purposes of pro-
hibition. It failed to shut off the source of supply by permitting
brewers to manufacture beer and by permitting industrial alcohol
to be diverted. It failed to maintain a national standard both
by failing to provide the means for enforcement in recalcitrant
sections and by the system of appointment of federal officers
which subjected federal enforcement practically to the will of the
local politicians.
12. This atrocious type of administration not only tended
to nullify the Constitution and to bring prohibition into disrepute
but it encouraged the lawless elements and gave an impetus to
lawlessness. The impression became general that the government
was making no earnest, aggressive, comprehensive effort to make
prohibition effective. This gave encouragement to the law-
violators, the brewers, the rum runners, the bootleggers and
the rest of the horde of lawless and criminal elements. They
ignored the law and trampled upon the Constitution. They came
with an onrush bent on having a heyday of sport with the shorn
Samson—the law without a party to enforce it.
13. This type of administration encouraged the wets to keep
up their noisy propaganda and stimulated them to continue their
political activities. Although they were not able to repeal the
law, they sought to bring it into disrepute through maladminis-
tration. They made exaggerated claims as to the number of
508 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
voters they could control and intimidated the politicians and
public officials.
The Political System Underlying Prohibition
Why was it that the administration of this most beneficent law
was so unsatisfactory ?
Why was it that as early as 1923 the administration of national
prohibition was referred to as a national scandal?
Why was it that the enforcement situation had become so
critical that Governor Pinchot declared at the national con-
vention of the Anti-Saloon League in January, 1924, and reiter-
ated it at a similar convention in November, 1925, that the
Eighteenth Amendment had been betrayed and that “‘no sincere,
intelligent and concerted nation-wide effort has ever been made
to enforce it?”
Why was it that notwithstanding the marvelous and un-
precedented economic and social benefits which have been ex-
perienced from even poorly enforced prohibition—benefits which
should have appealed overwhelmingly to thoughtful statesmen—
they were almost totally ignored by the majority of men in public
life?
Why was it that, with a few worthy exceptions, there was a
lack of sincerity, of conviction upon this question, and of out-
standing moral power among those who were prominent in
politics ?
Why was it that although over five and a half million voters
had voted for prohibition in the thirty-two states which had held
popular elections, comprising nearly 57 per cent of those voting,
the leading officers who were chosen to administer the law were
almost exclusively those who were pointed to as having never
voted for prohibition, as having not been interested in it and some
of whom acknowledged that they had been drinkers since the
Amendment had been in force? Were there none of the five and
a half millions who were qualified?
Why was it that although Congress was reported to be growing
drier following each successive election that only one outstand-
ing dry measure was passed in the seven years following the
enactment of the Volstead Act?
Why was it that although Congress was classed as dry, in the
Sixty-ninth Congress, organized in December, 1925, the three
most strategic and powerful positions in the House were as-
signed to men with decidedly wet records, the positions of
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 509
Speaker, Majority Floor Leader and the Chairman of the Judi-
ciary Committee?
Why was it that the Cabinet officers appointed to head the two
most important departments responsible for carrying prohibition
into effect were men with records decidedly anti-prohibition °
Why was it that when the President of the United States
in a budget message uttered the most favorable words yet con-
tained in a presidential message, he accompanied these words by a
budget recommendation which provided for a reduction of several
hundred thousand dollars in the appropriation for the Prohibition
Unit?
Certainly there must have been some more fundamental reason
for these conditions than appears upon the surface. Some reasons
commonly or superficially given should be eliminated. These con-
ditions cannot be explained by the personal attitude of certain
office-holders. Occupants of key offices such as the Presidency
or the Attorney-Generalship would change but the quality of the
administration continued largely the same. They were not due
to a lack of education. Education is important, and should be
continued, but “every schoolboy knows’ that the liquor traffic is
bad and that prohibition is in the Constitution and should be
enforced. They were not due to a lack of public sentiment upon
this question. As hereinbefore described, some of the worst ad-
ministration prevailed in those states which had voted more than
two to one for prohibition. The difficulty was that public senti-
ment was not applied to the government in such a manner as to
control the government and cause it to function effectively.
A fundamental reason for the scandalous, yea, despicable,
administrative situation can be found in the political system
which underlies the administration of prohibition—in the com-
position of our politics.
The crux of the matter is that although we have placed prohibi-
tion in the Constitution, we have continued a political system
under which both parties are so composed that they do not give
an honest and sincere administration of prohibition, Both are
composed of supporters and opponents of prohibition and both
are unwilling to alienate the anti-prohibition fraction of their
membership.
Let us consider briefly the outstanding political factors in the
situation :
1. No study of the present situation can ignore the historical
background of the tremendous influence which the liquor power
wielded in American politics for more than half a century. It
510 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
debauched voters in large numbers, plumped their votes in great
masses, supplied campaign funds, wielded the balance of power,
made alliances with party machines, in some sections took full
command of the parties and in many ways, more fully discussed in
other chapters, exercised an influence in politics as did no other
interest. Both parties were under the domination of the liquor
power.*”
2. The liquor power did not accept defeat even with the plac-
ing of prohibition in the Constitution. It tefused to respect the
Constitution. It treated the Eighteenth Amendment as a “scrap
of paper.” Most of the breweries remained intact, having been
permitted, very unwisely, by the Volstead Law to make regular
beer, ostensibly with a view to dealcoholization. Since 1862 the
breweries had been the chief factor in liquor politics and liquor
aggression. Most of the breweries continued, some as makers
of cereal beverages. Hundreds were caught in violating the law,
some were dormant so far as manufacture was concerned but
practically all were components of a vicious power which carried
on a continuous assault against prohibition. Under various
aliases they carried on a propaganda for some modification which
would permit the return of beer. The saloon as a political center
had been practically eliminated, but the outlawed liquor power
sought to devise new methods of corralling votes.
Continued political activity was an inherent and preeminent
part of the program of the wets not only because it was only
through politics that they could possibly hope to ultimately obtain
some kind of modification, but current politics was the means
whereby they could weaken enforcement, provide a greater
opportunity for the sale of liquor and bring prohibition into
disrepute. By trying to make voters dissatisfied with the
kind of prohibition which was apparent, they hoped to incite
them against it and add to the number of voters who could be
utilized in the advancement of their schemes. Starting with their
long-seated position of power in party councils and long ex-
perience in politics they sought to prevent effective enforcement.
Among other things they intimidated the politicians.
In 1924 three wet organizations formed a joint committee
with some officers of the American Federation of Labor looking
towards the modification of the Volstead Act and they claimed
that they could control seven million votes. They threatened to
wield the balance of power in pivotal states in the presidential
82 For a fuller discussion of the liquor power in politics, see infra, Chapter
XXVII,
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 511
election. It is known that early in 1924 on at least two occasions
representatives of prominent wet organizations—one with a
name signifying opposition to a part of the Constitution—were
admitted to conference with the President in the White House.*?
Apparently they sought to intimidate the President of the United
States on the eve Sf: a presidential campaign.
3. Likewise the present situation cannot be interpreted prop-
erly without taking into consideration the political methods by
which prohibition was adopted. In the adoption of state prohib-
itory legislation the predominant method was the use of the
referendum in which the parties played only a very small part.
In the adoption of national constitutional prohibition the chief
political objective was to elect Congressmen who would vote to
submit and legislators who would vote to ratify. The political
method was known as the omni-partisan method. The Anti-
Saloon League was its chief advocate and it advised people to
stay in their own parties and work for individual dry candidates.
It distinctly disavowed any desire to have either party champion
prohibition as a party measure.°
As a result neither party was committed to prohibition. Upon
other leading national questions which required national action
the parties generally made some commitment. But upon pro-
hibition there was no commitment.
4. There was no national union of the moral forces to secure
control of the administration of the government. Under the
omni-partisan method such union as was brought about was
chiefly within the parties in the primaries and within districts and
states. In the one-party states and districts, where the direct
primary prevailed or where the sentiment was overwhelmingly
dry, in each of which conditions the wets were unable to wield
the balance of power, this method resulted in the election of a
good many individual legislators. But it was unsuited to the task
of electing the whole corps of officers needed, the very thing
which it is a prominent function of the party to encompass.**
There having been no national political union and the voters
having been advised to stay in their own parties the moral forces
continued to be divided between the parties which were so com-
posed that in each party the influence of the dry voters was
counteracted by an aggressive opposing wet interest within the
same party.
83 Record of White House appointments published in the Washington papers
supplemented by personal inquiry by the writer.
84 For a discussion of the omni-partisan plan, see Chapter XXI.
35 For a study of the function of parties, see Chapter XXIX.
512 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
In fact the drys were yoked in party membership with the wets,
so yoked that they were unable to secure a satisfactory enforce-
ment of the law. The wet element practically placed a veto
upon aggressive enforcement. This meant inaction, lax enforce-
ment, or worse, and the failure to achieve the proper degree of
the benefits of prohibition. Notwithstanding that the drys com-
prised a majority, the difficulty was in the methods used and in
the fact that the drys were not so organized as to control the
government.
5. The parties remained substantially as they were before pro-
hibition, The party composition was not greatly changed.
Fkach party was composed of both elements, the drys and the
wets. In the case of both parties the party composition was such
that the party was unwilling to enforce the law to the extent of
driving out the wet vote.
Lifelong aggressive wets» could hold the highest appointive
positions such as Cabinet offices, as well as those most loyal to
the Constitution. In fact they were preferred, as they would be
less likely to alienate mobile wet votes.
6. Each party was radically divided upon the question of
prohibition, Prohibition received no united support from either
party, one of which administered the government. Neither party
was responsible for prohibition. It was an outside affair so far
as the party, the very organization responsible for the administra-
tion of the government, was concerned. Prohibition had been
placed upon the statute book and in the Constitution outside of
party. It was the law and it was the duty of the party in power
to enforce it, but in many ways the party leaders manifested their
feeling that it was an unpleasant duty which they were dis-
inclined to perform.
7. Prohibition was looked upon as a troublesome question
politically. Whether an administration enforced it or failed to
enforce it, it was bound to alienate some voters. But the wet
voters were more easily alienated. They would leave on less
provocation. They were more mobile, more bossible, more cor-
ruptible, were more easily manipulated. They were more likely
to go in a body.
The typical political attitude was to make such concessions
to both sides as seemed to be necessary. This took the form, as
it had done frequently in the history of prohibition, of giving the
drys the law and the wets the administration. A policy of inac-
tion and excuses was generally easier and less dangerous than
a policy of aggressive enforcement. The result was, the desire
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 513
to keep from alienating the wets resulted in paralyzing the arm
of the government.
8. Under our present political system the objective of both
parties is to carry the close states, especially those with a large
electoral vote. Several of these states are the leading wet states.
' Each party is afraid of alienating a wet balance of power in cer-
tain strategic close states.
Each party as at present composed is unable to give prohibition
a sincere and effective support. The consequence is, we experi-
ence the poor administration heretofore described. Some people
assume that this is because prohibition is unenforceable whereas
the poor administration is due primarily to the composition of the
political system underlying prohibition and to the fact that the
prohibition forces have not finished their work.
9. Notwithstanding that prohibition is a part of the Constitu-
tion, the party in power, being dependent upon the wet vote in
close states for its margin of plurality, does not enforce this part
of the Constitution beyond the point where, in the view of the
party leaders, the enforcing might endanger the party. Prohibi-
tion has been sacrificed for the sake of party interest.
Notwithstanding that lax enforcement means a reign of law-
lessness, the poisoning and destruction of citizens, disrespect for
the Constitution and a tendency toward anarchy, the major parties
choose to subserve the votes of an outlaw and criminal traffic
by such a lax enforcement.
Furthermore, and deplorable though it is, multitudes of good
citizens, disappointed, discouraged, bewildered and seeming to
know not what else to do, continue to vote for such parties.
10. A study of Prohibition in the United States fails at the
most crucial point if it fails to appreciate that prohibition as
thus far experienced has been without the support of that pre-
eminent, all pervading and most essential organ of government,
the political party in power. Prohibition thus far has been playing
Hamlet with Hamlet left out.
11. The features of maladministration and duplicity of poli-
ticians and political leaders are by no means new in the prohibi-
tion movement. They have been characteristic not merely of the
period 1920-1925. They have been common, widespread and
persistent from 1851 down, as can be discerned in some of the
earlier chapters of this book.
It was a similar composition of our political system, and the
lack of a union in a political party to administer the government,
which underlay the lack of greater success of the prohibition
B14 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
movements of the fifties and the eighties and which drove the
great thinkers and leaders of the movement, like Neal Dow,
John Russell, John B. Finch, John P. St. John, Frances E. Wil-
lard and many others to the earnest championship of the Pro-
hibition party.
Today their philosophy is just as sound as ever before and
more worthy of acceptance because more fully demonstrated by
the experience of the years.
12. In order to prevent the repetition of the unsatisfactory
and discouraging type of administration which prevailed most of
the time for over half a century in Maine and for about a
quarter of a century in Kansas, a type of administration which
was a leading factor in repealing prohibition in all but one of the
fifteen other states which adopted it prior to 1907, and which is
critically endangering the success of constitutional prohibition at
the present moment, the fundamental lesson of prohibition history
is that, above all, prohibition needs a party in power committed
to it as a matter of principle.*
13. The work of prohibition is but fractionally completed.
Said Frances E. Willard forty years ago, in 188s:
We have discovered that the saloon is entrenched in politics even
more firmly than in law.3?
We have driven the saloon from its protection in law but it
remains entrenched in politics to make a mockery of the law.
14. T’o complete the work of making national prohibition
effective :
A. There needs to be a reorganization of our politics so that
the liquor power shall be completely dislodged from politics as
well as from law.
B. There needs to be a realignment of the voters so that
those who believe in upholding the great moral provision of the
Constitution shall not be yoked with those who seek to nullify
it. Those who believe prohibition is right should cease voting
with those who believe it is wrong.
C. There needs to be a union, a coming together into a
political party, of the multitudes who believe in prohibition, who
believe in the Constitution, who believe in a government of law
and order, who believe in America’s capacity to achieve a great
moral advance, that they may obtain control of the whole
government.
86 For a fuller discussion of Prohibition and the American Governmental
System, see Chapter XXIX,
87 For the political messages of Frances E., Willard, see Chapter XVI.
NATIONAL PROHIBITION—1920-1925 515
D. There needs to be a party which is not dependent upon the
liquor element for an essential component part of its plurality.
E. There needs to be a party which will elect a President com-
mitted to prohibition by personal conviction and party prin-
ciple, a President abounding in capacity to use his tremendous
power as the head of the administration, as the leader of his
party and as the leader of the nation in behalf of this great
Cause.
F. There needs to be a regeneration of our politics. There
needs to be the transforming power of a great national political
ideal which will purify politics and make it a worthy instrument
of attaining the transcendent ideals of which the Prohibitionists
long have dreamed—a nobler citizenship, a better world here and
now, the coming nearer of the Kingdom of God on earth.*
38 For bibliography, see the close of Chapter XXIV.
le
III.
IV.
Chapter X XVI
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND
PROHIBITION
The Four Groups of Decisions
Those upholding the principle of prohibition and establish-
ing its constitutionality.
The License Cases of 1847.
Bartemeyer v. Iowa.
Beer Co. v. Massachusetts.
Foster v. Kansas.
Crowley v. Christensen.
Crane v. Campbell.
Samuels v. McCurdy.
The Question of Compensation.
Mugler v. Kansas.
Finch’s preceding argument.
Three points of the Great Decision:
Manufacture for private use or export.
Compensation.
Abatement of Nuisances and In junction.
The Interstate Commerce Cases.
Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company.
Leisy v. Hardin, the Original Package Decision.
The Wilson Law:
In re Rahrer.
Rhodes v. Iowa.
Later Decisions upholding National Legislation.
Upholding the Webb-Kenyon Law.
James Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland
Railroad Co.
Sustaining the Reed Amendment.
United States v. Hill.
United States v. Simpson.
War Time Prohibition Constitutional.
Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries,
516
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 517
Upholding the Volstead Law.
Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey.
Upholding the Method of Ratification of the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Amendments.
Hawke v. Smith.
The Culminating Decision Upholding the Eighteenth
Amendment and the Law for its Enforcement.
National Prohibition Cases. Rhode Island v.
Palmer.
The principle of prohibition has been thoroughly and repeatedly
upheld by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
Before that exalted tribunal the constitutionality of prohibition
has been assailed from every angle by some of the highest paid
lawyers in the country, but the only effect of each fresh assault
has been to leave prohibition more impregnable than before.
There was a group of decisions which some might interpret as
contrary to this statement—those growing out of the conflict
between the police power of the states and the commerce power
of the federal government. But these cases, although limiting the
scope of state prohibition, were by no means antagonistic to the
principle of prohibition and their effect was to emphasize the
national character of the prohibition question.
The court decisions have had such an influence on the course of
the prohibition reform that any history bearing upon the prohi-
bition question would be incomplete without including the judicial
phase.
THE FOUR GROUPS OF DECISIONS
There are four groups of decisions which have influenced the
history of the whole prohibition movement:
I. The first group comprises those cases upholding the prin-
ciple of prohibition and establishing its constitutionality, begin-
ning with the License Cases in 1847.
II. The compensation case of 1887, which was important
enough to be considered in a class by itself.
III. The cases involving interstate commerce, relating to the
conflict between the police power of the states and the commerce
power of the federal government beginning in 1888 and extending
to the upholding of the Webb-Kenyon Law in 1917.
IV. The decisions upholding national legislation, the Webb-
518 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Kenyon Law, the Reed Amendment, War Prohibition, Consti-
tutional Prohibition, and the Volstead Act.
I. Cases UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLE OF PROHIBITION.
The License Cases of 1847
Even before the enactment of the famous Maine Law of 1851
the Supreme Court had upheld the right to prohibit the liquor
traffic. Chief Justice Taney had declared: “If any State deems
the retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits injurious to its
citizens and calculated to produce illness, vice, or debauchery, I
see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent
it from regulating and restraining the traffic or from prohibiting
it altogether if it thinks proper.”
The License Cases (5 Howard, 504), 1847, were three cases
brought up from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hamp-
shire, respectively, arising from state laws passed for the purpose
of discouraging the use of ardent spirits within their respective
territories by prohibiting their sale in small quantities and with-
out licenses previously obtained from the state authorities. It was
brought out in the argument that owing to many of the authorities
refusing to grant licenses, the effect was to bring about prohibi-
tion.
The validity of the state laws was drawn in question upon the
ground that they were repugnant to that clause of the Constitu-
tion of the United States which confers on Congress the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several
states.
In determining the constitutionality of the state statutes one
of the chief points for consideration was whether there was any
conflict between the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate
commerce with foreign countries, or among the several states,
and the exercise by a state of its police power.
In separate opinions, filed by the individual justices, the laws
of these states were upheld, notwithstanding that the New Hamp-
shire case was one in which the liquor had been brought from
another state and sold in New Hampshire in the original package.
Most of the discussion in the decision was upon the interstate
commerce aspect, there having been no question in the minds of
the court that, when only internal commerce was involved, a state
could prohibit if it desired.
The Court decided that, even though the liquor was an import
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 519
from another state and although Congress clearly has the power
to regulate such importation, yet, in the absence of action by
Congress, the liquor could be regulated by the state as soon as it is
landed in its territory and a tax could be imposed, or a license
required, or the sale altogether prohibited, according to the policy
which the state may suppose to be its duty or interest to pursue.
Justice Grier declared:
The true question presented by these cases, and one which I am
not disposed to evade, is whether the states have a right to prohibit
the sale and consumption of an article of commerce which they
believe to be pernicious in its effects, and the cause of disease,
pauperism and crime... . Without attempting to define what are
the peculiar subjects or limits of this power, it may safely be
affirmed that every law for the restraint and punishment of crime,
for the preservation of the public peace, health, and morals, must
come within this category. . . . It is not necessary, for the sake of
justifying the state legislation now under consideration, to array the
appalling statistics of misery, pauperism, and crime, which have
their origin in the abuse or use of ardent spirits. The police power,
which is exclusively in the states, is alone competent to the correc-
tion of these great evils, and all measures of restraint or prohibition
necessary to effect the purpose are within the scope of that authority.
This decision in the License Cases was the accepted doctrine
for over forty years. It came to be the settled practice that
liquors transported from one state into another became subject to
the laws of the state into which shipped, the same as liquor made
within the state.
In the decade following the decision in the License Cases thir-
teen states passed prohibitory laws and with the exception of one
state, Indiana, in 1855, the principle of prohibition has been
upheld in the highest court of every state. Certain provisions of
the New York Act of 1855 were declared unconstitutional but the
main principle stood.
Cases Establishing the Constitutionality of Prohibition
For many years, more than a quarter of a century, the right to
prohibit was not seriously contested in the Supreme Court. The
liquor interests probably found it easier to overcome prohibition
through political manipulation than through legal argument.
But after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, follow-
ing the Civil War, violators of state laws sought to take refuge
behind that part of the Fourteenth Amendment which says:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
520 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
Then followed a series of attacks on prohibition as violative of
some provision of the Constitution, all of which were decisively
settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court.
These cases extending from 1873 to 1890 firmly established
step by step the complete constitutionality of prohibition. The
first of these cases to reach the Supreme Court was that of Barte-
meyer v. lowa (18 Wall. 129), 1873. The Court declared that,
as a measure of police regulation for the preservation of public
morals, a state law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of in-
toxicating liquors is not repugnant to any clause of the Constitu-
tion prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court further
declared that the right to sell intoxicating liquors is not one of
the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
which by the Fourteenth Amendment the states were forbidden to
abridge.
The next leading liquor case was Beer Co. v. Massachusetts
(97 U. S. 25), 1877. This involved the provision in Article 1,
Section 10, of the Constitution that no state shall pass any law
impairing the obligation of contracts. A brewery chartered by the
state before prohibition was adopted claimed that the charter was
a contract which could not be impaired by a subsequent prohibi-
tory statute.
The Supreme Court decided that all rights are held subject to
the police power of the state; and if the public safety or the public
morals requires the discontinuance of any manufacture or traffic,
the legislature may provide for its discontinuance notwithstanding
individuals or corporations may thereby suffer inconvenience. It
further held that, as the police power of a state extends to the
protection of the lives, health and property of the citizens and the
preservation of good order and public morals, the legislature
cannot by any contract, divest itself of the power to provide for
these objects. They belong to that class of objects which demand
the application of the maxim, Salus populi suprema lex: and they
are to be attained and provided for by such appropriate means as
the legislative discretion may devise.
In the case of Foster v. Kansas (112 U. S. 201), 1884, the
Court said that the question as to the constitutional power of the
state to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor
was no longer an open one in the Court.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 521
The next important decision was the case of Mugler v. Kan-
sas in 1887 wherein the Kansas law prohibiting the manufacture
of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes was sustained and
wherein it was also decided that prohibition does not conflict with
that part of the Fourteenth Amendment which says that no state
shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law. This case and the interstate commerce cases
1888-1890 are hereinafter discussed separately.
Crowley v. Christensen (137 U. S. 86), again upholding the
principle of prohibition, is the culminating decision with respect
to setting forth the sound legal reason for prohibition. It de-
molished the contention that the liquor question was not properly
a matter for legislation and flatly denied that there was any in-
herent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquors. The case
was that of a man who had sold liquor in San Francisco after
having been refused a license.
The Court said:
It is undoubtedly true that it is the right of every citizen of the
United States to pursue any lawful trade or business, under such
restrictions aS are imposed upon all persons, of the same age, sex,
and condition. But the possession and enjoyment of all rights are
subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the
governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health,
peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty
itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act
according to one’s own will. It is only freedom from restraint
under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right
by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law. The right to
acquire, enjoy and dispose of property is declared in the constitu-
tions of several States to be one of the inalienable rights of man.
But this declaration is not held to preclude the legislature of any
State from passing laws respecting the acquisition, enjoyment and
disposition of property. . . . As to the enjoyment of property, the
rule is general that it must be accompanied with such limitations as
will not impair the equal enjoyment by others of their property... .
It is urged that as the liquors are used as a beverage and the
injury following them, if taken in excess, is voluntarily inflicted
and is confined to the party offending, their sale should be without
restriction, the contention being that what a man shall drink, equally
with what he shall eat, is not properly a matter for legislation.
There is in this position an assumption of fact which does not
exist, that when liquors are taken in excess the injuries are con-
fined to the party offending. The injury, it is true, first falls upon
him in his health, which the habit undermines; in his morals, which
it weakens, and in the self-abasement which it creates. But, as it
522 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
leads to neglect of business and waste of property and general
demoralization, it affects those who are immediately connected with
and dependent upon him.
By the general concurrence of opinion of every civilized and
Christian community, there are few sources of crime and misery
to society equal to the dramshop, where intoxicating liquors in small
quantities to be drunk at the time are sold indiscriminately to all
parties applying. The statistics of every State show a greater
amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits
obtained at these retail liquor saloons than to any other source. The
sale of such liquors in this way has heretofore been, at all times,
by the courts of every State, considered as the proper subject of
legislative regulation. Not only may a license be exacted from the
keeper of the saloon before a glass of his liquor can thus be dis-
posed of, but restrictions may be imposed as to the class of persons
to whom they may be sold, and the hours of the day and days of
the week on which the saloons may be opened. Their sale in that
form may be absolutely prohibited. It is a question of public
expediency and public morality and not of federal law. The police
power of the State is fully competent to regulate the business, to
mitigate its evils or to suppress it entirely. There is no inherent
right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is
not a privilege of a citizen of the State or a citizen of the United
States. As it is a business attended with danger to the community
it may, as already said, be entirely prohibited, or be permitted under
such conditions as will limit to the utmost its evils. The manner
and extent of regulation rests in the discretion of the governing
authority.
This decision so thoroughly settled the right to prohibit that
since 1890 the contrary contention has had no standing before the
United States Supreme Court.
Crane v. Campbell. In 1917 the Supreme Court went still
further. The cases thus far had upheld the right to prohibit
the manufacture of and traffic in liquor. In Crane v. Campbell
(245 U. S. 304), 1917, the Supreme Court declared that the
right to hold intoxicating liquors for personal use is not a con-
stitutional privilege of a citizen, and that a state may prohibit
and punish the possession of intoxicating liquors for personal
use.
This was an Idaho case in which the plaintiff in error was ar-
rested and held in custody, solely because charged with having
in his possession a bottle of whisky for his own use and benefit
and not for purpose of giving away or selling the same. The
Supreme Court. after reviewing the Idaho legislation, in affrm-
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 523
ing the judgment of the State Court against the plaintiff in error,
said:
It must now be regarded as settled that, on account of their well-
known noxious qualities and the extraordinary evils shown by ex-
perience commonly to be consequent upon their use, a State has
power absolutely to prohibit manufacture, gift, purchase, sale or
transportation of alcoholic liquors within its borders without vio-
lating the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. .. .
As the State has the power above indicated to prohibit it may
adopt such measures as are reasonably appropriate or needful to
render exercise of that power effective. ...
And considering the notorious difficulties always attendant upon
efforts to suppress the traffic in liquors, we are unable to say that
the challenged inhibition of their possession was arbitrary and un-
reasonable or without proper relation to the legitimate legislative
purpose.
We further think it clearly follows from our numerous decisions
upholding prohibition legislation that the right to hold intoxicating
liquors for personal use is not one of the fundamental privileges
of a citizen of the United States which no state may abridge. A
contrary view would be incompatible with the undoubted power to
prevent the manufacture, gift, sale, purchase or transportation of
such articles, the only feasible ways of getting them. An assured
right of possession would necessarily imply some adequate method
to obtain not subject to destruction at the will of the State.
Samuels v. McCurdy (267 U.S. 188). In this case in March,
1925, the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of a
Georgia law prohibiting the possession of intoxicating liquors
although such liquors had been acquired before the state law
became effective.
II. THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION. MUGLER v. Kansas,
1887.
For a number of years a struggle over the question of com-
pensation for those deprived of their property on account of
prohibition had been forecast.
In the case of Bartemeyer v. Iowa in 1873 there was a broad
intimation that, if a case were presented in which a person owning
liquor or other property at a time the statute was enacted, there
would be a grave question whether this might be a deprivation
of property without due process of law, and consequently re-
pugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. |
Likewise in Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 1877, there was a state-
524 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
ment: “We do not mean to say that property actually in existence
and in which the right of the owner had become vested, may be
taken for the public good without compensation.” But this was
mere dicta, as the liquor involved was not in existence when the
liquor law of Massachusetts was passed.
In 1886 a United States Circuit Court, in a Kansas case, had
decided against the taking of private property for the public
good without compensation. And even the Supreme Court, in
1886, in some Iowa cases was evenly divided on the question of
compensation, one of the nine justices having been unable to
participate in the decision owing to sickness.
In the state constitutional amendment campaigns of the eighties
the question of compensation was one which was being raised by
the opponents of prohibition to create opposition to prohibition.
In the campaign for a prohibition constitutional amendment in
Michigan in 1887 the question of compensation was strongly
argued. In March of that year John B. Finch, Chairman of the
Prohibition National Committee, in a famous debate in Detroit
discussed the subject in answer to the arguments of an opponent.
Finch’s logical argument anticipated the reasoning of the Supreme
Court eight months later. He said:
Government compensates for private property taken for public
use. Government never compensates for prohibiting the wrongful
or injurious use of private property. If the liquor business had
produced the same results as the dry goods business there would
have been no attempt to prohibit it. The prohibition is the result
of the effects of the business. It has made its own suppression
necessary and cannot plead its own wrongs in a court of equity.2
He called attention to the fact that the license issued to a
saloon-keeper is for one year, the bond is for one year and when
the saloon-keeper enters the traffic he knows that at the expiration
of the year all privileges and all rights under that license and that
bond expire and no mandamus will lie to compel the officers to
renew the privilege.
Those engaged in the liquor traffic knew it was an exceedingly
risky business and one which might be suppressed at any time.
Repeated court decisions had served to give notice that their traf-
fic was not regarded as being in the same class with legitimate
business.
The precedents wherein such evils as slavery and lotteries had
been abolished without compensation to the slaveholder and lot-
tery keeper were cited against compensation to the liquor interests.
1John B, Finch, His Life and Work, Pp. 300.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 525
Furthermore, by the taxpaying people it was felt that if there
should be any compensation at all it should be paid by the liquor
interests for the colossal and irreparable ruin they had wrought
rather than given by the state to the liquor interests.
It is now worthy of comment that never in the history of pro-
hibition in the United States has compensation been granted as
an incident of the prohibitory laws. But before the sweeping
decision in the case of Mugler v. Kansas the future was uncertain.
In this situation the case decided in December, 1887, was ap-
propriately called “The Great Prohibition Decision.” It sum-
marized the principles decided in the earlier liquor cases and
added the decision that a state has the right to prohibit the
manufacture of liquors for the manufacturer’s own use, that
compensation is not necessary, and that a state can enact a law
providing for the closing of liquor premises as nuisances without
jury trials.
Mugler v. Kansas (123 U.S. 623), 1887, was a case wherein
the owners of Kansas breweries were being prosecuted for vio-
lation of the Kansas prohibition law by selling beer which had
been manufactured before the passage of the act. The buildings
and machinery constituting the breweries had been specially con-
structed for making beer and were of little value if not used for
that purpose.
The issue was, whether the prohibition statute of Kansas was
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reviewed
the preceding decisions and showed that those decisions had made
clear that legislation by a State prohibiting the manufacture
within her limits of intoxicating liquors to be sold therein or
bartered for general use as a beverage does not necessarily in-
fringe any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitu-
tion of the United States.
Manufacture for Private Use or Export
The breweries had contended however that no legislature has
the right to prohibit any citizen from manufacturing for his own
use, for export or storage, any article of food or drink not en-
dangering or affecting the rights of others.
The Court answered:
If such manufacture does prejudicially affect the rights and in-
terests of the community, it follows, from the very premises stated,
that society has the power to protect itself, by legislation, against
the injurious consequences of that business. As was said in Munn
526 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
v. Illinois, while power does not exist with the whole people to
control rights that are purely and exclusively private, government
may require each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own
property as not unnecessarily to injure another.
But by whom, or by what authority, is it to be determined whether
the manufacture of particular articles of drink, either for general
use or for personal use of the maker, will injuriously affect the
public? Power to determine such questions, so as to bind all, must
exist somewhere; else society will be at the mercy of the few, who,
regarding only their own appetites or passions, may be willing to
imperil the peace and security of the many, provided only they are
permitted to do as they please. Under our system that power is
lodged with the legislative branch of the government. It belongs
to that department to exert what are known as the police powers
of the State, and to determine primarily what measures are appro-
priate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the public
health, or the public safety. ... .
It is difficult to perceive any ground for the judiciary to declare
that the prohibition by Kansas of the manufacture or sale, within
her limits, of intoxicating liquors for general. use there as a bev-
erage, is not fairly adapted to the end of protecting the community
against the evils which confessedly result from the excessive use of
ardent spirits. There is no justification for holding that the State,
under the guise merely of police regulations, is here aiming to de+
prive the citizen of his constitutional rights; for we cannot shut out
of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health,
the public morals, and the public safety may be endangered by the
general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact, established by
statistics accessible to every one, that the idleness, disorder, pauper-
ism, and crime existing in the country are, in some degree at least,
traceable to this evil. If, therefore, a State deems the absolute
prohibition of the manufacture and sale, within her limits, of in-
toxicating liquors for other than medical, scientific, and manufac-
turing purposes, to be necessary to the peace and security of society,
the courts cannot, without usurping legislative functions, override
the will of the people as thus expressed by their chosen representa-
TLV Sse ty te
If, in the judgment of the legislature, the manufacture of in-
toxicating liquors for the maker’s own use, as a beverage, would
tend to cripple, if it did not defeat, the efforts to guard the com-
munity against the evils attending the excessive use of such liquors,
it is not for the courts, upon their views as to what is best and
safest for the community, to disregard the legislative determination
of that question. So far from such a regulation having no relation
to the general end sought to be accomplished, the entire scheme of
prohibition, as embodied in the constitution and laws of Kansas,
might fail, if the right of each citizen to manufacture intoxicating
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 527
liquors for his own use as a beverage were recognized. Such a
right does not inhere in citizenship. Nor can it be said that govern-
ment interferes with or impairs any one’s constitutional rights of
liberty or of property, when it determines that the manufacture and
sale of intoxicating drinks, for general or individual use, as a bev-
erage, are, or may become, hurtful to society, and constitute, there-
fore, a business in which no one may lawfully engage. Those rights
are best secured, in our government, by the observance, upon the
part of all, of such regulations as are established by competent
authority to promote the common good. No one may rightfully
do that which the law-making power, upon reasonable grounds,
declares to be prejudicial to the general welfare.
“A year later in Kidd v. Pearson (128 U.S. 1) the Court
upheld the power of the state to prohibit the manufacture of
liquor even though the manufacturer intended to export the liquor
when made.
Compensation Refused
Continuing, in the decision in Mugler v. Kansas, the Supreme
Court said:
It is contended by the defendants that, as the primary and prin-
cipal use of beer is as a beverage; as their respective breweries were
erected when it was lawful to engage in the manufacture of beer
for every purpose; as such establishments will become of no value
as property, or, at least, will be materially diminished in value, if
not employed in the manufacture of beer for every purpose; the
prohibition upon their being so employed is, in effect, a taking of
property for public use without compensation, and depriving the
citizen of his property without due process of law. In other words,
although the State, in the exercise of her police powers, may law-
fully prohibit the manufacture and sale, within her limits, of in-
toxicating liquors to be used as a beverage, legislation having that
object in view cannot be enforced against those who, at the time,
happen to own property, the chief value of which consists in its
fitness for such manufacturing purposes, unless compensation is
first made for the diminution in the value of their property, result-
ing from such prohibitory enactments.
This interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is inadmissible.
It cannot be supposed that the States intended, by adopting that
amendment, to impose restraints upon the exercise of their powers
for the protection of the safety, health or morals of the community.
In respect to contracts, the obligations of which are protected against
hostile State legislation, this court in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent
City Co. (111 U.S. 746,751), said that the State could not, by any
528 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
contract, limit the exercise of her power to the prejudice of the
public health and the public morals. So, in Stone v. Mississippi
(ror U.S. 814,816), where the Constitution was invoked against
the repeal by the State of a charter, granted to a private corporation,
to conduct a lottery, and for which that corporation paid to the
State a valuable consideration in money, the court said: “No legis-
lature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The
people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. . . . Gov-
ernment is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot
divest itself of the power to provide for them.” ...
The principle, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law, was embodied, in substance,
in the constitutions of nearly all, if not all, of the States at the time
of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; and it has never
been regarded as incompatible with the principle, equally vital, be-
cause essential to the peace and safety of society, that all property
in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner’s
use of it shall not be injurious to the community... .
The present case must be governed by principles that do not
involve the power of eminent domain, in the exercise of which
property may not be taken for public use without compensation. A
prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are
declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals
or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed
a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit.
Such legislation does not disturb the owner in the control or use
of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dis-
pose of it, but is only a declaration by the State that its use by any
one, for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the public
interests. .. . The power which the States have of prohibiting such
use by individuals of their property as will be prejudicial to the
health, the morals or the safety of the public, 1s not—and, con-
sistently with the existence and safety of organized society, cannot
be—burdened with the condition that the State must compensate
such individual owners for pecuniary losses they may sustain, by
reason of their not being permitted, by a noxious use of thew prop-
erty, to inflict injury upon the commumty.
The exercise of the police power by the destruction of property
which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its use in a
particular way, whereby its value becomes depreciated, is very
different from taking property for public use, or from depriving a
person of his property without due process of law. In the one case,
a nuisance only is abated; in the other, unoffending property is taken
away from an innocent owner.
It is true, that, when the defendants in these cases purchased or
erected their breweries, the laws of the State did not forbid the
manufacture of intoxicating liquors. But the State did not thereby
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 529
give any assurance, or come under an obligation, that its legislation
upon that subject would remain unchanged. Indeed, as was said
in Stone v. Mississippi (101 U.S. 814), the supervision of the
public health and: the public morals is a governmental power, “con-
tinuing in its nature,” and “to be dealt with as the special exigencies
of the moment may require”; and that, “for this purpose, the largest
legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted
with any more than the power itself.” So in Beer Co. v. Massa-
chusetts (97 U.S. 32): “If the public safety or the public morals
requires the discontinuance of any manufacture or traffic, the hand
of the legislature cannot be stayed from providing for its discon-
tinuance by any incidental inconvenience which individuals or cor-
porations may suffer.”
Abatement of Nuisances and Injunction
Of scarcely less importance than the upholding of prohibition
and the denial of the right of compensation was the approval
given by this decision to the means of enforcing prohibition pro-
vided by the Kansas law. A Kansas statute of 1885 contained
provisions for the abatement of nuisances and for injunction pro-
ceedings more radical than had hitherto been contained in any
prohibitory law.
The injunction law was enacted as a means for effectively and
expeditiously enforcing the law. The power to enjoin a liquor
establishment conducted and known as a nuisance had always
been among the ordinary equity powers of Courts of Chancery
and in very old statutes unlicensed liquor places were declared
nuisances and this made them subject to abatement under the
equity power of injunction.
The Kansas statute, and similar ones in other states, enacted
the details of procedure to procure abatement by injunction and
thus make the remedy practicable.
A leading factor in bringing about the utilization of this remedy
was the experience with the difficulty of obtaining convictions in
jury trials where one juror opposed to prohibition could prevent
a conviction. In the lower courts where liquor cases were ordi-
narily brought the machinery for the selection of jurors was
commonly under the control of petty politicians. Even though
the testimony might overwhelmingly indicate the guilt of the
accused, personal feeling, partisan influence, political manipula-
tion, and similar influences often prevented conviction.
The Kansas law provided that all places where intoxicating
liquors were manufactured, sold, bartered, or given away or kept
530 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
for sale, barter or delivery in violation of the law—that such
places should be declared to be common nuisances, and upon the
judgment of any court having jurisdiction finding such a place to
be a nuisance, the proper officials (mentioned) should be directed
to shut up and abate such place by taking possession thereof and
destroying all intoxicating liquor found therein, together with all
signs, bars, bottles, glasses and other property used in keeping
and maintaining said nuisance. The law provided that the owner
or keeper thereof should upon conviction be adjudged guilty of
maintaining a common nuisance and fined and imprisoned.
The law further provided that the attorney-general of the state,
the county attorney or any citizen of the county could maintain an
action in the name of the state to abate and perpetually enjoin the
same. The injunction should be granted at the commencement
of the action and no bond should be required. Any person vio-
lating the terms of any injunction granted in such proceeding
should be punished as for contempt by a fine of not less than
$100 nor more than $500, or by imprisonment in the county
jail not less than thirty days nor more than six months or by
both such fine or imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
This provision was the especial object of a vigorous attack by
the breweries’ counsel. Here too the Court answered:
We are unable to perceive anything in these regulations incon-
sistent with the constitutional guarantees of liberty and property.
The State having authority to prohibit the manufacture and sale
of intoxicating liquors for other than medical, scientific and mechani-
cal purposes, we do not doubt her power to declare that any place
kept and maintained for the illegal manufacture and sale of such
liquors, shall be deemed a common nuisance, and be abated, and
at the same time to provide for the indictment and trial of the
offender. One is a proceeding against the property used for for-
bidden purposes, while the other is for the punishment of the
offender.
Upholding proceedings in equity for the purposes indicated in
the statute as proper, the Court quoted Justice Story who said:
In regard to public nuisances, the jurisdiction of courts of
equity seems to be of a very ancient date, and has been distinctly
traced back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. . . . In case of public
nuisances properly so called, an indictment lies to abate them, and
to punish the offenders. But an information also lies in equity to
redress the grievance by way of injunction.
Continuing, the Court said:
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 531
The ground of this jurisdiction . . . is the ability of courts of
equity to give a more speedy, effectual and permanent remedy than
can be had at law. They can not only prevent nuisances that are
threatened, and before irreparable mischief ensues, but arrest or
abate those in progress, and by perpetual injunction protect the
public against them in the future: whereas courts of law can only
reach existing nuisances, leaving future acts to be the subject of
new prosecutions or proceedings. This is a salutary jurisdiction,
especially where a nuisance affects the health, morals or safety of
the community. Though not frequently exercised, the power un-
doubtedly exists in courts of equity thus to protect the public against
injlirvuleok.
As to the objection that the statute makes no provision for a
jury trial in cases like this one, it is sufficient to say that such a
mode of trial is not required in suits in equity brought to enjoin a
public nuisance.
Thus in this “Great Decision” in 1887 was the principle of
prohibition given the unqualified approval and support of the
highest court in the land.
III. Tue Interstate CoMMERCE CASES.
The rejoicing over the sweeping decision in Mugler v. Kansas
was ere long turned to consternation, particularly among those
temperance groups who were pinning their faith to state pro-
hibition as differentiated from the members of the Prohibition
party who all along had emphasized National Prohibition.
Although the principle of prohibition had been consistently and
continuously supported by the Supreme Court, the spirit of na-
tionalism, awakened following the Civil War, was emphasizing
the powers of the national government, and when the powers of
the states conflicted with those of the federal government the
federal power prevailed.
When the decision in the License Cases had been rendered in
1847 states rights ideas, as exemplified in Supreme Court de-
cisions, had been in the ascendant, never more so than under the
Chief Justiceship of Taney.
The Constitution provides that “Congress shall have power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several
states.’ It also provides that the “Constitution and the laws
which shall be made in pursuance thereof... shall be the
supreme law of the land.”
From an early period in the history of judicial decisions there
has been a conflict between the reserved powers of the states,
532 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
especially the tax and police powers, and the commerce power of
the national government. The interstate commerce decisions on
the prohibition question were a part of that conflict.
A distinct evolution in the assertion of federal interstate com-
merce powers is discernible in the Supreme Court decisions. The
interpretation of the commerce power has been one of the chief
means by which the power of the federal government has been
expanded and as the federal commerce powers increase any state
powers in conflict therewith have to give way.
In 1888, in the case of Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern
Railway Company (125 U.S. 465), an lowa statute forbidding
common carriers to bring intoxicating liquors into the state from
any other state or territory without having been furnished a
certificate showing the consignee was authorized to sell such
liquors, was declared unconstitutional because a regulation of
commerce among the states and not sanctioned by Congress.
The Court quoted decisions that beyond all question the trans-
portation of freight, or of the subjects of commerce, for the
purpose of exchange or sale is a constituent of commerce itself,
and that “whatever may be the nature and reach of the police
power of a state, it cannot be exercised over a subject confided
exclusively to Congress by the federal Constitution.”
Itjsaid:
A State has legislative control, exclusive of Congress, within its
territory, of all persons, things, and transactions of strictly internal
concern. For the purpose of protecting its people against the evils
of intemperance it has the right to prohibit the manufacture within
its limits of intoxicating liquors; it may also prohibit all domestic
commerce in them between its own inhabitants, whether the articles
are introduced from other States or from foreign countries; it may
punish those who sell them in violation of its laws; it may adopt
any measures tending, even indirectly and remotely, to make the
policy effective until it passes the line of power delegated to Con-
gress under the Constitution. It cannot, without the consent of
Congress, express or implied, regulate commerce between its people
and those of the other States of the Union in order to effect its
end, however desirable such a regulation might be.
The statute of Iowa was held to be an attempt to exercise
jurisdiction over property within the limits of other states. It
was an unauthorized interference with the commerce power given
to Congress. It was therefore declared unconstitutional.
This decision went far to call attention to the fact that action
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 533
by Congress was essential to the effective enforcement of pro-
hibition and that the liquor question was a national one.
This case did not involve the right of the importer to sell the
liquor brought in from another state. But the next case did
authorize such sale.
Leisy v. Hardin, the Original Package Decision
This was a case (135 U.S. 100), 1890, of brewers in Illinois
having shipped beer in kegs and cases to their agent in Iowa
Ww here it was sold in the original packages i in which it was shipped,
kegs and cases. It was held by a majority of the Court, five to
three, that the Iowa statute was unconstitutional in so far as it
prohibited the sale of liquor by a foreign and non-resident im-
porter in the package in which it was brought from another state.
The decision went farther than the Bowman case ond over-
ruled the 1847 decision in the Pierce v. New Hampshire case of
the License Cases in which the New sree aaittie’ law, although
affecting interstate commerce, was upheld, inasmuch as Congress
had made no regulation upon the subject. The decision in the
Leisy wv. Hardin case was that, inasmuch as interstate commerce
is national in its character and must be governed by a uniform
system, so long as Congress did not pass any law to regulate it
specifically, or did not act in such a way as to allow the laws of
the state to operate upon it, Congress thereby had indicated its
will that such commerce should be free and untrammeled.
While a state may exercise police power within its limits, yet
a subject matter, interstate commerce, which has been confided
exclusively to Congress by the Constitution is not within the
jurisdiction of the police power of a state, unless placed there
by Congressional action. However, upon local matters the Court
declared the doctrine to be that, when the subject upon which
Congress can act under its commercial power is local in its nature
or sphere of operation, such as harbor pilotage, the improvement
of harbors, the establishment of beacons and buoys to guide
vessels in and out of port, the construction of bridges over
navigable rivers, the erection of wharves, piers, docks, mand the
like which can be properly regulated only by special provisions
adapted to their localities, the state can act until Congress inter-
feres and supercedes its authority.
But when the subject is national in its character and admits
and requires uniformity of regulation affecting alike all the states,
including the importation of foods from one state into another,
534 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Congress alone can act upon it. The absence of any law of Con-
gress on the subject is equivalent to the requirement that com-
merce in that matter shall be free. It is only after the impor-
tation is completed and the property imported has mingled with
and become a part of the general property of the state that the
state’s regulations can act upon it.
The point of time when an import becomes a part of the general
property of the state is when the importer has so acted upon it
that it has become incorporated and mixed up with the mass of
property in the state. This happens when the original package is
no longer in the hands of the importer. This interpretation re-
specting the term, original package, followed the precedent of
Brown v. Maryland, a case involving a tax on foreign imports
in 1827, succeeded by other cases giving the term a technical
definition.
The conclusion was that the importers of beer had not only the
right to receive it but to sell it in original packages, by which act
alone it would become mingled in the common mass of property
within the state. Up to that point of time, the time when sold,
the state had no right to interfere. To concede to a state the
power to exclude articles of commerce without Congressional per-
mission is to concede to a state power to regulate interstate com-
merce, a power which was granted to Congress alone.
Effect of the Leisy v. Hardin Decision
Through the Bowman decision the state prohibition laws were
weakened because individuals were allowed to import liquor from
other states. But through the Leisy v. Hardin decision these laws
were practically nullified because the way was open for the wide-
spread sale of liquors in original packages. Black, On Intoxi-
cating Liquors (1892), describing the effects of this decision
says:
This decision was followed by immediate, widespread, and most
pernicious results. The brewers and distillers, recognizing the
extent of the protection afforded to them by this construction of
the law, hastened to establish depots and agencies in states foreign
to their own, and especially those where prohibition or stringent
licensing provisions were in force, and there offered for sale their
products in barrels, kegs, cases, and even small bottles. Several
portions of the country, where the greatest advances towards the
entire suppression of the traffic had previously been made, were at
once populated with “original package saloons,” and thereby de-
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 535
luged with intoxicants, and the officers of the law found their
energies paralyzed by the claim of immunity under the Constitution.?
In, Kansas saloon-keepers with their retinues of disreputable
allies who had been driven out of the state came back. ‘The
spectacle of these brazen and remorseless men returning to de-
bauch the morals of the state aroused public indignation and
contempt.” ®
A great convention was called in Topeka on July 16, 1890. It
was what the Kansans called “probably the largest temperance
convention ever held upon the American continent.”
All over the country there was an insistent demand upon Con-
gress for immediate relief. The decision had repeatedly suggested
that Congress had the power to cooperate by removing the re-
strictions upon the states in dealing with imported articles.
The Wilson Law
Congress acted by passing within four months the Wilson Law
which provided:
All fermented, distilled or other intoxicating liquors or liquids
transported into any state or territory or remaining therein for use,
consumption, sale or storage therein, shall wpon arrival in such
state or territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws
of such state or territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers
to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids
or liquors had been purchased in such state or territory, and shall
not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in
original packages or otherwise.
In re Rahrer
The Wilson Law was declared constitutional in the case of
In re Rahrer (140 U. S. 545), 1891. This law was described as
an action by Congress divesting intoxicating liquors of their inter-
state commerce character at an earlier period than would have
been the case if Congress had not passed the law.
Rhodes v. Iowa
In 1898 in the case of Rhodes v. Iowa (170 U. S. 412) the
Wilson Law was construed to mean that the powers of the state
2H. C. Black, A Treatise on the Law of Intoricating Liquors, p. 104.
3T. E, Stephens, Prohibition in Kansas, p. 22.
536 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
did not attach until the goods imported had been delivered to the
consignee. .
The term upon arrival did not mean arrival at the state line,
but when delivered to the consignee. The effect of this decision
was to permit individuals to receive and use liquor. But instead
of permitting the sale of it as under the decision in the Leisy v.
Hardin case the effect of the Wilson Law was to sub ject the sale
or disposal of liquors to the law of the state.
The decision opened the way for residents of prohibition and
no-license territory to import all they wanted for personal use
and it thus largely destroyed the effectiveness of the laws.
In a decision immediately following, Vance v. Vandercook
(170 U.S. 438), 1898, the Court said that under the Wilson Law
every resident of a prohibition state is free to receive for his own
use liquor from other states and that the inhibitions of state
statutes do not operate to prevent liquors from other states from
being shipped into a prohibition state on the order of a resident
for his own use.
In American Express Co. v. Iowa (196 U. S. 1 33), 1905, the
Court decided a C. O. D. package of liquor was not subject to
confiscation.
After the Rhodes v. Iowa decision there was a continuous at-
tempt on the part of the temperance organizations to get Congress
to remedy the weakness of the Wilson Law by preventing the
importation of liquor into prohibition states for personal use.
In Congress after Congress bills were presented. In several
Congresses Congressman Littlefield of Maine was the leader in
this effort.
But notwithstanding the efforts and appeals of the temperance’
people it was fifteen years after the decision in Rhodes v. Iowa
before Congress passed any remedial legislation. This was the
Webb-Kenyon Law of 1913.
IV. Later Decisions.
Upholding the Webb-Kenyon Law
The Webb-Kenyon Law, entitled “An Act Divesting Intoxi-
cating Liquors of their Interstate Character Under Certain Con-
ditions,” provided:
That the shipment or transportation in any manner or by any
means whatsoever of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented or
other intoxicating liquor of any kind including beer, ale or wine,
a Se
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 537
from one state, territory, or district of the United States into any
other state, territory, or district of the United States, which said
spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented or other intoxicating liquor
is intended by any person interested therein to be received, pos-
sessed, sold or in any manner used, either in the original package or
otherwise, in violation of any such state, territory, or district of the
United States enacted in the exercise of the police powers of such
state, territory or district of the United States, is hereby prohibited.
There was grave doubt as to the constitutionality of this act.
The bill had been vetoed by President Taft, who had himself
been a federal judge, supported by the opinion of the Attorney-
General that it was unconstitutional, and had been passed over his
veto. In the argument in this case the attorneys-general of fifteen
states joined in presenting a brief in behalf of the statute.
The law was upheld in the case of James Clark Distilling Co.
v. Western Maryland Railroad Co. (242 U. S. 311), LO 17;
Chief Justice White reviewed the legislative and judicial ante-
cedents of the Webb-Kenyon Act. He said:
To correct the great evil which was asserted to arise from the
right to ship liquor into a state through the channels of interstate
commerce and there receive and sell the same in the original package
in violation of state prohibitions was indisputably the purpose which
led to the enactment of the Wilson Law. There is no room for
doubt that the Webb-Kenyon Law was enacted simply to extend
that which was done in the Wilson Act, that is to say, its purpose
was to prevent the immunity characteristic of interstate commerce
from being used to permit the receipt of liquor through such com-
merce in states contrary to their laws and thus in effect afford a
means of subterfuge and indirection to set such laws at naught.
The Leisy v. Hardin decision had declared that the power of
Congress to regulate interstate commerce in intoxicants embraced
the right to subject such movement to state prohibitions and that
the freedom of intoxicants to move in interstate commerce and
the protection of it from state control arose only from the absence
of Congressional regulation and would endure only until Con-
gress had otherwise provided. It said a subject matter which has
been confided exclusively to Congress by the Constitution is not
within the jurisdiction of the police power of the state unless
placed there by Congressional action.
As to the power of Congress to enact the Webb-Kenyon Law
the Court said:
It is not in the slightest degree disputed that if Congress had
prohibited the shipment of all intoxicants in the channels of inter-
538 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
state commerce and therefore had prevented all movements between
the several states, such action would have been lawful becatise
within the power to regulate which the Constitution conferred.
Inasmuch as the larger power of complete prohibition of inter-
state shipments comprehends the lesser one, the Court held that
Congress possessed the power “to establish a regulation, which is
what was done by the Webb-Kenyon Law, making it impossible
for one state to violate the prohibitions of another state through
the channels of interstate commerce.”
Sustaining the Reed Amendment
The next important case to be decided was that involving the
Reed Amendment. This was an amendment to the Post Office
Appropriation Act enacted March 3, 1917. It provided:
Whoever shall order, purchase, or cause intoxicating liquors to be
transported in interstate commerce except for scientific, sacramental,
medicinal and mechanical purposes, into any State or Territory, the
laws of which State or Territory prohibit the manufacture and sale
therein of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, shall be pun-
ished as aforesaid; Provided, That nothing herein shall authorize
the shipment of any liquor into any State contrary to the laws of
such State.
The Supreme Court, in United States v. Hill (248 U. S. 240),
1918, said that Congress may forbid the interstate transportation
of intoxicating liquor without regard to the policy of any State.
It construed the Reed Amendment as not being limited in its ap-
plication merely to importation for commercial purposes but as
applying also to the transportation of liquor upon the person and
for the personal use of an interstate passenger. As so construed
it was upheld.
In United States v. Simpson (252 U. S. 465), 1919, it was
held that the transportation of intoxicating liquor by the owner
for personal use in his own automobile into a prohibition state is
interstate commerce and violates the Reed Amendment, if the
liquor is not intended for any of the purposes excepted in the Act.
War Time Prohibition Constitutional
After a protracted effort, with hope deferred, Congress en-
acted a War Time Prohibition Act which was approved Novem-
ber 21, 1918, ten days after the armistice with Germany was
signed.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 539
In the decision in the case of Hamilton v. Kentucky Distil-
leries (252 U. S. 146), 1919, the Court upheld the War Time
Prohibition Act in every respect. It was held as within the war
power when passed, notwithstanding the cessation of hostilities
under the Armistice, as a means of war efficiency and for the
support and care of the army and navy during demobilization.
Upholding the Volstead Law
On October 28, 19109, Congress passed over the President’s
veto the National Prohibition Act, known as the Volstead Law,
which provided means for enforcing both the War Time Pro-
hibition Act and the Eighteenth Amendment.
In the case of Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey (251 U. S. 264),
1920, there was involved that part of the National Prohibition
Act which related to enforcing the War Time Prohibition Act.
The Court said that the War Time Prohibition Act was valid
and had not become invalid by a change of circumstances; also
that Congress had the power to enact new prohibitions when the
National Prohibition Act was passed, October 28, 1919, which
was before the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect.
The Court held that the provision in the Volstead Law that
“the words ‘beer, wine or other. intoxicating malt or vinous
liquors’ in the War Prohibition Act shall be hereafter construed
to mean any such beverages which contain one-half of one per
centum or more by volume,” was constitutional.
‘As a measure reasonably necessary to make the prohibition of
intoxicating liquors effectual, Congress in the exercise of the
war power may prohibit those liquors containing as much as one-
half of one per cent of alcohol by volume even though they may
not be in fact intoxicating.
The war power of Congress is a broad power not merely to
prohibit but to prevent the liquor traffic. It is as broad as the
police power of the states as applied to the same subject.
Congress has the power to “make all laws which shall be neces-
sary and proper for carrying into execution’ the powers which it
possesses.
Since Congress has power to increase war efficiency by pro-
hibiting the liquor traffic no reason appears why it should be
denied the power to make its prohibition effective.
As one of the chief points at issue in this case was whether
Congress had the power to prohibit all beverage liquors containing
540 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
over one-half of one per cent of alcohol, the grounds for the de-
cision of the Court on this point are of vital interest.
The Court, speaking by Justice Brandeis, said:
The legislation and decisions of the highest courts of nearly all
the States establish that it is deemed impossible to enforce either
prohibitory or regulatory laws if liability or inclusion within the law
is made to depend upon the issuable fact whether or not a particular
liquor is intoxicating. In other words it clearly appears that a
liquor law, to be capable of enforcement must, in the opinion of
the legislatures and courts of the several States, be made to apply
to all liquors of the species enumerated, like beer, ale or wine,
regardless of the presence or degree of alcoholic content or if a more
general description is used, such as distilled, rectified, spirituous,
fermented, malt or brewed liquors, to all liquors within that general
description regardless of alcoholic content; or to such of these
liquors as contain a named percentage of alcohol; and often several
such standards are combined so that certain specific and generic
liquors are forbidden and such others as contain a given percentage
of alcohol.
A test often used to determine whether a beverage is to be deemed
intoxicating within the meaning of the liquor law is whether it
contains one-half of one per cent of alcohol by volume. A survey
of the liquor laws of the States reveals that in seventeen States the
test is either a list of enumerated beverages without regard to
whether they contain any alcohol, or the presence of any alcohol
in a beverage, regardless of quantity; in eighteen States it is the
presence of as much or more than one-half of one per cent of
alcohol; in six States one per cent of alcohol; in one State, the
presence of the “alcoholic principle”; and in one State two per cent
of alcohol. Thus in forty-two of the forty-eight States malt liquor
containing over two per cent of alcohol by weight or volume is
deemed, for the purpose of regulation or prohibition, intoxicating
as a matter of law. Only one State [Rhode Island] has adopted a
test as high as 2.75 per cent by weight or 3.4 per cent by volume.
Only two States permit the intoxicating character of an enumerated
liquor to be put in issue. In three other States the matter has not
been made clear either by decision or legislation. The decisions of
the courts as well as the actions of the legislatures make it clear—
or, at least, furnish ground upon which Congress reasonably might
conclude—that a rigid classification of beverages is an essential of
either effective regulation or effective prohibition of intoxicating
liquors.
Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch (226 U.S. 192) determined that
state legislation of this character is valid and set forth with clear-
ness the constitutional ground upon which it rests. “When a State
exerting its recognized authority undertakes to suppress what it is
— ie
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 541
free to regard as a public evil, it may adopt such measures having
reasonable relation to that end as it may deem necessary to make its
action effective. It does not follow that because a transaction sepa-
rately considered is innocuous it may not be included in a prohibi-
tion the scope of which is regarded as essential in the legislative
judgment to accomplish a purpose within the admitted powers of
the Government. ...
“The State . ... must decide upon the measures that are needful
for the protection of its people and having regard for the artifices
which are used to promote the sale of intoxicants under guise
of innocent beverages it would constitute an unwarranted departure
from accepted principle to hold that the prohibition of the sale of all
malt liquors, including the beverage in question, was beyond its
reseryed power..:.".”?
It is therefore clear both that Congress might reasonably have
considered some definition of intoxicating liquor to be essential to
effective enforcement of prohibition and also that the definition
provided by the Volstead Act was not an arbitrary one.
Upholding the Method of Ratification of the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Amendments
During the period when the Eighteenth Amendment was being
ratified there was considerable complaint by the liquor interests,
and some who did not understand the Constitution, because the
Amendment was not submitted to a direct vote of the people.
In Ohio in November, 1918, by means of the referendum the
liquor interests in an almost uncontested election secured the
adoption of an amendment to the Ohio constitution extending the
referendum to the ratification by the Legislature of proposed
amendments to the Federal Constitution. By the provision thus
adopted a ratification by the Legislature would not be binding
until it should receive the votes of a majority in a referendum
provided six per cent of the voters should file a petition for such
a referendum within go days after the ratification by the Legisla-
ture.
A case was brought to test the validity of the Ohio referendum
provision and it was declared unconstitutional in Hawke v.
Smith (253 U. S. 221), 1920.
The Court held that the Federal Constitution provides but two
methods of ratification, either by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the states, or by conventions in a like number of states, the
choice of the two methods being determined by Congress. “Both
methods of ratification, by legislatures or conventions, call for
542 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
action by deliberative assemblies, representative of the people,
which it was assumed would voice the will of the people.”
The term “legislatures,” as used in the Federal Constitution
means the deliberative representative bodies that make the laws
for the respective states. While the power to legislate in the
enactment of the laws of a state is derived from the people of the
state, the power to ratify a proposed amendment to the Federal
Constitution has its source in that Constitution.
The Constitution makes no provision for voting upon a federal
constitutional amendment by the people directly.
The method of adopting the Eighteenth Amendment was there-
fore not open to criticism.
This case and a parallel case involving the Nineteenth Amend-
ment for Woman Suffrage (Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 231)
were brought by George S. Hawke of Cincinnati who had been
Prohibition nominee for Attorney-General in Ohio and they
were argued before the Supreme Court by ex-Governor J. Frank
Hanly of Indiana, the Prohibition nominee for President in the
preceding election.
As it resulted, the failure to have obtained a favorable de-
cision in these cases would not have delayed the going into effect
of censtitutional prohibition a single day, as, even if Ohio had not
been included as one of the thirty-six ratifying states, a thirty-
seventh state had ratified on the same day as the thirty-sixth.
But this decision did vitally affect the date of the adoption of
the Woman Suffrage Amendment. If it had not been for these
decisions Ohio’s ratification of the Suffrage Amendment would
not have been complete until the voters should have voted on it
at the succeeding election which was on the same day as the
presidential election of 1920. But as result of this decision, the
Tennessee Legislature was able to disregard a provision of the
Tennessee constitution, and ratify. If it had not been for the
ratification of these two states it is very doubtful if the Nine-
teenth Amendment would have been ratified in time to permit
women to vote in the presidential election of 1920.
Thus the Prohibition party, which was the first party to advo-
cate woman suffrage was, through its late candidate for Presi-
dent, a decisive factor in bringing about the final success of the
suffrage movement as well as of the prohibition movement.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 543
Lhe Culminating Decision Upholding the Eighteenth Amend-
ment and the Law for Its Enforcement
The liquor interests did their utmost to prevent the Eighteenth
Amendment from going into operation. There were seven cases,
two of them brought by states, all of which sought an injunction
against the execution of the Volstead Act. The liquor interests
were represented by the ablest attorneys whom their money could
employ.
The decision completely upheld the Amendment and the Vol-
stead Law at every point. The Court announced the following
conclusions in the National Prohibition Cases, Rhode Island v.
Palmer (253 U.'S..350) 1920:
The National Prohibition Cases
I. The adoption by both Houses of Congress, each by a two-
thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed neces-
sary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they
regarded it as necessary is not essential. None of the resolutions
whereby prior amendments were proposed contained such a
declaration.
2. The two-thirds vote in each House, which is required in pro-
posing an amendment, is a vote of two-thirds of the members
present—assuming the presence of a quorum—and not a vote of
two-thirds of the entire membership present and absent. Missouri
Pacific Railway Company v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 270.
3. The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes
cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United
States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Hawke
v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, decided June 1, 1920.
4. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, im-
portation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage pur-
poses, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the
power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution,
5. The Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has be-
come a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given
effect the same as other provisions of that instrument.
6. The first section of the Amendment—the one embodying the
prohibition—is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of
the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers,
and individuals within those limits, and of its own force invalidates
any legislative act—whether by Congress, by a state legislature, or
544 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
by a territorial assembly—which authorizes or sanctions what the
section prohibits.
7. The second section of the Amendment—the one declaring “the
Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to en-
force this article by appropriate legislation”—does not enable Con-
gress or the several states to defeat or thwart the prohibition, but
only to enforce it by appropriate means.
8. The words, “concurrent power,” in that section do not mean
joint power, or require that legislation thereunder by Congress, to
be effective, shall be approved or sanctioned by the several States
or any of them; nor do they mean that the power to enforce is
divided between Congress and the several States along the lines
which separate or distinguish foreign and interstate commerce from
intrastate affairs.
9. The power confided to Congress by that section, while not
exclusive, is territorially coextensive with the prohibition of the first
section, embraces manufacture and other intrastate transactions as
well as importation, exportation and interstate traffic, and is in no
wise dependent on or affected by action or inaction on the part of
the several States or any of them.
10. That power may be exerted against the disposal for beverage
purposes of liquor manufactured before the Amendment became
effective just as it may be against subsequent manufacture for those
purposes. In either case it is a constitutional mandate or prohibition
that is being enforced.
11. While recognizing that there are limits beyond which Con-
gress cannot go in treating beverages as within its power of enforce-
ment, we think those limits are not transcended by the provision of
the Volstead Act, wherein liquor containing as much as one-half
of one per cent of alcohol by volume and fit for use for beverage
purposes are treated as within that power. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey
C25 Tain ty oOn)
Chief Justice White, concurring in the decision, rendered an
opinion setting forth his reasons for the conclusions reached.
Since 1920 there have been decisions in a number of cases
construing the Eighteenth Amendment and the laws enacted for
its enforcement. Although repeatedly and vigorously attacked,
these have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court on
every important point.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
The three leading legal treatises on the subject are:
Brack, H. C.—A Treatise on the Laws Regulating the Manufac-
ture and Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, 1892, 711 pp.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 545
WooLLen, W. W., and THorntTon, W. W.—Intoxicating
Liquors; the Law Relating to the Traffic in Intoxicating
Liquors and Drunkenness, 2 vols., 1910.
BLAKEMORE—National Prohibition, the Volstead Act Annotated
and Digest of National and State Prohibition Decisions,
1923, rev. ed. 1925, I1OI pp.
For a popular discussion of the attitude of the courts see two
pamphlets by LEmuet D. Ltrty—The Saloon Before the Courts,
and Bench vs. Bar. For a book amplifying the reason for his
decision that the saloon is contrary to common law, see JUDGE
SAMUEL R, ARTMAN—The Legalized Outlaw, 1908, 295 pp. For
brief of Attorney-General Bingham of Indiana before Indiana
Supreme Court, one of the best summaries up to that time, see
Defender, August 15, 28, 29; September 5, 12, 19, 1907.
Chapter XXVII
THE LIQUOR POWER
The Prohibitionists’ emphasis upon the dominance of the
liquor issue was based not merely upon the social, economic or
even moral aspect. It was because the liquor traffic had become
a great organized power which was dominating and perverting
the politics and government of the nation that the Prohibition
party proclaimed the need of a political revolution to achieve a
new independence.
As compared to the narrow conception of the liquor question
as one pertaining merely to the individual the governmental as-
pects were as a mountain to a molehill. This chapter aims to
present an outline of the magnitude of the liquor power and its
political operations in the later years of the nineteenth century
and the early years of the twentieth century.
LIQUOR CAPITAL
The capital invested in the manufacture of liquors increased,
according to the United States census reports, from $28,534,317
in 1860 to $771,516,000 in 1910.1. This increase was nearly ten
times as fast as the population and nearly four times as fast as
the national wealth. Of the total capitalization in 1910, $671,-
158,000, or 87 per cent, was invested in the manufacture of malt
liquors, $72,450,000 in the manufacture of spirits and $27,908,-
000 in the manufacture of wines. Over go per cent was invested
in the making of malt and vinous liquors and less than 10 per
cent in the making of the stronger liquors. The overwhelming
proportion of liquor capital was brewery capital. Accompany-
ing the phenomenal increase in capital was a diminution in the
number of manufacturing establishments resulting in a great con-
centration of capital and the centralization of the industry in the
hands of powerful financial interests possessing great monopoly
power. In 1880 there were 2,191 fermented liquor manufac-
turing establishments. In 1910 there were only 1,414, less than
two-thirds as many, but these made nearly four and one-half
_ tin 1870 it was $66,658,945; in 1880, $118,037,729; in 1890, $269,270,251, and
In 1900, $457,674,087.
546
THE LIQUOR POWER 547
times as much liquor. By 1914 about one hundred concerns made
half of the beer. Consolidation and trustification characterized
the whole liquor industry. The liquor trust was one of the most
gigantic trusts in existence.
Between 1888 and 1894 seventy-nine breweries were pur-
chased by British capitalists and consolidated into twenty-four
concerns having a capitalization of $91,000,000. That was equal
to about two-fifths of the total capital invested in breweries in
1890. Including the German owned breweries, more than halt
the brewery capital was controlled by foreigners. Including the
foreign born brewers recently come from Germany, the large ma-
jority of brewery capital was controlled by those who were
notoriously un-American.
Profits were unusually large. Only a small amount of raw
material was used and the wages paid were very much smaller
than other large industries in proportion to output. In 1909 only
62,920 wage earners were employed in the entire manufacture
of all kinds of liquor. The difference between the cost of pro-
duction and the charge to the consumer provided a large margin
out of which could be paid large revenues to the national, state
and local governments, thereby deceiving many voters into sup-
porting the perpetuation of the traffic, and further to provide
unusual profits from which corruption funds could be supplied
to corrupt and control politics and government. As a result of
the vast capital involved and the immense profits to be derived
liquor sales were pushed by all the means that a brazen enterprise
and an unscrupulous ingenuity combined with moral callousness
could devise. This promotion was eloquently described by ex-
Senator Windom, who had been Secretary of the Treasury in the
Cabinets of Presidents Garfield and Arthur, in an address de-
livered in 1887:
The saloon creates a demand where none before existed that it
may profit by supplying that demand. It artificially stimulates an
evil habit that it may thrive by pandering to it. It methodically
breeds debauchery, poverty, anarchy, and crime for pay. It pur-
posely seeks to multiply the number of drinkers, and hence of
drunkards. It invades every new community, demands tribute
from every home, and lies in wait with fresh enticements for each
new generation of youth. . . . Each one of our two hundred thou-
sand drinking places forms a distinct center of aggressive forces
and skilful devices for spreading the drink habit among men. Every
plausible temptation and solicitation that trained talent can suggest
are used to entrap the young, the ignorant, the toiling, and the home-
548 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
less, with the knowledge that a customer once secured is usually
a customer for life. . .. Experience indicates that four-fifths of
American drinking and drunkenness is due in the first instance not
to any natural appetite of our people, but to the presence and sleep-
less efforts of this gigantic enginery, working seven days a week
and twenty-four hours a day, unrestrained by any scruple and
everywhere contemptuous of public and private right.
THE LIQUOR CONSUMPTION
The traffic’s aggressive trade promotion supplemented by the
habit-forming nature of alcohol was responsible for the astound-
ing increase in the per capita consumption of liquor. In 1850 the
per capita consumption of liquor was 4.08 gallons. It mounted
to 22.81 gallons in 1911. In the decade of the seventies the
average annual per capita consumption was 8.79 gallons, in the
eighties 13.21, in the nineties 17.11 gallons, in I90I-I9I0, it
was 20.58 and in the four-year period 1911-1914 it averaged
22.58. The large increase was in the consumption of beer, but,
contrary to common impression, from 1900 on the per capita
consumption of the stronger liquors was rapidly increasing and
rose considerably above that of the period 1870-1900. ‘The
average annual per capita consumption of spirits in the seventies
was 1.39; in the eighties 1.34; in the nineties, due largely to the
financial depression, it was 1.25; but in IQOI-19IO it rose to
1.41 and in IQII-1914 to 1.46.
The consumption of wine in the same periods respectively was
47, .48, .38, .54, and .585, per capita, consumption having in-
creased about one-fourth.
The per capita consumption of beer practically trebled in a
third of a century. In the seventies the average annual consump-
tion was 6.93, in the eighties, 11.38; in the nineties, 15.48; in
IQOI-I1910, 18.62; and in I91I-1914, 20.53 gallons.
The brewers were largely responsible for the promotion of the
sale of all kinds of liquors. They established saloons everywhere
they could be made to pay. “ms ™ { y a ie i } -—) yi ! vay
td a \ ar a ; at Wir iets aha re a \ ui
. Riss Ma eat st ee
| Wa pide I Wie a Ne
ie a ay: FS ics me ‘a HN: aH MNFRS EAR
(Anite }
a \ , y ON We 3 a
ey, is .
‘> n wie '
ts i ig hing: ‘
pratt i
a: LaLa aia és wi \ axe ity
aN ae 1 en, x a r etiaet) ie we Ain
ie } aye Me ee beeen yeh pide 0 f ute Y aie sed doeielt
nse Aan | “i Sargpaieet ech’ Loe ee mab) hy J Rea @ighs AN
4 Ne | } bt + ob ‘4 i, peut Roun wi veh sa ae let fia, i" shabht pale ave
DN ah iby rr “eon By THRUSTS PAO an ilnanising BRD PAVE sith .
iy L , i Me ; ren a! he v ; : hee ite antes ~ b
a,
a>
if
he: Ry, Mote Med fouieg Be ‘ ‘hip whi oii 4 a riety, BL Mpa
Le ee eae PT af ehegth artes te ie Sabie’ vebeitas Taha ath
a ae hake i ii yey rgilanilae. ia Tipe Pa: i i in
“ my on,
ys
¥: My Bivog ss ich a I pn ¥ vee ne woes, ‘habe tort wits “B79 :
hae ‘ul ala LS Nay bp or eet WI a Rat
ae
% p? Purr
no era pve VME Fie) ae f iN oy wry ee ptt rent Nala
Nana Dees Weak hex eprom gE RO a, Siig ns vary bi SS:
‘
( Lae * * “ ro, » . * y 2
wet 7 deb COSTS F515 eS ty Cole iuats SER IEE
‘ | r . ;
. { ’ : es on : ‘ oy
iF Ks } Maw aah VA aera ial! , Nay . a; Pv, ta ny
oe ts wees fen POOR TTL OR a rtent ‘4h $ oe ts TF nae N “ge 4
Jo ae } Ree! Janeen ter Was Naika wih saeaha Hie fakes weLee Hoist: banat
as 1 SEOUL pats TK an The OTN ‘och baissvib set Hina si
| Shite arothey wen i thas it thts hee eh ay K twitoda & ‘
bigater 1 PATEL eS ea PEM: So es re ‘al
ne eee, oy Pa he HALH hen oth Lay ot “viata ie ion da :
tee bane is a ean
vie. Palin A Ney Ligetay | pipet ti, Meee yy Du menet voile
LN aati ol hata gy. Ny 1 LE eto ON x: (hs i Tia waslelin oi ‘lange
“ Ti ah ool con 5 ia i ees
vem + nian MP aaa Liane ap gia: sara ah bia soa ity Ay A ity
« She Ore i eyes Pa vhf fe49 ive Ave AH SRI ONO favs
Ae DEALS aL REah OOD LRN By gs Hey tyr ny oe matte as ‘bay defy
ur qonit | Tea) Cp) aN PEM Hinks x eds Te: .
if \ , ; i, ah Ma t iad ie tas vait i he
ied At id). ate br oP tidipers % Bi 4) bows oN, ae
WAC sine ataG Dat aia A: ey iewiy, Wy salad
YETI QUOD HO WA sdushestrah @ ey asst itt
- td \ he ‘a ri WG, 7 (PNj¢ Py hi pai om ¥
| MA Wak fo yepten ds vs nt lg oat la, re Ne
MN HN Pate @ thay amet IM bee aa) wit i ge
WAG ay itt yt aaah een if tc cl sea
% a oe
ke a SD pci ia Ay) a aa ions onic te BT ati a ii
N h} weibee Tact ty, mead es li oh ipa CMs Hasiiratnh, ‘aah
“s 54 of ' Re hs ee patios
- hig 5 i A 4 ¢ *
a yaa ef ere A ‘Y i ee
birt Me ee on ie
is ‘ uy ad) ty 4h zy eat Mie
ee i Fa ile teak een, Wy VF MEN,
Appendix
LEADERS OF PROHIBITION PARTY
A large volume would be needed to pay adequate tribute to
the many splendid men and women who gave themselves to the
prohibition cause. In preparing this book it was planned to
devote at least a long chapter to outstanding personalities of the
Prohibition party. But the limits of space were such that it was
possible only to record the names of the official leaders. These,
it is believed, will be of permanent historical value.
The list below includes all of the Prohibition candidates
for Governor in every state from 1869 to 1925. It includes the
name of every member of the Prohibition National Committee
since 1869, with the possible exception of a very few who served
only a fraction of a term. As a rule, the members of the Na-
tional Committee were outstanding leaders in their respective
states.
Also it includes practically all of the State Chairmen who
served any length of time since 1887 and some before.
Alabama. ‘The candidates for Governor were: John T. Tanner,
°86: S. L. Russell, °90; W. P. Witherspoon, ’98; W. B. Crumpton,
OO PVD Gay, 702:
The members of the National Committee were: John T. Tanner,
"82-84: Z. A. Parker, ’84-88; J. R. Hoffman, ’84-’88; Tope
Whitten, 8896; L. C. Coulson, ’88-’92; J. C. Orr, ’92-’96; J. Bi
Albritton, ’12"16; W. B. Smith, ’12~16; Dr. Isaac W. Higgs, *16-
20; A. F. Lokey, ’16-’28; W. A. Jones, 24-28. |
The State Chairmen were: John T. Tanner, ’87; W. B. Wither-
spoon, ’00-’02; W. D. Gay, ’o2-’04; J. B. Albritton, ’04-"12; A. F.
Lokey, *15-’24.
Arizona. The National Committeemen were: Eugene W. Chafin,
’12’20; Frank J. Sibley, ’t2-’16; John Wix Thomas, ’16-’28.
The State Chairman ever since Arizona became a state has been
John Wix Thomas. 3
Arkansas. The candidates for Governor were: J. W. Miller, ’94,
’96; George Hazen Kimball, ’02; J. E. Williams, ’04; and John D.
Adams, ’o6. |
The members of the National Committee were: Thomas J.
644 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Rogers, ’80-’82 and ’88-’92; J. L. Palmer, *82-’92; W. P. Grace, ’82-
88; George C. Christian, ’92-’00; Mrs. Bernie Babcock, ’oo-’04;
H. Brady, ’o4-’12; John M. Parker, ’o4-’o8 and ’12-’20; Henry
Hatton, ’08-’12; George Hazen Kimball, ’12-’20,
The State Chairmen were: W. D. Matthews, ’88-’90; John M.
Moore, ’90-’92; W. W. Wallace, ’92-’96; Alexander McKnight, ’96-
00; Martin H. Henry, ’oo-’04; G. H. Kimball, ’o8.
California. The candidates for Governor were: R. H. McDonald,
82; Joel Russell, ’86; John Bidwell, ’oo; Henry French, ’94; J. E.
McComas, ’98; Theodore D. Kanouse, 02; James H. Blanchard,
06; S. P. Meads, ’10; Clinton P. Moore, 14; William D. Stephens
(Fusion), 718.
The members of the National Committee were: James F. Stewart,
69; J. W. Webb, ’82-’84 and ’96-’00; A. D. Wood, ’82-’84; George
Babcock, ’84~-’88; Mrs. Emily Pitt Stevens, 84-88; T. B. Stewart,
88-92; Jesse Yarnell, ’88-’96; Chauncey H. Dunn, ’92-’96; Rev.
J. A. B, Wilson, ’96-’00; Miss Gabrella T. Stickney, ’oo-’04; Fred
F. Wheeler, ’04-’08; A. B. Taynton, ’04-’08; T. K. Beard, ’08-’12;
Wiley J. Phillips, ’08-’12; F. W. Emerson, "12-16; George F.
Thompson, *12-’16; H. Clay Needham, ’16-’20; Mrs. Annie E. K.
Bidwell, ’16-’20; H. A. Johnson, ’20-’28; Miss Marie C. Brehm, ’20-
’24; Dr. M. Len Hutchins, ’24-’28.
The State Chairmen were: M. C. Winchester, ’82; Captain A. D.
Wood, ’84; J. A. Fairbanks, ’87; George Morris, ’88-’90; Henry
French, ’90-’92; J. M. Glass, ’92-’96; Frank E. Coulter, *96——_; J.
W. Webb, ’99——; H. Clay Needham, ’00-’02; C. L. Meracle, ’o2-
03; A. B. Taynton, ’03-’06; E. Leonardson, ’06-’09; J. H. Woerten-
dyke, ’o9-’12; W. I. Hull, ’12; Charles R. Burger, *13-’16; Harley
H. Gill, "16——; H. Clay Needham, ’18 ‘
Colorado. The candidates for Governor were: W. H. Fishback,
86; William C. Stover, ’88; John A. Ellett, ’92; George Richard-
son, ‘94; W. A. Marsh, ’96; Robert H. Rhodes, ’98; Prof. AP gine
Wylie, 00; O. A. Reinhardt, ’o2; Herbert A. M. Wilson, ’o4,; Dr.
F. C. Chamberlain, ’06; H. L. Murray, (08; P. A. -Ricej/10% Jab
Ketchum, ’12; Dr. S. H. Pollock, ’14.
The members of the National Committee were: John A. Ellett,
"84-88; I. J. Keator, ’92-’96; H. E. Singletary, ’92-’96; John Hipp,
96-08 and ’16-’24; J. M. Scouller, ’00-08; Mrs. M. E. Craise, ’0o-
04; H. L. Murray, ’o8-’12; O. A. Reinhardt, ’08-’20 and ’24-"28 ;
J. H. Ketchum, ’12-’16; Edgar Wilkinson, ’20-’28,
The State Chairmen were: A. S. Pettit, ’84-’87 and "89-91; J. B.
Willsea, ’87; A. W. Brazee, ’88; L. J. Templin, ’91-’94; John Hipp,
’94-’99, ’04-’07 and 714; J. N. Scouller, ’99-’02; H. A. N. Wilson,
02-'03; J. R. Wylie, 04; O. A. Reinhardt, ’07-’10; H. L. Murray,
‘Io-"12; J. H. Ketchum, 712-14,
Connecticut. The candidates for Governor were: Francis Gil-
lette, 72; Henry D. Smith, ’73, ’74, 75; Joseph Cummings, 776;
Jesse G. Baldwin, ’78; George P. Rogers, ’80-’82; Elisha H. Palmer,
APPENDIX 645
84; Samuel B. Forbes, ’86; Hiram N. Camp, ’88; Phineas M.
Augur, ’90; Edwin P. Auhur, ’92; Dewitt C. Pond, ’94; Edward
Manchester, ’96; Charles E. Steele, ’98-’00; Robert N. Stanley, ’02;
Oliver G. Beard, ’04; Matthew E. O’Brien, ’06-’08; Emil L. G.
Hohenthal, ’10; Buell B. Bassette, 712; Duane N. Griffin, ’14; George
Whitefield Simonson, ’16; J. Newton Lackey, 718; Rollin V. Tyler,
°20 (Democrat endorsed).
The members of the National Committee were: William Goodell,
69; E. H. Palmer, ’80-’84; E. B. Lyon, ’80-’82; George P. Rogers,
’82-’92; A. A. Morehouse, ’84-’92; Allen B. Lincoln, ’92-’96; Henry
B. Brown, ’92-’96; F. C. Bradley, ’96-’00; J. N. Stanley, ’96-’00;
Charles E. Steele, ’00-’04; F. G. Platt, ’00-’28; E. L. G. Hohenthal,
’o4-’08 and ’16-’28; William N. Taft, ’o8-’11; Jason L. Randall,
"TI-’10.
The State Chairmen were: Henry B. Brown, ’69-’76; Thomas
H. L. Talcott, ’78; J. A. Lewis, Nathan Babcock, John B. Smith,
’86-’90; Allen B. Lincoln, ’90-’94; Louis A. Babcock, ’95; Henry B.
Brown, ’96-’02; E. L. G. Hohenthal, ’o2.
District of Columbia. Members of the National Committee were:
O. K. Harris, 69; Hosea B. Moulton, ’92-’00; Samuel H. Walker,
’92-'96; J. R. Maloney, ’96-’00 and ’12-’16; Matthew E. O’Brien,
"12-16.
Delaware. The candidates for Governor were: James F. Hof-
ficker, ’86; William T. Kellum, ’90; Thomas J. Perry, 94; Daniel
Green, ’96; R. M. Cooper, ’00; John R. Price, ’04; John Heyd, ’12;
John G. Townsend (Fusion), ’16.
The National Comitteemen were: W. N. Brown, ’88-’92; J. J.
Boyce, ’88-’92; C. H. Register, ’92-’96; J. H. Jerrell, ’96-’00;
Aloysius Green, ’96-’00; Ashton R. Tatum, ’oo-’08; George W.
Todd, ’oo-’06 ; Lewis W. Brosius, ’12-’24.
The State Chairmen were: Richard M. Cooper, ’87-’90-’12; C.
H. Register, ’88-’90; L. W. Brosius, ’12.
Florida. The candidates for Governor were: Arthur C. Jackson,
’96; J. W. Bigham, ’12; Sidney J. Catts, 716. The last named was
elected on the Prohibition ticket.
The members of the National Committee were: Richard Morgan,
"88-92; S. H. Cummings, ’88-’92; T. A. Duckworth, ’92-’96; W. E.
Alexander, ’96-’00; J. R. Finch, ’96-’00; A. L. Izler, ’o4-’08;
Francis Trueblood, ’04-’12; John P. Coffin, ’08-’28; C. B. Wetherell,
12-16; Mrs. John P. Coffin, 716-’28.
The State Chairmen were: Richard J. Morgan, °87-’88; J.
McQueen, ’89; A. W. Biddell, 96; Dr. A. Izler, ’02-’06; John P.
Coffin, ’10-’25.
Georgia. The candidates for Governor were: J. B. Culpepper,
’92; Seaborn Wright, ’96.
The members of the National Committee were: J. O. Perkins,
’82-’84; Samuel W. Small, ’88-’96; A. A. Murphy, ’88-’92; Frank
J. Sibley, ’92-’00; W. S. Witham, ’08-’12; George Gordon, ’08-’12,
646 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
The State Chairmen were: A. A. Murphy, °88-'905* Dre Ji:
Perkins, 90-12; Col. R. S. Cheves, ’04-’06; W. S. Witham, ’1o-’15-
16; George Gordon, ’11-’12; W. W. Nanney, ’12; Lamar S. Payne,
20,
Idaho. The candidates for Governor were: Joseph A. Clark, 92;
Henry C. McFarland, ’94; Moses F. Fowler, ’96; Miss Mary C.
Johnson, ’98; W. J. Boone, ’00; Albert C. Gibson, ’02; E. R. Head-
ley, ‘04; Silas Luttrell, ’06; William C. Stalker, °08; Emmett D.
Nichols, 12; E. R. Headley, ’14.
The members of the National Committee were: W. Thomas
Smith, ’92-’96; E. B. Sutton, ’oo-’04; H. A. Lee, ’o0-’08; Silas S.
Gray, ’04-’08; J. M. Ingersoll, ’16; Lowell M. Coate, ’16-’20; Mrs.
Nina Howard, ’20——.
The State Chairmen were: H. A. Lee, ’96-’02 and ’o4-’06; Edwin
R. Headley, ’02-’04; Aaron M. Bray, ’07-’10; Silas M. Luttrell,
ai ; Harry Hayes, ’12-’14; Davis Errett, ’14-’16; John Tucker,
"16.
Illinois, ‘The candidates for Governor were: James F. Simpson,
"76; J. B. Hobbs, ’84; David H. Harts, 88; Robert R. Link, ’92;
George W. Gere, ’96; Judge V. V. Barnes, ’00; Robert H. Patton,
04; Dan R. Sheen, ’o8; Edwin R. Worrell, 712; John R. Golden,
"16; James H. Woertendyke, ’20.
The members of the National Committee were: C. Jaebiulavee.
J. W. Haggard, ’75-’80; Mrs. Fannie W. McCormack, ’76-’80; R.
W. Nelson, ’82-’84; J. G. Irwin, ’82-’84; A. J. Jutkins, ’84-’88; J. A.
Van Vleet, ’84-’88; J. A. Hobbs, °88-’06; J. G. Evans, 88-92; D. H.
Harts, ’92-’96; C. M. Whipple, ’96-’00; Oliver W. Stewart, ’96-’12;
Hale Johnson, ’o0-’02; Frank S. Regan, ’04-’08; Alonzo FE. Wilson,
’08-’16; Robert H. Patton, "12-’24; Miss Marie C. Brehm, ’16-’20;
Mrs. Alonzo E. Wilson, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: FE. S. Wells, ’84-’86; John W. Hart,
86-88; Levi C. Pitner, ’88; Henry W. Austin, °88-’92; George W.
Gere, ’92-’96; Oliver W. Stewart, ’96-'99; Hale Johnson, ’99-’02;
Alonzo E. Wilson, ’02-’12; Robert H. Patton, ’12-’24,
Indiana. The candidates for Governor were: Aaron Worth, ’92;
L. M. Crist, ’96; Charles Eckhart, 00; Felix T. McWhirter, 04;
Sumner W. Haynes, ’o8; W. H. Hickman, ’12; Alfred L. Moudy,
"16; C. M. Kroft, ’20; B. L. Allen, ’24.
The members of the National Committee were: D. R. Pershing,
69; Sylvester Johnson, ’88-’92; S. J. North, ’88-’92; John Ratliff,
'92-'96; Mrs. Helen M. Gouger, ’92-’06; Miss Mary E. Hadley,
‘96-’00; Felix T. McWhirter, 96-12; Charles Eckhart, ’04-"12; F,
W. Lough, ’12-’16; J. Raymond Schmidt, 12-’22; Sumner W.
Haynes, ’16-’24; Edward W. Clark, ’22-’24; H. S. Bonsib, ’24~28 :
Dr. Homer J. Hall, ’24-’28,
The State Chairmen were: John Ratliff, ’86-’90; Jesse T.
Hutchins, ’90; Dr. Homer J. Hall, ’90-’93, ’97-’o2, ‘07; Felix Ti
McWhirter, ’93-’94 and ’96; J. M. Dunlap, ’95-’96; L. C. Master,
APPENDIX 647
’o2: Charles E. Newlin, ’02-’07; F. W. Lough, ’07-'13; J. Raymond
Schmidt, 713-718; I. N. Grisso, ’18; Charles M. Fillmore, ’20-'22;
B. L. Allen, ’24.
Towa. The candidates for Governor were: J. H. Lozier, ’75; Col.
Elias Jessup, ’77; D. R. Dungan, ’79; James Michlewait, ’85; V. G.
Farnham, ’87; Malcolm Smith, ’89; Isaac T. Gibson, 91; Bennett
Mitchell, ’93; Frank Bacon, ’95; 5. P. Leland, ’97; M. W. Atwood,
’99; A. U. Coates, ’o1 ; John F. Hanson, ’03; L. S. Coffin, 706; K. W.
Brown, ’08; A. McEachron, ’10; C. Durant Jones, 712; Malcolm
Smith, ’14; O. D. Ellett, 716; Madison L. Christian, 18; A. Mc-
Eachron, ’24.
The members of the National Committee were: H. Green, 69;
D. R. Dungan, ’80-84; J. B. Morgan, ’80-’84; James Michlewaitt,
’88-’92; J. V. Farnham, *88-’92; R. M. Dihel, ’92-’96; S. A. Gilley,
’92~96; J. A. Harvey, ’96-’00; W. L. Ferris, ’96-’00; Malcolm
Smith, ’00-’08; A. U. Coates, ’04-'08 ; O. D. Ellett, ’08-’16; K. W.
Brown, ’08-’16; A. McEachron, ’16-’24 ; Fred J. Stevenson, ’16-'20;
Mrs. Ida B. Wise Smith, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: E. W. Brady, ’87; Malcolm Smith,
’90; Isaac T. Gibson, ’91; S. A. Gilley, 91; O. D. Ellett, ’98-’o1 and
702-04; J. H. Campbell, ’o1; W. D. Elwell, ’04-’08; John B. Ham-
mond, ’o8-’10; C. Durant Jones, *10-’12; Prof Gise.) jordans) ia:
R. H. Williams, ’13-’16; Miss Minette Murphy, ’16; A. McEach-
ron, ’16-’24.
Kansas. The candidates for Governor were: W. K. Marshall,
’87; John Paulson, ’76; C. H. Branscombe, ’86; J. D. Botkin, ’88;
A. M. Richardson, ’90; I. O. Pickering, 92 and ’94; Horace Hurley,
96; W. A. Pefter, ’98; Frank Holsinger, 700; F. W. Emerson, ’02;
James Kerr, ’04; J. Bs Cook, 706; A. DL. Hope, ’o8; William Cady,
10; Earle R. DeLay, ’12; Silas WiBond!*14yDr.. Ay Ro Ross: sro:
The members of the National Committee were: Prof. VU.
Thomas, ’69; John Paulson, ’76-’80; Jacob Bambough, ’76-’80; J. M.
Beyers, ’84-’88; Delos W alker, ’84-’88; A. M. Richardson, ’88-’92 ;
Mrs. C. H. St. John, ’88-’92; John P. St. John, ’g2-’96; M. V. B.
Bennett, ’92~’96; T. D. Talmadge, ’oo-’06; J. B. Garton, ’00-’04 ;
Earle R. DeLay, ’04-"16; J. N. Woods, ’98-’20; O. A. Herbert, *16-
’09; Dr. E. S. Grisel, ’20-'24; Mrs. Nellie Skepper, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: A. M. Richardson, ’87-’90; J. M.
Monroe, ’90-——; G. W. Wharton, ’95 ; Mont Williams, ’96-’00; B. J.
Williams, ’01; Earle R. DeLay, ’02-’10; Edwin C. Hadley, ’10-’12;
John A. Shields, ’12; J. W. Tanner, 713; Lyman G. Cosand, ’14;
©. A. Herbert, 14-17; J. Hayden Kershner, ’18.
Kentucky. The candidates for Governor were: Fontaine T. Fox,
Jr., 87; Josiah Harris, ’91; T. B. Demaree, ’95; O. T. Walace, ’99;
John D. White, ’00; T. B. Demaree, us Ievaleeicnetty 07 +7). 1).
Redd metal dow hickett,<15.
The members of the National Committee were: DD. Demaree,
7684 and ’00-’20; James L. Henderson, ’76-’80; A. J. Jutkins, ’84-
al
648 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
°88; Col. R. S. Cheves, °84-’88; G. W. Ronald, ’88-’92; William
Matthews, ’88-’92; J. W. Sawyer, ’92-’96; G. W. Young, ’92-’96;
Col. George W. Bain, ’96-’o0; J. H. Moore, ’96-’00; Mrs. Frances
FE. Beauchamp, ’oo-’04 and 08-23; J. D. Smith, ’04-’08; Adam W.
Carpenter, ’20-’24; L. L. Pickett, 24-28,
The State Chairmen were: Fontaine T. Fox, Jr., 87; William
Matthews, ’88; W. E. Hibler, 89; Josiah Harris, 90; T. B. Demaree,
99; J. D. Smith, ’oo, ’04, ’05; Huram W. Davis, ’04 and 07 SHAE.
Morrisonse O7 lasts. Pickett, ’08; E. Deets Pickett, ’o9-’11; Mrs.
Frances E. Beauchamp, 71 I-15 and ’18-’23; T. B. Demaree, ’16,
Louisiana, The only candidate for Governor was Captain John
M. Pharr, ’96.
The members of the National Committee were: Captain John M.
Pharr, ’96-’00; E. E. Israel, 04-12; Prof. Walter Miller, ’o4-’12,
The State Chairmen were: Alfred W. Wagner, ’02-’07; and E. E,
Israel, ’07-’15.
Mame. The candidates for Governor were: N . G. Hickborn, ’69;
William T. Eustis, ’82 and 84; Aaron Clark, ’86 and 90; Volney B.
Cushing, 88; Timothy B. Hussey, ’92; Ira G. Hersey, ’94, since
1916 a Congressman; Dr. A. S. Ladd, ’98; Grant Rogers, ’00; James
Perrigo, ’02; Nathan F, Woodbury, ’o4; Henry Woodward, 06;
James H. Ames, ’o8 and IOs Werks Sterling, 12; F. A, Shephard,
‘14; Linus Seely, ’16,
The members of the National Committee were: Josiah Nye, ’69;
Nathan F. Woodbury, ’82-’16; W. T. Eustis, ’82-’92; Volney B.
Cushing,’92-’00 and ’o4-’08; A. H. Clary, ’0o-’04 ; Lyman B. Merritt,
‘08-12; James H. Ames, "12-16; W. I, Sterling, ’20-’24; Fred A.
Shephard, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: John S. White, ’87; N. F, Woodbury,
88, ’90, ’96; Wilder W. Perry, ’90; Volney B. Cushing, ’96;
James Perrigo, ’oo-’o2 and 97, “15, 24; Arthur J. Dunton, ’02-’04;
W.-T Sterling, 715-124.
Maryland. The candidates for Governor were: Summerfield Bald-
win, 87; Edwin Higgins, 91; Joshua Levering, ’95; James Swann,
95; William Gisriel, ’03; J. W. Hrizzell, 707 s)t i Dulaney, ’11;
George R. Gorsuch, ’15,
The members of the National Committee were: John Lloyd
Thomas, ’84-’88: E. B. Newman, ’84-’86; William Daniel, ’88-’92 ;
Walter F. Harmon, 88-92; Edward Higgins, ’92-’00; Levi S.
Melson, ’92-’04; Joshua Levering, ’00-’04; Finley C. Hendrickson,
’04-’28 ; John N. Parker, ’04-’08 ; George R. Gorsuch, ’o8-’20,
The State Chairmen were: William Daniel, ’87-’89; W. L.
McCleary, ’89; W. H. Silk, ’90; Edward Higgins, ’91-’92; T. Mel-
ville Prentiss, ’96; John N. Parker, ’00-’02; Oliver Helmstreet, ’o2-
04; William Gisriel, ’04-’06; Finley C. Hendrickson, ’06-’08 ; George
R. Gorsuch, ’08-’10; Charles R. Wood, 450-6
Massachusetts. The candidates for Governor were: Wendell
Phillips, ’70; Robert C. Pitman, ’71; John J. Baker, "75 and 76;
ee ee ee
tem:
APPENDIX 649
Robert C. Pitman, ’77; A. A. Miner, ’78; D. C. Eddy, ’79; Charles
Almy, ’80, ’81, ’82, °83; Julius H. Seelye, 84; Thomas J. Lothrop,
85 and ’86; William H. Earle, ’87 and ’88; John Blackmer, 89 and
90; Charles E. Kimball, ’91; Wolcott Hamlin, ’92; Louis Albert
Banks, 93; Alfred W. Richardson, 794; Edward Kendall, ’95; Allen
Coffin, ’96; John Bascom, ’97; Samuel B. Shapleigh, ’98; Albert B.
Coates, ’99; John M. Fisher, ’00; John B. Lewis, ’o1; William H.
Partridge, ’02; Oliver W. Cobb, ’03 and ’04; Willard O. Wylie, ’o5 ;
John B. Moran (Fusion), ’06; Hervey S. Cowell, ’07; Willard O.
Wylie, ’08; John A. Nichols, ’09 and ’10; Frank N. Rand, ’11 and
12; Alfred H. Evans, ’13 and ’14; William Shaw, 715; Chester R.
Lawrence, ’16 and *17; Charles B. Ernst, ’19; John B. Lewis, ’22.
The members of the National Committee were: Nathan Beal, ’76-
"80; Rev. G. F. Clark, ’76-’82 and ’84-’88; C. A. Hovey, ’80-’84;
A. A. Miner, 82-84; Mrs. E. M. H. Richards, ’84-’88; E. H.
Clapp, ’88-’92; B. F. Sturtevant, ’88-’92; James H. Roberts, ’92-’96;
Augustus R. Smith, ’92-’96; Frank M. Forbush, ’96-’04; A. W.
Richardson, ’96-’00; H. S. Morley, ’oo-’08; John B. Lewis, ’o4-’23;
John M. Fisher, ’08-’16; Daniel A. Poling, ’16-’20; William Shaw,
"16-24.
The State Chairmen were: J. M. Fisher, ’87; James H. Roberts,
"88; M. H. Walker, ’89; A. W. Richardson, ’90; W. H. Partridge,
*g1-’92; John Blackmer, ’93-’94; Howard A. Gibbs, ’95; Frank M.
Forbush, 96; A. H. Morrill, ’00-’02; J. B. Lewis, ’04; John A.
Nicholls, 06; Jonathan S. Lewis, ’07; W. D. Moon, ’07; Willard O.
Wylie, ’08-’10; Solon W. Bingham, ’11-’12, ’15-’20 and ’23; A. J.
Orem, 713-’14; William Shaw, ’20.
Michigan. ‘The candidates for Governor were: Henry Fish, ’70
and “72; George R. Carpenter, *74; Albert Williams, *76; Watson
Snyder, 778; Isaac W. McKeever, ’80; D. P. Sagendorph, ’82; David
P. Preston, 84; Samuel Dickie, ’86; Amherst B. Cheney, ’88; A. H.
Partridge, ’90; John Russell, ’92; A. M. Todd, ’94; Robert C. Saf-
ford, ’96; Noah W. Cheever, 98; Prof. F. S. Woodridge, ’00;
Walter S. Westerman, ’02; J. W. Schackleton, ’04; R. Clark Reed,
‘Oo y.jonn Wo. Gtay, 703, BredyW, Corbett,.’10;"J7 D.deland, ag:
Charles N. Eayers, 714; Edwin W. Woodruff, ’16; John S. McColl,
18; John Y. Johnson, ’20; Beldon C. Hoyt, ’22; John Y. Johnson,
ed:
The members of the National Committee were: John Russell, ’69-
76 and ’80-’92; W. Williams, ’76-’80; Mrs. Adella R. Worden, *76-
80; I. W. McKeever, ’80-’84; D. P. Sagendorph, ’84-’88; Samuel
Dickie, ’88-’96 and ’oo-’12; Albert Dodge, ’92-’96; Fred E. Britten,
’96-’04; Charles P. Russell, ’96-’00; Fred W. Corbett, ’o4-’12;
Milton G. Wylie, ’12-"16; W. A. Brubaker, ’12-’16; Burton L.
Rockwood, ’16-’20; John P. Leslie, ’16-’20; Andrew Wood, ’20-’24;
John F. Easley, ’20-’24; John Y. Johnson, ’24-’28; Frank E. Titus,
24-28,
The State Chairmen were: A. D. Powers, ’86-’87; Albert Dodge,
650 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
’88-’89; James W. Reid, ’90; John Russell, *90-’92; Charles P.
Russell, ’92-’93 and ’96; Michael J. Fanning, ’94-’95; Fred E.
Britten, ’98-’02; Fred W. Corbett, ’02-’06; W. A. Taylor, ’07-’08;
Alfred Lowther, ’08-’10; W. A. Brubaker, ’11-’14; Merritt A. Stitt,
"15; W. H. D. Fox, 716; Burton L. Lockwood, ’16-’18; Andrew
Wood, ’18-’21; John Y. Johnson, ’21.
Minnesota, The candidates for Governor were: Daniel Cobb, ’69;
Samuel Mayall, ’71 and’73; R. F. Hamilton, ’75; W. W. Satterlee,
79; I. C. Stearns, ’81; Charles E. Holt, ’83; James E. Child, ’86;
Hugh Harrison, 88; James P. Pinkham, ’90; William J. Dean,
’92; Prof. Hans S. Hilleboe, ’94; William J. Dean, ’96; George W.
Higgins, 98; B. B. Haugan, ’00; Charles Scanlon, ’02; Charles W.
Dorsett, 04 and ’06; George D. Haggard, ’08; J. F. Heiberg, ’10;
FE. E. Lobeck, ’12; W. G. Calderwood, ’14; Thomas J. Anderson,
"16; O. O. Stageberg, ’18.
The members of the National Committee were: Col. S. R. David-
son, 69; W. W. Satterlee, ’76-’80 and ’82-’88; J. C. Ervin, ’76-’80;
Rev. A. Willey, 80-82 ; Rev. M. T. Anderson, ’80-’82; L. Bixby, ’82-
88; James P. Pinkham, ’88-’96; Hugh Harrison, ’88-’92; W. J. Dean,
92-04; D. B. Haugan, ’96-’00; J. F. Heiberg, ’00-’04; George W.
Higgins, ’o4-’12; W. G. Calderwood, ’o4-’24; J. D. Engle, ’12-’16;
EK. E. Lobeck, ’16-’20; Mrs. Alice P. Taylor, ’20-’24,
The State Chairmen were: W. W. Satterlee; James P. Pink-
ham, ’87-’90; George F. Wells, ’90; C. A. Tupper, ’90; George F.
Wells, ’91; Wesley M. Lawrence, ’92-’94; Charles M. Way, ’94-’96;
George W. Higgins, ’96-’11 ; W. G. Calderwood, ’11-’14 and 716-18;
George F. Wells, ’14-’16 and ’20-’23; George D. Haggard, ’17.
Mississippi. The members of the National Committee were: T.
A. Williams, 782-84; J. N. O. Watson, ’82-’84; J. B. Gambrell, ’88-
’92; Dr. J. A. Hackett, ’88-’92; J. McCaskill, ’92-’94; Henry Ware,
’96-’00; B. F. Howard, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: Henry Ware, ’88-’94; B. T. Hobbs, ’95-
798; Dr. T. J. Bailey, ’00-’06; B. F. Howard, ’20-’24.
Missourt. The candidates for Governor were: John A. Brooks,
84; J. P. Orr, ’86; Frank N. Lowe, ’88; John Sobieski, ’92; H. P.
Faris,’'’96;' Charles E. ‘Stokes, ‘oo; Ov). ‘Hill,’’04 7-H M Pein
08; Charles E. Stokes, ’12; Joseph P. Fontron, 716; H. P. Faris,
20}
The members of the National Committee were: John T. Ustick,
769; M. W. Watson, ’84-’88; A. F. Butts, ’84-’88; W. H. Craig,
*88-’92; William C. Wilson, ’88-’92; John A. Brooks, ’92-’96; R. T.
Bond, ’96-’00; C. E. Stokes, ’96-’'12; H. P. Faris, ’oo-’28; J. C.
Hughes, ’12-’20 and ’24-’28; Mrs. Marie Hughes, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: John A.,Brooks, 87; A. F. Smith, ’88-
89; J. M. Baughn, ’90; D. Ward King, ’91; Charles E. Stokes, ’96-
13; W. H. Dalton, ’13-’16; Julius C. Hughes, ’16-’24.
Montana. The only candidate for Governor was J. M. Waters,
’
92.
a
APPENDIX 651
The members of the National Committee were: E. M. Gardner,
’92-’04; T. P. Street, ’00-’04; Mrs. Kate M. Hamilton, ’o8-’16.
The State Chairmen were: J. M. Waters, ’96-’08; R. R. Crowe,
‘to8Te ana 415-16; J.°H, Parker; “12-14.
Nebraska. The candidates for Governor were: Jarvis S. Church,
Waele, Miller, 84; H. W. Harvey, 86; George’ i. Biglow, 88 ;
Boia Paine, go; C: E. Bentley;"92; E. Al -Gerard;'’o4; Joel Warner,
oer. Ve Muir, 798 51? Oy Jones, \*00 ;' Sy I’) Davies; 702 3: Chidries
W. Swander, 04; Harry T. Sutton, 06; R. R. Teeter, ’08; George
I. Wright, ’10; Nathan Wilson, ’12 and ’14; J. D. Graves, ’16 and ’20.
The members of the National Committee were: John B. Finch,
"82-87; S. W. Little, 82-84; C. F.°S. Templin, ’84-’88; A. G.
Wolfenbarger, ’88-’92 and ’oo-’12; George Scott, 88-’92; C. E.
Bentley, ’92-’96; F. B. Wigton, ’92-’96; L. G. Parker, ’oo-’o4; L. O.
Jones, ’04-’08; B. B. Gilbert, 08-16; Mrs. Frances Beveridge Heald,
2-70" \0 Pi) Currie, 10-205) J. 'G.phick,’ “16-'207' J. AL Murray,
’20-’28; G. A. Norlin, ’24-’28.
The State Chairmen were: C. F. S. Templin, ’87-’88; George
Scott, 89; C. E. Bentley, ’90; H. W. Hardy, ’91; Joel Warner, ’96;
Penge Parker, 767;,5..D.’ Pitchie, ‘00-02; C. C. Beveridge,’ ’02-'045
A. G. Wolfenbarger, ’04; W. Burt Clark, ’05; F. W. Emerson, ’06;
Wie Clann Go horror 1 Uesey. 07-007, irds, Gilbert, (OG-"16s J 77.
Murray, ’16-’24.
New Hampshire. The candidates for Governor were: L. D. Bar-
rows, ’70; Albert G. Cummings, ’71; John Blackmer, ’72, ’73, ’74;
Nathaniel White, ’75; A. S. Kendall, ’76, ’77, ’78; George D. George,
’80; J. M. Fletcher, ’82; Larkin D. Mason, ’84; Joseph Wentworth,
Bo decear io. Carr, 88>) [2M Fletcher, (o0;"Hdgar’L: Carr, 92;
Daniel C. Knowles, ’94; John C. Berry, ’96; A. G. Stevens, ’98;
J. M. Fletcher, ’00; John C. Berry, ’02; David Heald, ’04; Edmund
B. Tetley, ’06 and ’08; John C. Berry, ’10; Alva H. Morrill, ’12 and
7A? Ralph’ E. Meras,” 10,
The members of the National Committee were: O. H. Jasper, ’82;
J. M. Fletcher, ’84-’96; D. C. Babcock, ’88-’96; Isaac B. Vale, ’96-
700; H. O. Jackson, ’oo-’04; L. F. Richardson, ’oo-’08; Ray C.
Durgin, ’o4-’08; A. H. Morrill, ’08-16; J. S. Blanchard, ’08-’12;
George L. Thompson, ’12-’16; David Boynton, ’16-’20; Ralph E.
Meras, 716-’24; Alfred B. Simonds, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: J. M. Fletcher, ’87-’92; H. O. Jackson,
’96; L. F. Richardson, ’o00-’04 and ’06; Ray C. Durgin, ’o4; A. H.
Morrill, ’07-’11; Rev. G. L. Thompson, ’11-’16; John C. Berry, ’16.
New Jersey. The candidates for Governor were: R. Bingham,
77. S, B. Ransom, ’80; Solomon Parsons, 83; Clinton B. Fisk,
’86; George LaMonte, ’89; T. J. Kennedy, ’92; Henry W. Wilbur,
’°95; T. H. Landon, ’98; Joel W. Brown, 701; James Parker, ’04;
John R. Mason, ’07; Charles F. Repp, ’10; James Gilbert Mason,
13; Harry S. Baughn, ’16; Charles E. Lane, ’19; Eugene A. Smith,
eA
652 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
The members of the National Committee were: S. B. Ransom,
’69-’82; James S, Littell, 76-80; Dr. T. Edgar Hunt, ’80-’88;
Solomon Parsons, ’84-’88; W. H. Nicholson, ’88-’08; Cortlandt L.
Parker, ’88-’92; Robert White, ’92-’00; Joel G. VanCise, 00-712;
Dr. Grafton E, Day, ’12-’16; Will D. Martin, °12-’28; James Gil-
bert Mason, ’16-’28.
The State Chairmen were: Thomas V. Cator, 87; Cortlandt L.
Parker, ’87-’89; T. W. Burger, ’90; Robert J. S. White, ’92-’96;
George J. Haven, ’oo-’o4 and ’o7-’10; Dr. Grafton E. Day, ’04-’07;
Donald MacMillan, ’11-’16; Will D. Martin, ’16-’25,.
New York, The candidates for Governor were: Myron H. Clark,
70; C. C. Leigh, ’72; Myron H. Clark, "74; William J. Groo, ’76;
John W. Mears, ’79; A. A. Hopkins, ’82; H. Clay Bascom, ’85;
W. Martin Jones, ’88; J. W. Bruce, 91; Francis E. Baldwin, ’94;
William W. Smith, ’96; John Kline, 98; William T. Wardwell, ’oo;
John McKee, ’o2; Alfred L. Manierre, 04; Henry M. Randall, ’06;
George E. Stockwell, ’08; T. Alexander MacN icholl, ’10 and ’12;
William Sulzer, ’14; C. E. Welch, 716; Charles S. Whitman (Rep.),
"18; George F. Thompson, ’20; George K. Hinds, ’22; Charles E,
Manierre, ’26.
_ The members of the National Committee were: William Hosmer,
‘693, C., Hei Meady ?7686i0: Gl. CG. Leigh, ’76-’80; Stephen Merritt,
80-82; J. W. Grosvenor, ’80-’82; Dr. T. J. Bissell, 'O2-'88 nro
Hazelton, ’82-’84; J. W. Bruce, ’84-’88: H. Clay Bascom, ’80-’96;
William T. Wardwell, ’88-’08; Fred F. Wheeler, ’96-’00; Francis E.
Baldwin, ’oo-’04 and ’16-’24; J. H. Durkee, ’o4-’08; George E.
Stockwell, ’08-’12; C. E. Pitts, ’08-’12; Alexander T. MacNicholl,
"12-'16; Olin S. Bishop, ’12-’20; Mrs. D. Leigh Colvin, ’20-’28;
William F. Varney, ’24~-’28.
The State Chairmen were: Dr. T. J. Bissell, "73; Fred F. Wheeler,
84-89 ; Francis E. Baldwin, ’89-’93; Dr. Mitchell Downing, ’93-’98;
J, Hy Durkee, ’98+'07 5 GaE) Pitts, 07-125) 10S) Bishop, 712-19;
W. H. Burr, ’19-’21; W. E. Moore, ’21 ; John McKee, ’22-’24.
North Carolina. The candidates for Governor were: J. M. Tem-
pleton, ’92; James R. Jones, ’06; Henry Sheets, ’oo; J. M. Temple-
ton, ’04.
The members of the National Committee were: D. W. C. Benbow,
’88-'92; Edwin Shaver, °88-’92 and ’oo-’o04; J. A. Stikeleather, ’92-
96; T. P. Johnson, ’92-’04 and ’o8-’20: N. W. Newby, ’96-’00; J.
M. Templeton, ’o4.
The State Chairmen were: D. W. C. Benbow, ’87-’90; J. H.
Southgate, ’96; Edwin Shaver, 96-07; F. S. Blair, ’13-’16; Thomas
P. Johnson, ’16-’20,
North Dakota. The candidates for Governor were: R.. B, Rich
ardson (Fusion), ’96; Delavan Carlton, ’00; H. H. Aaker, ’o4.
The members of the National Committee were: E. E. Saunders,
'92-’96; H. H. Mott, ’92-’00; M. H. Kiff, ’96-’12; J. T. Esterbrook,
APPENDIX 653
‘00-04; Theodore E. Ostlund, ’o4-’12; O. Tippam, 116-205) (Oli:
McCracken, ’16-’20; George Lippman, ’202——.
The State Chairmen were: M. H. Kiff, ’94-’00; E. A. Taylor, ’96;
J. L. Sizer, ’01; George A. Flewell, ’04; George Schlosser, 107 ;
Theodore E. Ostlund, ’10; Frank B. Stevenson, ’12-’16; George
Lippman, ’20.
Ohio. The candidates for Governor were: Samuel Scott, 69;
Gideon T. Stewart, ’71 and 773; Jay Odell, ’75; H. A. Thompson,
’77~ Gideon T. Stewart, ’79; A. R. Ludlow, 81; Ferdinand Schu-
macher, ’83; A. B. Leonard, ’85; Morris Sharp, ’87; J. B. Helwig,
’89; J. J. Ashenhurst, ’91; Gideon T. Macklin, ’93; Seth Ellis, 95;
J. C. Holiday, ’97; George M. Hammell, ’99; E. J. Pinney, Ors
N. D. Creamer, 03; Aaron S. Watkins, ’o5; J. B. Martin, ’08;
H. A. Thompson, ’10; Daniel A. Poling, ’12; J. H. Dickason, 16;
John A. Henderson, ’20.
The members of the National Committee were: Gideon T. Stew-
art, 69 and ’82-’84; H. A. Thompson, ’76-’80; Mrs. Mattie Mc-
Clellan Brown, ’76-’80, ’84-88, ’92-’96; S. L. Roberts, ’80-’82 ;
W. G. Hubbard, ’80-’82; Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridge, ’82-’84; Jay
Odell, ’84-’88; B. S. Higley, ’88-’92; J. A. Dickson, ’88-’92; L. B.
Logan, ’92-’96; John Danner, ’90-’04; Robert Candy, ’oo-’08; H. F.
MacLane, ’o4-’08; J. B. Martin, 08-11; F. M. McCartney, 08-12;
Aaron S. Watkins, ’11-’20; Hewson L. Peeke, ’12-’20; Prescott
Gillilan, ’20-’28; Mrs. Carrie L. Flatter, ’20-’24; Fred W. Barrett,
24-28.
The State Chairmen were: B. S. Higley, ’87-’89; R. S. Thompson,
’90; J. W. Sharp, ’91; L. B. Logan, ’92-’95; E. J. Pinney, olay ON fs ol fe
Ashenhurst, ’97-’02; George L. Case, ’02 3 LB.) Hawkyivo3 2 aM!
McCartney, ’04-’07; H. F. MacLane, 08-10; J. T. N. Braithwaite,
"10; J. W. Henry, ’11; J. Raymond Schmidt, ’12; R. R. Roberts; ’13;
Elton R. Shaw, ’13-’16; F. W. Lough, 716; Prescott Gillilan, "17-253
General Walter S. Payne, Hewson L. Peeke and H. F. MacLane
each served a number of years as Chairman of the State Central
Committee in the period 1898-1912.
Oklahoma. The only candidate for Governor was George E.
Rouch, 710.
The members of the National Committee were: Charles Brown,
08-16; J. H. Monroe, ’o8-’12; George E. Rouch, *°12-’16; Ernest
Allison Smith, ’16-’20; J. A. Brewer, ’16-’20.
The State Chairmen were: E. S. Stockwell, ’02; Charles Brown,
04-10 and 715-16; G. E. Rouch, *10-’12; L. W. Sisson, 713; Ernest
Allison Smith, ’15-’17.
Oregon. The candidates for Governor were: J. E. Houston, ’86;
James H. Kennedy, ’94; H. M. Clinton, ’98; A. J. Hunsaker, ’o2;
I. H. Amos, ’06; A. Eaton, ’10; W. S. U’Ren, *14.
The members of the National Committee were: J. G. Warner, ’88-
"92; J. W. Webb, ’88-’92; I: H. Amos, ’92-’00; Mrs. IN Sly Digerts
654 PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
92-96; E. O. Miller, ’oo-04; W. P. Elmore, ’oo-’12; F. Mc-
Kercher, ’04-"12; Julius C. Voget, ’12-’16; J. P. Neell, ’12-’24;
George L. Cleaver, ’16-’20; Miss Grace Amos, ’20-’22.
The State Chairmen were: W. W. Dimick, ’87; C. W. Brown,
°88-’91 ; George M. Weister, ’94; I. H. Amos, ’95-’07; J. P. Newell,
°07, :
Pennsylvania. The candidates for Governor were: Simeon B.
Chase, ’72; R. Audley Brown, ’75; Franklin H. Lane, ’78; Alfred
C. Pettit, 82; Charles S. Wolf, ’86; John D. Gill, ’90; Charles L.
Hawley, ’94; Silas C. Swallow, ’98 and ’02; Homer L. Castle, ’06;
Madison F, Larkin, ’10; Matthew S. Stevenson, ’14; E. J. Fithian,
18; William Repp, ’22; George L. Pennock, ’26.
The members of the National Committee were: James Black,
*69-’76, *80-'82, ’84-’88; Arthur Kirk, ’76-’80; J. L. Richardson,
76-80; James Park, Jr., ’80-’82; A. C. Pettit, 82-’84; I. N. Peirce,
82-84; William T. Dunn, ’84-’88; W. M. Price, ’88-’92; A. A.
Stevens, ’88-’12; S. W. Murray, ’92-’96; H. D. Patton, ’96-’00;
Charles R. Jones, ’00-’08; David B. McCalmont, ’o8-’20; Henry S.
Gill, °12-’16; B. E. P. Prugh, ’16-’28; Elisha Kent Kane, ’20-’28.
The State Chairmen were: A. A. Barker, ’83-’86 and ’88; A. A.
Stevens, 87 and ’89; H. D. Patton, ’90-’96; Charles R. Jones, ’96-
"05; David B. McCalmont, ’06-’10; Burton L. Lockwood, ’o9-’13;
B. E. P. Prugh, 713-’25.
Rhode Island. ‘The candidates for Governor were: R. Hazzard,
"753 Albert C. Howard, ’76; General.Charles E. VanVandt, ’77,
"78, °79; Albert C. Howard, ’80; Frank G. Allen, ’81; George H.
Slade, ’85 and ’86; Thomas H. Peabody, ’87; George W. Gould, ’88;
John H. Larry, ’90 and ’91; Alexander Gilbert, ’92; Henry B. Met-
calf, 93 and ’94; Smith Quimby, ’95; Thomas H. Peabody, ’96 and
97; Edwin A. Lewis, ’98; Joseph A. Peckham, ’99; Henry B. Met-
calf, 00; William E. Brightman, ’or and ’o2; Frederick T. Jencks,
703; Henry B. Metcalf, 04; Bernon E. Helme, ’o5 and ’06; Louis E.
Remington, ’07 and ’08; Willis H. White, ’09; Nathaniel C. Greene,
"10; Ernest L. Merry, ’11; Willis H. White, ’12; Ernest L. Merry,
714; Roscoe W. Phillips, ’16.
The members of the National Committee were: Henry S. Wood-
worth, ’84-’92; J. N. Todd, ’84-’88; James A. Williams, ’88-’92;
Thomas H. Peabody, ’92-’96; G. H. Slade, ’92-’96; Henry B. Met-
calf, ’96-’08; Smith Quimby, ’96-’08; C. H. Tilley, ’o8-’12; Bernon
FE. Helme, ’o8-’12; L. E. Remington, ’12-’20; Frederick T. Jencks,
’12-’24; George W. Jeffery, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: H. S. Woodworth, ’87-’88 and ’92;
John W. Blodgett, 89; James A. Williams, ’93-’00; Elisha T. Read,
’oI-04 and *10-’"11; C. H. Tilley, ’04-’08; Roscoe W. Phillips, ’13-
°20.
South Carolina. ‘The members of the National Committee were:
Mrs. Sallie F. Chapin, *82-’88; James’ H. Carlisle, ’82-’84; J. P.
Prince, ’88-’92; H. F. Chreitzberg, ’88-’92.
wwePPEN DIX reer igd } 655)
The State Chairmen were: W. B. Ingle, ’02; Charles A. Smith,
’o7; George Gary Lee, 713-16.
South Dakota. The candidates for Governor were: M. D. Alex-
ander, ’94; J. F. Hanson, ’96; Knute Lewis, ’98; F. J. Carlisle, ’00 ;
H. H. Curtis, ’02; W. J. Edgar, ’04; Knute Lewis, ‘06; G. F.
Knappen, ’08; O. W. Butterfield, ’10 and ’12; C. K. Thompson, ’14
and ’16.
The members of the National Committee were: A. R. Cornwall,
’92-’96; H. H. Roser, ’92-’96; J. A. Lucas, ’96-’00; J. F. Hanson,
’96-’00 ; H. H. Curtis, ’00-’04; F. J. Carlisle, ’o0-’04; Dr. C. V. Tem-
pleton, ’o4-’12 and ’16-’20; Quincy Lee Morrow, ’o8-'16; W. T.
Rafferty, 712-24; Mrs. Flora Mitchell, ’20-’24.
The State Chairmen were: J. A. Lucas, ’94; W. A. Stromme, ’oo-
’92: Dr. C. V. Templeton, ’02-’15 ; Quincy Lee Morrow, ‘16-18.
Tennessee. The candidates for Governor were: J. G. Johnson,
’88: D. C. Kelly, ’90; Judge E. H. East, ’92; Josephus Hopwood,
’96; W. D. Turnley, ’98; R. S. Cheves, 00 and ’o2.
The members of the National Committee were: Emerson Ethe-
ridge, ’82-’84; William A. Sinclair, ’82-’84; J. W. Smith, "84-92;
J. R. Anderson, ’84-’88; James A. Tate, ’88-’08; A. D. Reynolds,
’92-’96 and ’04-’12; R. S. Cheves, ’96-’04; J. B. Stinespring, 08-12.
The State Chairmen were: W. A. Clendenning, ’87; George 5.
Armistead, ’88-’90; James A. Tate, ’90-’07; J. B. Stinespring, ‘08;
R. B. Eleazar, ’12.
Texas. The candidates for Governor were: E. L. Dohoney, ’86;
Marion Martin, ’88; E. O. Heath, ’90; D. M. Prendergast, ’92; J. M.
Dunn, ’94; Randolph Clark, ’96; B. P. Bailey, ’98; H. G. Damon,
’00; George W. Carroll, ’02; W. D. Jackson, 704; J. W. Pearson,
706; E. C. Heath, ’08; Andrew Jackson Houston, ’10 and ’12; H.
W. Lewis, ’16.
The members of the National Committee were: E. L. Dohoney,
*82-’92; W. H. Hamlin, ’84-’88; J. B. Cranfill, ’88-’00 and ’04-’123
E. C. Heath, ’92-’00; D. H. Hancock, ’oo-’04; J. G. Adams, 04-08 ;
Walter C. Swengle, ’08-’11; Thomas Brown, ’11-’12; P. F. Paige,
’12-’20; J. L. Campbell, ’12-’16; H. L. Winchell, ’16-’20.
The State Chairmen were: J. B. Cranfill, ’87; W. D. Jackson,
’88-’00; E. C. Heath, ’91, ’92, 96; W. D. Knowles, ’92; E. A. Wingo,
’96; B. T. Bailey, 00; E. H. Contbear, ’o2-’10; P. F. Paige, ’11-’12
and ’16; A. A. Evarts, ’13.
Utah. The only candidate for Governor was Jacob 5. Boreman,
700.
The members of the National Committee were: Jacob S. Boreman,
’00-’04; C. D. Savery, ’00-’04; Robert T. Shields, ’°08-’12; Miss Edith
Wade, ’08-’12; W. N. Jonas, ’16-’20; Henry P. Olson, ’16-’20.
The State Chairmen were: Richard Wake, ’o2-’06; Hugh L.
Glenn, ’20.
Vermont. The candidates*for Governor were: Henry M. Seeley,
86 and ’88; Ernest L. Allen, ’90 and ’92; Rodney W. Whittemore,
656 PROHIBITION IN THE®UNITED STATES
94 and ’96; C. W. Wyman, ’98; Henry C. Barnes, ’oo; Rev, Joel O.
Sherburne, ’02; Homer F. Cummings, ’o4; Dr. L. W. Hanson, ’o6;
FE. M. Campbell, ’o8; Edwin R. Towle, ’10; Clement F. Smith
(Fusion), ’12 and ’14; Dr. L. W. Hanson, 716; William B. Mayo,
"18; James Hartness (Fusion), ’20; George S. Wood, "24.
The members of the National Committee were: C. W. Wyman,
88-04; Clinton Smith, °88-’92; W. P. Stafford, "92-'963°H. 1G;
Barnes, ’96-’00; H. F. Cummings, ’oo-’04; W. T. Miller, ’o4-’08;
Fred L. Page, ’o4-’o8 and "12-16; H. S. Eldred, 08-12; Dr. L. W.
Hanson, ’o08-’24; George S. Wood, *16-'24.
The State Chairmen were: Clinton R. Smith, 87; Wendell P.
Stafford, ’89-’90; C. W. Wyman, 92; F. H. Shepard, ’92-’96; John
LaFort yr.) %00 9 Dr Ww: Hanson, ’oI-’03 and "1122400 SM,
Harris, ’04-’08; T. C. Andrews, ’I0.
Virginia, The candidates for Governor were: Thomas E. Taylor,
89; James R. Miller, ’93; L. A. Cutler, 97; O. C. Rucker, ’or.
The members of the National Committee were: Thomas E. Tay-
lor, ’84-’88; Rumsey Smithson, °84-’88; James W. Newton, °88-’06 ;
R. H. Rawlings, ’88-’92; W. W. Gibbs, 92-96; J. R. Miller, *G6-
‘00; James W. Bodley, ’96-’12; W. T. Bundick, ’oo-’o4; G. M.
Smithdeal, ’o4-’12; William A. Rife, °12-’16; H. M. Hoge, ’12-’16;
T. M. Hammond, ’16-’20; Dr. E. R. MclIntyer, ’16-’24; Mrs. E. R.
MclIntyer, ’20-’21.
The State Chairmen were: Capt. A. H. Fultz, °82; M. M. Sibert,
88; J. M. Newton, ’90; W. W. Gibbs, ’93; Col. J. R. Miller, 94;
B. Lacy Hoge, ’95-’96; W. T. Bundick, ‘00-’o1 ; J. O. Alwood, ’o2-
06; James W. Bodley, ’07-’o9; G. M. Smithdeal, ’ro-’11; William
A. Rife, ’12-’14; F. M. Hammond, ’15; Dr. E. R. MclIntyer, ’16-’24.
Washington. The candidates for Governor were: Roger S.
Greene, ’92; R. E. Dunlap, 96 and ’oo; A. H. Sherwood, ’04; A. S.
Caton, ’08; George Stievers, 12; A. B. L. Gellerman, ’16.
The members of the National Committee were: R. S. Greene,
’88-’92 and ’oo-’04; S. T. Dimmick, 88-’92; E. B. Sutton, ’92-’96;
G. D. Strong, ’92-’96; C. Davis, ’96-’00; W. H. Gillstrap, ’96-’00;
E. S$. Smith, ’00-04; R. E. Dunlap, ’04-’12; W. H. Roberts, 04-08 ;
Guy Posson, ’o8-’11; O. L. Fowler, ’t1-’12; H. T. Murray, ’12-’16;
Mrs. Nettie Hellenbeck, ’12-’20; Walter F. McDowell, ’16-’20.
The State Chairmen were; C. L. Haggard, ’00; R. E. Dunlap,
’oI-'07; Guy Posson, ’08-’09; James McDowell, ’10; O. L. Fowler,
"11-12; Mrs. Nettie Hellenbeck, "12-16; H. T. Murray, °16; W. E.
Haycox, ’20.
West Virginia. The candidates for Governor were: Frank Burt,
92; T. C. Johnson, ’96; Thomas R. Carskadon, ’00; Joseph W. Bed-
ford, ’04; Edward W. Mills, ’o8: J. Goodloe Jackson, ’12.
The members of the National Committee were: Frank Burt,
°84-’00; T. R. Carskadon, ’92-’08: U. A. Clayton, ’oo-’16; E. W.
Mills, ’08-’12; Jay E. Cunningham, ’12-’24; Goodloe Jackson, ’16-
24; Samuel Dorsey, ’24-’28; Rev. George W. Ogden, ’24-’28.
en
APPENDIX 657
The State Chairmen were: Dave D. Johnson, ’87-’91; J. Howard
Holt, ’96; U. A. Clayton, ’00-’07 and ’10-’11; Edward W. Mills, ’07-
"10; J. W. Bedford, ’12-"18; A. W. Martin, ’20-’22.
Wisconsin. The candidates for Governor were: C. E. Hammond,
75; William L. Bloomfield, ’79; Theodore D. Kanouse, ’81; Samuel
D. Hastings, °84; John M. Olin, ’96; E. G. Durant, ’88; Charles
lesaider 003, ..C, Richmond, ’92 3}. A. Clezhor)/649)).. 11.
Berkey, 96; Eugene W. Chafin, ’98; J. Burritt Smith, ’°00; E. W.
Drake. 62 iW.s tH. Clark, Yo4:°E. Le Eaton,.:’06 + Wa DaAGox 0c:
D. E. VanKeuren, ’10; Charles L. Hill, ’12; David W. Emerson,
714; George B. McKerrow, ’16; W. C. Dean, ’18; Henry H. Tubbs,
’°20; M. L. Welles, ’22; A. R. Bucknam, ’24.
The members of the National Committee were: J. M. May, ’69;
H. W. Brown, ’76-’80; T. D. Stone, ’76-’82; Mrs. C. W. Pinkham,
"80-82; J. J. Sutton, ’82-’84; Samuel D. Hastings, ’82-’04; B. E.
VankKeuren, ’84-’92 and ’o8-’16; E. W. Chafin, ’92-’96; O. B. Olson,
’96-’04; Alfred Gabrielson, ’o4-’08; W. D. Cox, ’08-’12; A. J. Ben-
jamin, ’12-’20; Henry H. Tubbs, ’16-’28; William C. Dean, ’20-’24;
Oliver Needham, ’24-’28.
The State Chairmen were: T. C. Richmond, ’87-’91; M. O. Nel-
son, 91; C. F. Cronk, ’92-’96; J. E. Clayton, ’96-’06; W. D. Cox,
’07; J. Burritt Smith, ’o9-’14; A. J. Benjamin, ’15-’16; William C.
Dean, ’17-’20; Oliver Needham, ’24.
Wyoming. The candidates for Governor were: William Brown,
’92; George W. Blaine, ’06.
The members of the National Committee were: O. S. Jackson,
’92~06; M. J. Waage, ’92-’96; L. L. Laughlin, ’o4-’12; Dr. C. J.
Sawyer, ’04-’12; J. R. Cortner, ’16-’20; A. B. Campbell, ’16-’20.
The State Chairmen were: Emma FE. Page, ’92; C. J. Sawyer,
ios. L. Lauchlin, ‘10-12; J. R. Cortner, 12716; Rev.) Orem
aking 722
© ar o> . 0. 82 ee. een) 2 ry
Af ia Fe Be 4 | 4 F y ‘y ‘ , s mA 4 ; 1 tt
: F ; ’ j ee hha on ad § eae. vy A ee i
i ‘9 1s 5 y ra Ay ha!
. " ; eA :
Ate Wane a A ad xen aa
ee Ea eS CO eae Pe ny Wc
‘ \
7 , . bar
Pye ? + nee r ¥ iP ay 4
ere ti ot Tut ah ty ’ bi LIN Neeey an
rh? ee r sf Syi"'s Ma } s
eae Re rE Sharer tat : “hg “8 wore a a
? ee" ‘7
i, beh beg at ag yo ay oer “ah ek) 4 Li We foseh
a nis) ; ; i} b aEEN, O
PAN 44 ik uD 3 i" Teeth? aca a(S ky Pes yea! pe Veet : amt -
: . ». LY \ )« ‘ ay » Ny
pyty “ ‘ t veer. Ae | 4 ate. WV Be Oo ay aI ie) Tiss vl wit? de! 4 re
2 wd « Nie A aoe Vee a) ™ glad \ a7 ei : 4
if : % [oer . ea eal Hiya ise th HAW tk i A aL ile myc
ae DES SSA Mee OR MTG cov hi koe, Sambi EER. iS
a4 b i% eo Al a 4 led ig'h 4 Me Preah
: Ms ni bd hat Paty A n ry “Wits.
7 iA. " At vy en | a rad ‘es wt a) ivi Tacky i, Bay '
; i 4 Wee wis ah
PICA AERA ARES CU UN Tee es a
iy NN i eal a Mey ’ % ‘ i ' ' e@
vets ihre ae Cet ASE NIB ey WO Vid he PG ee rd WD ay
r RG bert : a . % 4 ‘1 i 4 2 / " . : .
Aid 4 44 ‘ my g ’ y 3 Ah j 1 44 } j ‘| .
wi ’ i v PT rom tik nat Le : ae A, Py’ Hej ? } uA { ‘ ¢ shat i.
Pay jth gy ie PRC, Wea pi Cie ee 0 Sa
eit publ") cy a ihe a f ' De ie h ; Lea | Cire A ie i
- : a gt ; j i r bw | 4 ‘ i ; ¢
. , re gall ' , 1 LT on 1 i j 3 4 wy { ,capy ote hotel +t
her bck Ss : D v wu fo Wee il. ry ' 1 ae
oe, Lira | i 44 \ ae "y ifs Wwiyyly pik te
‘ ‘ i i oe ‘7 F
Une Ft Fe I } ve) A y yey ye
VERS GOL et ibe en! my pa ee can! be ialdahe haan
\ Aap § § ¥ ; F ‘ i P ‘ git
{ de 4 * * HAHN 4 \ 7 C6) yrs rut ae vow Fy ‘
\ ‘ Pn Ni ; ‘ f ava % :
fa “ais ' ‘ } i | ‘ i
ie biG? shea Wiig Cans eles ah ee ie iy Ve: re
j F J o i ¢g - iy
: ma etry] cea oe
: ' i AAP", - 4 af *
Mi i 1 . ,* ‘ { { * 4 i
’ “ : ; - iia ar i a, ogenes bat By
y ' + ry a 74
’ it gata. A) Gy Loot OR RCI CRAG | i y
ya: . : 4 ou bab). 4
i ra at ; : vale ‘ ‘ , . ,
: ‘vg eae i Vite SOK MLA Ca, aad att
44 , d A P * iu
r ef a 4 ‘oy . Ula 4.
’ f = ” i, san : 7 \ ‘i
: ) ; ‘ Baie: we. } " ay
} ae . i gf. ‘ CHG
uf t ‘ - AL i 4 ‘
| en PARP PERN 0 ae) cme em
‘ ) ' a ; } j mt he \ afar i ; Mv by
, . [ ri! “
’ i} \ t i ; ' : ees is . , hi } 4 i A 7 aA h agent
; , | s u { ’ 7 J *?
in oh ets: fA queer Cet ae ath
" b * F cole = af
Py het : i 3 ‘7 eee i ¢ , ‘ les d ae
' ‘ P *
s ' co | aif
Ul “M, : i ’ am | fl
: , ‘ole ee
i) ty ’ | “
i ‘7 ‘ a 4
: : i
Te, a
i ; .
“ * t v}
i A i)
i Ov RL
' : ‘ ; “i
5 . y ‘5 a tA.
ire ‘ rw
j f, i “ 7 ry H oe ‘ f j a iW the
t , * ’ ‘ ; iy
r . : ; .
= ‘ yt f ( ¥ Mg id r n if ian i
‘ 5 4 re j + |
, ‘ 4 a ' , ay ob oe
p i
, ’ 1 ’
s fi .
\ i ’ t. : 5 pi,
a, : | ‘ eee “i
si i gy » hae
os Pog ete * wale Jw P
INDEX
Adams, John, and temperance
reform, 13, 14
Address to the People, Gerrit
Smith, 69, 75
Adequate Remedy for a National
Evil, An, John Russell, 99
Administration, 455, 608
Alabama, law repealed through
liquor power, 345
Statewide prohibition, 334
Alaska, prohibition in territorial
laws, 179, 440
Alcohol and the State, Robert
C. Pitman, 87, 120, 361
Alcohol Consumption, 549
Alcoholic Liquor Traffic, Com-
mittee of Inquiry on, 102
Alcoholism, deaths, 479, 489,
Effects of, 489, 576
Alienation of votes, 397, 398,
567, 637
American Advance, The, 343
American Temperance Society,
ro. al
American Temperance Union,
18, 39, 45
Anti-Saloon League, The, 380
Catechism of, 390
Compromises of, 394
“Good man” theory, 382, 391,
AOI
History of, early, 384
Hobson Amendment, and the,
394.
Illinois, in, 391, 392
Local option and, 359, 369
Local option in Ohio and, 387
Maps on local option mislead-
ing, 306
Omni-partisan plan, 390, 395
659
Anti-Saloon League,
Opportunism of, 395
Oregon, attitude in, 408
Organization of, 386
Policy of, political, 399
Principles, declaration of, 390
Prohibition Party and, 380
Reed Amendment, 394
Scholarship in, 395
“Step” theory, 393
Anti-Saloon League Blue Book,
90
Anti-Saloon League Catechism,
390
Anti-Saloon Republican Move-
ment, 385
Appleton, Gen. James, 19, 29
Arizona, prohibition in, 377
Vote, 435, 430
Arkansas, local option in, 375
Vote, 438
Armstrong, Dr. Lebbeus, 15, 43
Army canteen, the, 304
Deaths due to liquor, 304
Liquor evil during Civil War,
58
Liquor-selling to soldiers, 17
Spirit ration abolished, 17
Arrests for drunkenness, 474,
489
Artman, Judge, decision, 334
Auxiliary Organizations, 323,
344
Bain, George W., 143, 246
Balance of power, 83, 566, 623
(Also see Liquor Interests )
Ballot, responsibility for, 163,
204, 207, 271, these.) 27 3)
286, 2287, 315
660
Baptist Church Home Mission
Society, and liquor, 267
Beecher, Rev. Lyman, 15, 18
Beer and Wine, army canteen
in, 304
Beer output, 552
Capital invested, 546
Consumption of, 17, 105, 548,
601
Iowa permits, 47
Massachusetts permits, 87
Near-beer places licensed in
Georgia, 346
Prohibition of,
599
Return to, 39
Vote on, 439
Bibliography, Select, 27, 48, 199,
237; 201, 275; 292, 3933 352;
379; 495, 424, 469, 545
Bicameral Principle in the New
York Legislature, The, D.
Leigh Colvin, 463, 613
Bicameral System, the, 141, 611,
613
Bidwell, John, 250
Blacks Jaines! = O19 04,)170e403)
155, 188, 247, 277
Death of, 260
Blind Tigers, 297
Board of Health, Washington,
liquor prohibition by, 17
“Bone Dry” Laws, 440, 441
Brehm, Miss Marie C., 467
Brooks, Dr. John A., 189
Burchard, Dr., famous allitera-
tion of, 164, 165
reasons for,
California, dry counties decrease,
Sra
First prohibition vote in, 135
Local option in, 357
Randall campaign in, 409
Votes, 436, 438
Campaigns, National, 95, 113,
120,, 101, 241,240, e131,
331, 423, 463, 464
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Carroll, George W., 328
Cary, General, 48
Cass, Gen. Lewis, 17
Catholic Church, Roman, Leo
XIII, Pope, favors total ab-
stinence, 268
Prohibition principles of, 269
Third Plenary Council, 268
Total Abstinence Union, 268,
269
Zurcher, work of Father, 269
Catholics and Prohibition, 269
Century of Drink Reform, A,
Fehlandt, 231
Chafin, Eugene W., 258.0 4973
340, 351, 608, 633
Arizona, work in, 431
Chairmen, National, 88, 95, 113,
123; 1331543161) 10292 7am
260, 306, 331, 351, 406, 467,
468
Chase, Simeon B., 88-89, 95
Chicago Lever, 260
Cholera Epidemic, liquor pro-
hibition during, 17
Christian Church, American
Temperance Board, 275
Temperance and, 268
Churches, Federal Council of,
443
Principles of the, 269
Reaction in resolutions of the,
274
Voice of the, 264
(See Individual
tions )
Cider, consumption of, 17
Citizens’ Union of Michigan, 385
Civil Damage Act, First, 25
Civil Damage Law, 97
Effects of, 102 |
Civil War, liquor evil during, 58
Clark, Dr. Billy J., 15, 43, 136
Close states, 198, 398, 513, 565,
‘
Denomina-
Colorado, dry counties decrease,
374
INDEX
Colorado,
Towns elect straight ticket,
seven, 254
Votes, 435, 436
Colvin, D. Leigh, 462, 468
Committee, National, 64, 113,
133, 161, 167, 169, 192, 238,
351, 467, 408
Committee of Sixty on National
Prohibition, 412
Compensation, 523
Competition for liquor vote, 98,
159
Congregational Church, license
system, and the, 271
Congress, Blair Amendment in-
troduced, 179
Eighteenth Amendment, sub-
mission of, 444, 447
First party Prohibitionist
elected to, 241
Hobson Amendment, 394
Instruction in District of Co-
lumbia, 179
Memorial for National Pro-
hibition presented to, 413
Reed Amendment, 394
Territories, prohibitory laws
for, 440
Volstead Law, 490
War Prohibition, 443, 445
Webb-Kenyon Act, 440
Congressional Temperance So-
ciety, 17, 95
Connecticut, decrease
towns, 374
History of party in, 107
Legislator elected, 333
Local option in, 356
Loss of prohibitory law, IoI
Organization of state party,
BI
Prohibitory laws in, 21, 33
Repeal of prohibition, 108
Return to license, 39
Saloons in, 364
Submission, failure of, 141
in dry
661
Constitution, why prohibition in,
aoa
Constitutional Government im
the United States, Wood-
row Wilson, 621
Constitutional Prohibition, state,
limitations, 219
Weapon only, 242
Why, 136
Continental Congress, prohibi-
tion resolution, 13
Conventions, National, 65, 109,
123, 151, 187, 246, 250, 309,
326, 330, 349, 413, 457, 404
Cornerstone, The, 30
Court Decisions, Georgia law
weakened by, 345
Indiana, 334
(See United States Supreme
Court)
Cranfill, James B., 251, 339
Crime and license, 16
Crime statistics, 477
Dakota Territory, plebiscite in,
t44
Daniel, William, 157, 168
Death rate, decline of, 479
Defeat or Victory, Mee and
Holden, 443
Defender, The, 336
Delaware, prohibitory law passed,
33
Democratic Party, attitude to-
ward prohibition, 222
Competition for wet vote, 103
Leaders in pay of liquor in-
LEKeSts 7207
Liquor aid in Jowa, 213
Plank, 1924, 503
Platforms, prohibition effect
on, 176
Prohibition and the, in Maine,
40, 46
Prohibition planks of, 433
Wet vote, caters to, 398
Wet vote in New York, 198
662
Dickie, Samuel, 192, 238, 246,
254, 200, 273, 310, 337
Death of, 261
Debates of, 342
Disciples of Christ (See Chris-
tian Church), 275
Dispensary System, Chapter on,
295
Blind Tigers, 297
Claims for, 295
Counter proposal to prohibi-
tion, 293 7
First operated in South Caro-
lina, 293
Political corruption, 298
Provisions of, 294
Results of, 295
Tillman, Governor, 294
Distilled Spirits, 17, 548
Distilleries, effect of temperance
work on, 16
District of Columbia, instruction
on effects of alcohol, 179
Prohibition in, 441
Platt Bill, 180
Dow, Neal, 29, 40, 42, 127; 1120)
188, 319, 514
Death of, 260
Drink bill, 549
Drunkenness, arrests for, 474,
489
Decrease in, 474
Georgia, arrests in, 346
High license and, 233
Local option, under, 367
Massachusetts, arrests in, 406
Dry Laws and Wet Politicians,
Harold D. Wilson, 408
Education, Effect of prohibition
on, 486, 582
Intercollegiate Prohibition As-
sociation, 188
Temperance instruction laws,
178, 201
Tennessee schools after Civil
War, 363
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Effects of Ardent Spirits upon
the Human Mind and Body,
Dr. Benjamin Rush, 13
Eighteenth Amendment, 449
Administration of, 488, 495
Betrayal of, 508
Political system underlying
prohibition, 508
Principle of national prohibi-
tion, 575
Ratification of, 448, 451
Reasons for constitutional
prohibition, 594
Scope and effect of, 597
Submission of, 444
Supreme Court decisions, 516
Violations of, 503
Volstead Law, 490
Electoral votes from dry states,
631
Enforcement, by Neal Dow, 31
In 1920-1925, 488
Kansas, party organically in-
capable, 222
Local, 505, 638
Maine Law Party, 42
Maine, subjection to Republi-
can national politics, 225
More taxing on party than en-
actment, 152
Pearson in Maine, 319
Poor in Connecticut, wet off-
cers, 49
Poor in Massachusetts, divided
allegiance, 86
Russell on reason why poor,
malcondition of politics, 134
Faris, Herman P., 467
Farmers’ Alliance, 241
Father Mathew Man, The, 269
Ferguson, William P. F., ad-
dress of, 342
Editor, 335
Libel suit against, 336
Fiddlers, The, Arthur Mee,
443
_ ae
7 2 = eee ——————— Oe ae
LL ee ee
INDEX
Finch, John B., 143, 146, 161,
179, 208, 226, 264, 447, 514,
524
Announcement on vote, 164
Death of, 185
Debates of, 185
On compensation, 524
On necessity for party, 226
Fisk, Gen. Clinton B., 155, 168,
189
Gubernatorial
171
Letter of acceptance, 192
Florida, county vote for prohibi-
tion, 378
Legislator elected, 333
Local option in, 375
Prohibition defeated by local
option, 367
Years between local option
and prohibition, 377
Vote, 435
Flournoy Movement, 22
Flying Squadron of America,
The,yary
Enlistment pledge, 412
Free Methodist Church, attitude
toward prohibition, 271
General Conference, 275
campaign of,
Georgia, agitation for political
action, 61
Dispensary system in, 293
Early prohibition laws, 13
Flournoy Movement, 22
Hostile court decision, 345
Local option in, 356, 358, 37°
Near-beer saloons licensed,
346
No-license in, 24
Period from local option to
prohibition, 376
Prohibition in, history of, 333
Prohibition postponed by local
option, 366
Prohibitory law adopted, 302
663
Georgia,
W.C. T. U. moral uprising in,
371
“Good man” theory, 274, 382,
AOI
Anti-Saloon League, 39!
Weakness of, 289
Good Templars, Independent
Order of, 61, 62, 119, 146
Gough, John B., 71, 120, 101
Government, Constitutional, and
political system, 610
Parties and liquor politics,
629
Party system, basis of, 612
President, powers of the, 626
Prohibition and the American
system of, 605
State, sphere of the, 584
Greeley, Horace, 43, 60, 97
Haddock, Rev. George C., mur-
der of, 170
Hanly, J. Frank, 345, 414
Hinshaw, Virgil G., 351, 406,
452
Hobson Amendment, 394
Home Defender, The, 336
Home Protection Party, 132
Idaho, liquor interests defeat
public men, 345
Prohibition, all parties for, 432
Prohibition vote in, 377
Ratification unanimous, 432
Statewide prohibition in, 375
Vote, 435
“T Hate It,” Hanly, 415
Illinois, court decision on license,
235
Dry counties decrease in, 374
Lincoln Chautauquas, 332
Lincoln in favor of prohibi-
tion, 35
Local option in, 356, 358
Newspaper support in, 170
No-license in, 357
664
Illinois,
Prohibition defeated, 34
Prohibitionists elected in, 170,
260, 331
State party in, 67
State ticket in 1870, 87
Vote in, 135, 260
We, Tit Uingez5
Independent Temperance Party
in Connecticut, 51
Indiana, amendment, history of
proposed, 140, 149
Baxter law, the, 101
Convention of 1900, 307
County option, 345
Court decisions, 334
First prohibitory law in, 33
Hanly, J. Frank, 345
Law declared unconstitutional,
Md
Local option in, 365, 373
Map of dry sections mislead-
ing, 366
No-license in, 24
Party organized in, 148
People’s party, 46
Prohibition sentiment Sweeps,
45
Republican party in, 150
Return to license, 47
State platform, 150
Indians, liquor prohibited Lobes
17
Insanity, 480, 489
Intercollegiate Prohibition Asso-
ciation, 324, 409, 463
Oratorical contests, 324
Study courses, 324
Intercollegiate Statesman, 324
Internal Revenue, Prohibition
and the Bureau of, 495
Internal Revenue Act, effects, 52
Passage of, 49
Tax effect on saloons, 283
International Record, The, 344
Intoxicating Liquors, H. C.
Black, 234
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Iowa, amendment invalidated,
140
Amendment of law, 39
Constitutional amendment in,
139 A
Constitutional prohibition lost,
437, 438
Parties and prohibition in, 222
Prohibition history in, 213
Prohibitory law in, 33
Mulct Law, 214
No-license in, 24
Vote, 437, 439
Jefferson, Thomas, on evil ef-
fects of liquor, 14
Johnson, Hale, 258
Joint Legislative Committee for
the Modification of the Vol-
stead Act, 398
Jones, Charles R., 331, 342
Jones-Randall Bill, 44I
Reed Amendment to, 441
Journal of the American Tem-
perance Union, 36
Junior Prohibition Clubs, 238
Kansas, activity of liquor inter-
ests, 216
Constitutional prohibition, 137,
138
First ticket, 109
Republican party in, 148, 222
Soldiers of, prohibition effect
on, 442
Vote in, 435 ,
Kentucky, local option law in,
Da
Period from local option to
prohibition, 377
Vote, 435
Vote in 1887, 168
Labor, effect of liquor on, 86,
577-582
Effect of prohibition on, 481I~
486
INDEX 665
Lake Bluff Convocation, 132
Landrith, Ira, 416
Lathrap, Mrs. Mary T., 132,
Legislation,
Repeal of state laws in fifties,
143, 168, 282
Eulogy of, 290
Legislation, Blair Amendment,
I
“Bone dry” law in Oregon,
409
Constitutional amendment cam-
paign, Kansas et al, 135
Continental Congress, 13
Domination by liquor power,
304.
Eighties, in early, 140
Fifteen Gallon Law of Mas-
sachusetts, 21
Fifties, in the, 32
First state law, 21
Gallon and quart laws, 394
Georgia near-beer saloons: li-
censed, 346
High license, 228
High license and local option,
209
Indiana county option, 345
Indians, selling to, 13, 17
Internal Revenue Act, 52
Iowa constitutional amend-
ment, 139
Kansas constitutional amend-
ment, 137
License amendment in Ohio,
ee eae aw
Limitations of amendment
method, 219
Local option, 356
Local option laws in eighties,
178
Maine Law of 1851, 31
Mulct Law, 394
National, progress of, 440
Platt Bill, 180
Prohibitory laws strengthened
following 1884, 178
Repeal of prohibitory laws,
211,226
9
Scientific Temperance Instruc-
tion laws, 178
Scott Tax Law in Ohio, 142
State constitutional amend-
ment campaigns 1887-90,
202
State constitutions, methods
of amending, I4I
Temperance instruction laws,
178
Tennessee local prohibition,
SOSH ie
(See Individual States)
Leonard, Dr. A. B., 168, 196,
273
Lever, The, 147
Levering, Joshua, 258, 337
Lewis, Dr. Dio, 116
Liberal Party, formation of, 40
License, Chapter on, 228
Agitation for abolition, 24, 25
Agitation for repeal, 21
Claims for high, 229
Compromises on, 209
Early movement for repeal
Of eet
Early no-license states, 24
Ethics, ‘oimthen236
High, advocacy of, 228
Increase in numbers, 16
Legal theory of, 234
Near-beer saloons licensed,
340
Objection to, 20
Ohio vote in 1874, 142
Political effects of high, 231
Revenue claims of high, 234
Life of Finch, The, 185
Lincoln, Abraham, advocacy of
prohibition, 35
On prohibition, 60
Liquor Interests, activities of,
Doe sb
Advertising prohibited, 441
666
Liquor Interests,
Alliances, 213, 253, 562, 568,
640
Analysis of power of, 561
Anti-prohibition propaganda,
217
Army, and the, 304
Assaults in Prohibition states,
216
Balance of power, 97, 213,
222, 223, 345, 346, 397, 550,
565
Balance of power, effect of,
433
Bankers’ and Business Men’s
Association, 215
Bootlegging, 218
Brewers’ Association, U. Se
(see United States Brewers’
Association )
Candidates, picking of, 219
Capital of, 230, 546
Cities, entrenched in the, 364,
376
Complete
for, 599
Consolidation of, 230
Consumption, 244, 548
Consumption of alcohol, 549
Consumption of spirits under
local option, 365
Corruption, political, 209, 554,
556
Deal with Republicans, 198
Defection, fear of, 96
Domination of, 398
Drink bill, 549
Drive against prohibition, 211
Effort to silence National Pro-
hibitionist, 336
Eighteenth Amendment, fight
against, 444
Entrenched in government, 52
Evil effects of, 576
Farm Herald, 215
Government, effects upon, 570,
5/2
prohibition, need
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Liquor Interests,
Growth of traffic during Civil
War, 58
Haddock murder, 170
Harrison, under President,
244
High license, 228
Iowa, in, 139
Increase of political power,
103
Influence of, evil, 590
Intimidated politicians, 510
Kansas, in, 137
Lawlessness, 558
Lobbying for army canteen,
395
Marginal vote, control ot, 222
398, 513, 565, 566, 638
Mobile vote, 198, 319, 563
Model License League, 336
National Protective Associa-
tion, 203
New York politics, in, 45
Organizations of, 551
Overholt distillery, 403
Parasitic industry, 481, 579
Party system and the, 629
Personal liberty claim, 586
Philippine Islands, in the, 305
Political methods of, 205, 510,
556, 560, 563
Political power of, 198, 206,
a fe
Power of, 546, 561
Price increase shifted to con-
sumer, 231
Propaganda, 217, 507
Raster Resolution, 96
Removed by prohibition, 480
Reorganization of, 203
Saloon, effects of, 547
Saloons, political centers, 232,
562
Saloons return in Iowa, 214
Slaughter of public men favor-
ing prohibition, 344
Sunday laws violated, 232
eT
EE ————————— ee ee OOOO
ee ee ee ee eee
OS ae gp Be
INDEX
Liquor Interests,
Supreme Court decisions on,
516
Tariff and the, 194
Taxation, effect on, 571
Unlicensed saloons, 233
Washingtonian Movement and
saloons, 23
Whisky frauds, 105
Whisky Trust, 204, 336
Literature (see Bibliography )
Literature of the Seventies, 120
Local Option, Chapter on, 355
Anti-Saloon League advocates
of, 359, 307
Defects of, 359
Definition of, 356
Drunkenness arrests
367
Dry county survey under, 373
Dry states not having local op-
tion, 369, 377
Early history of, 356
Georgia, history in, 370
High license and, 209
In cities, 376
Limitations of, 357, 358, 371
Liquor consumption under,
365 |
Liquor interests entrenched in
cities, 364
Maps misleading, 366
Obstacle to prohibition, 366
Saloons closed under, 374
Self-government claim of, 367
Smith, Gerrit on, 77
South, in the, 358
State prohibition postponed
by, 366
Status, not step, 377
Step toward prohibition, was
it?, 368
Temporary gains in, IOI
Transportation and, 366
Unit covered by, the, 355
Wilderness period of reform,
379
under,
667
Louisiana, Shreveport dry by lo-
cal option, 376
Maine, early legislation in, 29
Enforcement in, 223, 224, 319
Law of 1851, 31
Party policy in, 223
Pearson, Sheriff, 319
Prohibition in, history of, 143
Prohibition in politics, 40
Repeal of prohibitory laws, 68
Restrictive laws, 22
Return to license, 39
Temperance societies, 15
Votes, 143, 225, 435
Maine Temperance Society, 30
Maine Temperance Union, 30
Marginal vote, 96, 565
Marsh, John, 18, 25, 45
Maryland, dry counties in, 358
Dry counties increase, 375
First prohibitory bill, 33
Massachusetts, difficulties with
law, 87
Fifteen Gallon Law, 21
First restrictive laws, 13
History of prohibitory law,
136
No-license cities decrease, 374
No-license in, 24
Platform of 1870, 84
Prohibition first favored, 19
Prohibition repealed, IOI
Prohibitory laws in, 32
Refusal of licenses in, 16
Return to license, 39, 104
Seventies, in the, 109, 114
Shaw campaign in, 410
State ticket in 1870, 87
Submission, vote on, I41
Temperance societies in, 15
Vote on no-license, 355, 350
Mathew, Father, 120
Work of, 26
Merwin, Major, 36, 60
Medal contests, 170, 307
Metcalf, Henry B., 317
668
Methodist Episcopal Church,
Attitude toward liquor traffic,
266
Central Pennsylvania Confer-
ence, 274
Genesee Conference, 274
Moral aspect of license, on,
236
New England Conference, 272
New Jersey Conference, 271
Reactionary resolutions of,
274, 393
Rock River Conference, 272
Temperance, Prohibition and
Public Morals, Board of,
275
Wyoming Conference, 273 _
Methodist Protestant Church,
prohibition attitude, 271
Methods of solution:
Constitutional amendment
method, limitations of, 219
Dispensary, 293
High license, 228
Local option, 355
Omni-partisan plan, 370, 511
Michigan, amendment, failure
of, 141
Anti-license in constitution,
136, 357
Beer and wine permitted, 39
County vote on state prohibi-
tion, 378
Court decision on license, 235
Dickie vote in, 169
Dry counties, 374
Election frauds, 209
Licenses refused, 25
No-license in, 24, 358
Prohibition repealed, tor
Prohibitory law in, 32
State party in, 65
State ticket in 1870, 87
Vote, 435, 436
Vote on saloons, 388
Minnesota, law declared un-
constitutional, 39
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Minnesota,
“Out to Win” campaign, 332
Prohibitionists elected, 332
Prohibitory law in, 32
State ticket in, 87
Vote, 436, 438
Mississippi, local option in, 358
Period from local option to
prohibition, 376
Prohibition postponed by local
option, 366
Restrictive laws, 22
“Step” theory in, 372
Typical local option
379
Missouri, effect of local option,
374
Vote, 436, 438
Model License League, 342
Momitor-Journal, The, 150
state,
Montana, prohibition in, 3773
433
Vote, 435
Moreau, New York, first tem-
perance society organized
in, 14
Mulct Law, 394
Nation, Mrs, Carry A., 321
National Committee, address of,
239 |
National Dry Federation, 450,
453
National Enquirer, 415
National Legislative Conference,
450
National Liberator, The, 132
National Non-Partisan League,
385
National Prohibition (see Pro-
hibition )
National Prohibition Act, 450
National Prohibition Alliance,
II4
National Prohibition Bureau,
168
National Prohibition Cases, 543
INDEX
National Prohibitionst,
founding of, 335
Liquor interests try to silence,
lugsee
National Temperance Advocate,
62
National Temperance Conven-
tions, 16, 17, 18, 26, 50, 60,
63, 70, 106, 276
The,
National Temperance Council,
41I, 450
National Temperance Society,
62, 106, 386
National Temperance Society
and Publication House, 60
Nebraska, amendment defeated,
241
Dry counties fluctuate, 375
Election frauds, 210
High license law, 228
Liquor funds used in, 204
Prohibition adopted by, 34
Return to license, 39
Saloons in, 233
Vote in, 435
Nevada, prohibition in, 377
Vote in, 435
New Hampshire, agitation for
political action, 61
First prohibitory bill, 33
Local option in, 356
No-license in, 24
Prohibition adopted, 34
Prohibition supplanted by local
option, 367
Restrictive laws, 22
Seventies, in the, 109
State ticket in 1870, 87
New Jersey, amendment, failure
Of tat
County option law, 172
Failure to pass prohibitory
law, 357
First restrictive laws, 13
Fisk campaign, 171
Prohibition twice defeated by
one vote, 34
669
New Jersey,
Vote in, 135
WaC.ol, \Usipetitiongs172
New Mexico, percentage of pro-
hibition vote in, 377
Vote, 435
Newspapers, Prohibition, 66, 122,
203, 335, 343, 428
Subsidized by liquor interests,
2r6
New Voice, The, 336
College department of, 343
New York, constitutional amend-
ment proposed, 136
Enforcement Act repealed, 506
First prohibitory bill, 33
First temperance society or-
ganized in, 14
Hopkins campaign, 1882, 134
Law declared unconstitutional,
Liquor interests and Repub-
licans in, 198
Local option in 1845, 357
Method of submission, 137
No-license in, 24
Party work in, 409
Political campaign on prohibi-
tion issue, 43
Prohibitionists elected in, 331
Prohibitory law in, 34
Republicans and submission,
177
Seventies, in the, 109
State enforcement act, repeal
of, 506
State party in, 83
State ticket in 1870, 87
Vote in 1873, 107
Warner Miller campaign, 180
New York City Temperance So-
ciety, 16
New York State Temperance
Society, 15
Non-Partisan!) WaiG EeiU yy 385
North Carolina, county vote for
prohibition, 378
670
North Carolina,
Political action recommended,
52
Prohibition obstructed by local
option, 367, 370
Prohibitory law adopted, 302
Prohibitory statute defeated in
1881, 144
Vote, 435
North Dakota, liquor interests
try to resubmit, 217
Prohibition adopted, 201
Vote, 435
Nullification, 507, 637
Ohio, amendment,
prohibition, 141
Anti-license in
25, 137
Anti-Saloon League and local
option in, 387
Centennial, 193
County vote for prohibition,
Sh Onan |
Court decision on license, 235
First anti-saloon law in, 33
First to have party ticket, 67
History, 388
Increase in vote in 1873, 107
Leonard campaign in, 168
License amendment in, 380
Liquor interests defeat public
men, 345
Local no-license, 356
Local option, 373
Organization of state party, 51
Personal liberty defined by
court, 587
Platform, 1887, 184
Prohibition newspapers in, 170
Scott Tax Law, 142
State convention in, 67, 239
State platform, 184
State ticket in 1870, 87
Statewide prohibition, 3090
Sunday closing repealed, 130
Vote in, 435, 436
Woman’s Crusade in, 117
history of
constitution,
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Ohio Voters’ Union, 385
Oklahoma, statewide law in, 334
One Hundred Years of Tem-
perance, 264
Omni-partisanism, 42, 380
Consequences of, 395
Plan, the, 390
Oregon, amendment submitted,
140
County vote for prohibition,
378
Dry counties under local op-
tion, 373
Early law, 1844, 30
Party organized in, 148
Party work in, 406
State prohibition enforcement,
408
Vote, 435, 436
“Out to Win” campaigns, 232,
407
Parties, political, basis of syS-
tem,’ 612
Government by, 621
Party, national, 2r4, 223
Party action necessary, 184, 208,
225, 226, 272, 275, 280, 342,
379; 514, 515, 606, 628, 639
Party agencies, 614
Party attitudes, 222
Party composition, 153, 221, 222,
282, 380, 399, 509, 512
Party responsibility, 399
Party straddle, 224, 400, 512, 630
Party system and liquor politics,
629
Party system inevitable, 612
Pauperism, decrease of, 480
Pearson, Sheriff Samuel F., 21Gae
Peninsular Herald, 66, 99
Pennsylvania, advance in, 169
Agitation for political action,
61
Brooks high license law, 233
High license in, 209
Law against retail trade
passed and repealed, 34
ee ee ee
SS ee ee ee ee eee
— = ce
ie
INDEX
Pennsylvania,
Liquor funds used in, 204
Local option in, 101, 357
Popular prohibition vote, 33
Prohibition vote in, 260
Prohibitionists elected in, 331
Seventies, in the, 109, 115
State ticket in, 87
Venango Plan, 331
People’s Party in Indiana, 46
People versus the Liquor Traffic,
The, John B. Finch, 185
Permits, alcohol, 500
Perpetuationists vs. Prohibition-
ists, 315
Personal liberty, 151, 586
“Petition” year, 21
Philippine Islands, liquor in the,
395
Phillips, Wendell, 83
Pitman, Judge Robert C., 87,
120,401, 302
Pivotal states, 565, 623, 639
Platforms, Party:
1869, 72
Te72y OL
1876, 110
1880, 124
1884, 158
1888, 190
1892, 207
1896, 257
1900, 311
1904, 328
1908, 337
IQI2, 350
1916, 417
1920, 458
1924, 404
Broad gauge versus
issue, 255
Pledge-signing movements, I19
Political defection, 174, 574
Political system underlying pro-
hibition, 508
Complexity of, 564, 610
Politics, The, Aristotle, 585
single
671
Populist Party, 252
Porto Rico, prohibition in, 440
Presbyterian Church, attitude to-
ward prohibition, 264
Connection with Anti-Saloon
League officially refused,
392
General Assembly, statements
of, 205
Resolution on
maps, 360
Resolutions of, 270
Scanlon, Dr. Charles, 337
Temperance, committee
265
Temperance Board, 275, 453
President, candidates for, 93, 98,
The 0277155) 100, 250, 250,
316, 326, 351, 414, 462, 467,
560
Method of nomination, 634
Powers of, 626, 635
Primaries, 400, 623, 634
Prison statistics, 476
Prohibition, administration 1920-
1925, 472, 488, 495
Agitation for political action,
C201
Agitation for state, 25
Alcohol’s deteriorating effects,
301
Amendments
support, 242
Analysis of, 607
Answers to brewers’ challenge,
62
Assaults by liquor power, 216
Attorney-General, U. S., 403
Benefits of, 217, 474-488, 518-
582
Blessings, 37, 38
Blair constitutional
ment, 179
“Bone Dry” laws, 440
Bootlegging, 218
Breweries under, 492
Brewers’ Association and, 57
local option
on,
without party
amend-
672
Prohibition,
Campaigns for war, 443
Characteristics of movement
in the fifties, 37
Constitutional amendment cam-
paigns, 135, 201, 242
Constitutional prohibition, rea-
sons for, 594
Convictions, 504
Date of going into effect, 472,
473
Demand enlarged, 482
Denatured alcohol, 500
Drive against, the, 211
Drunkenness under high li-
cense, 233
Early advocacy of, 19
Economic results, 481-486
Educational results, 486, 582
Eighties, the later, 184
Eighties, the middle, 166
Enforcement, offices for, 402,
608
Europe, representatives sent
to, 343
Expenditure for drink di-
verted, 484
Fifties, in the, 29
First legislative document fa-
voring, 19
Fiscal results, 484
Foreshadowings of, 18
General movement, 1907, 344
Governmental measure, as,
607
Governmental system, and the
American, 605
Harding’s vote on, 4o1
Harrison administration, 243
Hindered by dispensary sys-
tem, 302
Hindered by local option, .367
Indiana court decisions, 334
Intercollegiate Prohibition As-
sociation, 324
Kansas, 222
Labor and, 481-486
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Prohibition,
Limitations of amendment
method, 219
Lincoln and, 35, 60
Liquor power, 546
Local option not a step to-
ward, 368
Literature (see Bibliography)
Literature of the seventies,
120
Maine, 319
Maladministration of law, 496,
597
Moral aspects, 486, 583
National, why, 590
National constitutional, 447
Nineties, in the, 238
Object of, 80
Party, organization of, 49, 65
Party attitudes, 222
Party government and, 621
Party issue, as a, 640
Permit system, 500
Personal liberty, 151, 586
Political parties in, states, 47
Political question, 84, 85
Political system underlying,
508
Politics of, the, in the fifties,
40
Principle of national, 575
Procession of the states, 31
Productivity increased, 482
Progress, I914-I919, 430
Progress of state, 31
Propaganda against, 217, 507,
637
Reasons for national, 576, 590
Reasons for state, 73, 76, 89,
124, 158
Recession, the, 39
Republican Party and, 45, 46,
148
Results of, 217, 474-488, 578-
582
St. John campaign in Kansas,
145
INDEX 673
Prohibition,
Search and seizure, 491
Seventies, in the, 101
Social basis of, 580
South, in the, 345, 358
Sphere of the State, 584
Stages leading up to state, 26
Standard of living higher, 483
State, adoption of (table), 435
State constitutional amend-
ment campaigns, 202
States, procession of the, 31
States dry, 1914-1919, 430
“Step” theory, 368
Straddling policy of old
parties, 224
Supreme Court decisions on,
516
Tariff question exaggerated,
194
Treasury, Secretary of the,
402
War, 441
Webb-Kenyon Law, 365
Wilderness period of, 379
Wines, enforcement regarding,
593.
Prohibition Alliance, 322
Prohibition Bombs, 168
Prohibition Home Protection
Party;,.279
Prohibition Party, activity, 1917-
1925, 452
After 1872, 106
After 1876, 114
Agitation for party organiza-
tion, 52
Alignment, 239
Alliances, 322
Auxiliary organizations, 323,
344
Balance of power of, 169
Basic principles of, 380
Beginning years, the, 82
Candidates, national, 93, III,
127, 155, 189, 250, 317, 326,
339, 351, 414, 462, 467
Prohibition Party,
Chafin and Watkins cam-
paigns, 331
Committees (See
Committees )
Cooperation of W. C. T. U.,
283
Early difficulties of, 82
Effect of Blaine defeat, 166
Eighties, the early, 123
Elections to legislatures, 254
Fiftieth Anniversary, 453
First ticket in Ohio, 67
Indiana, organization in, 148
Indianapolis Program, 406
Influence of, 174-183, 333, 446,
National
454
Leaders, 334, 341, 342, 348
Lincoln Chautauquas, 332
Literature, 343
Minority party effect, 174
Name, change of, 132
National Campaigns (See
Campaigns, National)
National Chairmen (See Chair-
men, National)
National Committee (See Com-
mittee, National)
National Conventions (See
Conventions, National)
National constitutional amend-
ment first advocated, 137
National prohibition, advocacy
of, 447
Need for, (See Party Action)
Nineties, in the, 238
Nominating convention, first,
88
Opposition organizations, 385
Organization of, 49
Organizing Convention, 68
“Out to Win” campaigns, 334,
407
Parades, 193
Pearson, Sheriff, 319
Personalities, 468
Philosophy of the, 639
674
Prohibition Party,
Plank, striking, 98
Platforms (See Platforms,
Party )
Press bureau of National
Committee, 343
Reasons for, 49-66, 69-73, 75-
81, 84-86, 91, 123, 133-134,
146,152, TOT, 167) 185) 102,
203; 2282250226, 240)'253,
267, 270-275, 278-287, 31i,
317, 319, 321, 342, 379-383,
392, 399-401, 404, 509-515,
555-574, 605-641
Reorganization of, 131
Representative leaders, 246
Revival of activity, 304
Russell’s philosophy, John, 133
Service of, 239, 454
Shaw pledge, 411
South, in the, 167, 334
Split in, 259, 289, 382
State chairmen, leading, 306
State tickets in 1870, 87
State vote in 1914, 409
Union, need of, 185
Wellman’s description of 1908
convention, 338
West Virginia, history in, 347
Prohibition Union of Christian
Men, 323
Prohibition Unit, 49s, 504
Prugh, Dr. B. E. P., 467
Randall, Charles H., campaign
of, 409
Congressional record of, 446
Raster Resolution, The, 96
Ratification of Eighteenth
Amendment (table), 451
Reed Amendment, 394, 441
Referendum in adoption, 420,
434, 624
Regan, Frank S., 260, 571
Reminiscences, Neal Dow, 40
Repeals of prohibition, 39, 43,
87, 107, 108, 211, 213, 215
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Republican Party, anti-saloon
movement in, 194
Arraigned, 124, 158, 249
Attitude toward prohibition,
222
Boutelle Resolution, 195
Committed to regulation, 143
Deal with liquor interests in
New York, 198
Indiana, in, 149
Iowa, pressure of national
party, 214
Kansas, 148, 222
Leaders in pay of liquor in-
terests, 206, 207
Mulct Law, 214
National pressure, 214, 223
New Jersey, in, 172
New York Democrat, 197
New York in 1884, 164
Platforms, Prohibition effect
on, 175 |
Prohibition and _ the, 45, 46,
148 |
Prohibition efforts in Rhode
Island, 212
Prohibition in Iowa, 213
Raster Resolution, The, 96
Recession of prohibition caused
by, 47
Repeal of prohibitory laws,
226
Repression of prohibition, 208
W. C. T. U. Memorial, 147
Wet vote, cater to, 97, 104,
39
Rhode Island, amendment,
method of passing, 141
Constitutional amendment in,
144
Constitutional prohibition re-
pealed, 211
Law repealed, 39
Liquor corruption, 209
Liquor funds used in, 204
Prohibitory laws in, 32, IOI
Restrictive laws, 22
INDEX
Rhode Island,
Return to license, 104
Seventies, in the, 114
Vote on license in, 356
Ross, Dr. William, 71
Rush, Dr. Benjamin, 13, 14
Russell, John, 59, 64, 66, 68, 71,
SSreO4, (99; 108, 133) \"1's2,
188, 635
Message of, 342
Philosophy of, 65, 133, 152;
635
St. John, John P., 137, 143, 188,
246, 514
Candidate for president, 155
Gubernatorial campaign of,
145
Joins Prohibition party, 147
Political persecution of, 16
Presidential campaign of, 161
Saloons (see Liquor Interests)
Science of Politics, The, Walter
Thomas Mills, 384
Scientific Temperance Instruc-
tion, 178
Scott, Rev. Samuel, first Pro-
hibition party candidate for
Governor, 68
Six Sermons on Intemperance,
Rev. Lyman Beecher, 15, 18
Sixty, Committee of, on Na-
tional Prohibition, 412
Officers of, 413
Pledge of, 412
Smith, Gerrit, 71, 75, 83
Smith, Gen. Green Clay, III
Sobieski, Col. John, 71
Societies, Temperance:
American Temperance, 15
American Temperance Union,
18
Congressional Temperance, 17
Early, 15
First, organization of, 14
Independent Order of Good
Templars, 61
Maine Temperance, 30
675
Societies,
Maine Temperance Union, 30
Membership in early, 15
New York City Temperance,
16
New York State Temperance,
15
Pledge-signing movements, T19
Reports, annual, 15, 16
Resolutions for political ac-
tion, 60
Revival of, 60
Sons of Temperance, 23
Suppression of Intemperance,
for the, 15
Temple of Honor, 65
Total abstinence adopted by,
17, 18
Woman’s Christian Temper-
ance Union, 116 |
Woman’s Crusade, 116
Society for the Suppression of
Intemperance, 15
Sons of Temperance, 23, 25, 119
Membership of, 61
South Carolina, prohibitory vote
in, 293
State dispensary system first
operated in, 293
State prohibition adopted, 302
Vote on prohibition in, 431,
435
South Dakota, constitutional pro-
hibition repealed, 215
Dispensary system in, 302
Plebiscite on prohibition in,
144
Vote in, 435
Southern Baptist Church Con-
vention declaration, 268
State, sphere of the, 584
State Prohibition (see Prohibi-
tion )
“Step” theory, 368-372, 393
Stewart, Gideon T., 88, 90, 107,
II0, 112, 133, 154, 155
Stewart, Oliver W., 306, 326,
339, 423, 504
676
“Strengthen America” campaign,
7 ites on National Prohibition,
D. Leigh Colvin, 598
“Sumptuary Laws,” 80, 252
Supreme Court, United States,
Compensation question, 523
Constitutionality of prohibi-
tion established, 519
Decisions, groups of, 516, 517
Decisions, later, 536
Interstate Commerce
531
License cases of 1847, 518
License decisions, 235
National prohibition
cases,
cases,
543
Personal liberty defined, 586
Prohibition and, 516
Swallow, Dr. Silas C., 326
Taxation, Cooley, 235
Teeter-board, 556, 566
Temperance, activity in the sev-
enties, 116
Basis of, reform, 17
Development of state prohibi-
tion, 29
Karly literature on, 18
Early movement for, 13
Presidents, and the, 13, 14
Washingtonian Movement, 23
(See Prohibition)
Temperance Almanac, 18
Temperance Journal, 108
Temperance Recollections, John
Marsh, 25, 45
Tennessee, local prohibition, his-
tory of, 363
Local prohibition unique in,
369
Prohibitory law adopted, 302
Restrictive laws, 22
Schools and saloons, 363
State convention, 241
Statewide law in, 334
Texas, local option in, 375
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Texas,
Period from local option to
_ prohibition, 377
Prohibition defeated by local
option, 367
Vote in, 169
Thermopyle of reform, 253
Thomas, John Lloyd, 242, 246,
380
Thompson, Mrs. E. J., 117
Thompson, Dr. HA 2k ee,
188
Transportation of liquor, 16
Union Prohibitory League of
Pennsylvania, 385
United Brethren Church, Gen-
eral Conference, 275
Opposition to liquor traffic,
275
United Committee for War Tem-
perance Activities in the
Army and Navy, 453
United States Brewers’ Associa-
tion, beer tax, imposition of,
203
Congresses of, 56, 98, 103,
180, 551
Funds, political, 204
Haddock murder, 171
Organization of, 55
Political activity of, 57, 98,
103, 104
Political objects of, 56
South Dakota campaign
against prohibition, 215
Utah, prohibition in, 433
Prohibition vote in, 377, 435
Vermont, no-license in, 24
Prohibition lost in, 437, 438
ea a laws in, 32
ote 1n, 437, 4
Vibbert, Rev. Cee first state
_ legislator elected, 87
Vice-president, candidates for,
94, I12, 128, 157; 189, 251,
INDEX
258, 317, 328, 351, 416, 462,
467
Virginia, basis of “step” theory,
370
County vote for prohibition,
a7
Local option in, 374
Method of obtaining prohibi-
tion, 430
Period from local option to
prohibition, 377
Process for reaching prohibi-
tion, 372, 430
Vote in, 435
Voice, The, 238, 496
First. editorial of, 62
Funds raised by, 194, 210
Line of battle of, 167
Liquor investigation in Penn-
sylvania, 204
Mailing list stolen, 197
On amendments, 242
On party influence, 182
Ownership, new, 260
(see The New Voice)
Volstead Act, 450
Volstead Law, provisions of,
490
Vote, beer and wine, on, 438
Early eighties, 134
Eighteenth Amendment, on,
448
Finch’s announcement on,
John B., 164
In 1874, 108
In 1886, 169
Increase in 1881, 130
Losses in 1908, 341
Marginal, 565
Presidential, first, 100
State, in I9I4, 409, 424
State prohibition, on, 435, 438
Upholding, on _ prohibition
(table), 436
Wages, effect of liquor on, 578-
580
677
Wages,
Effect of prohibition on, 483-
486
War Prohibition, 441
Agricultural Bill, 445
Campaigns for, 443
“Dry” zones, 446
Effect, date of going into, 450
Passage of, 445
War Restrictions, 472
Washington, decrease in
counties, 374
Votes on liquor propositions,
435, 436
Washington, George, on effects
of liquor, 14
Washington Court House, Ohio,
crusade in, I17
Washingtonian Movement, The,
23
Effect on local option legisla
tion, 356
Watkins aroniao.g tare AG:
351, 457, 402
Wesleyan Methodist Church,
prohibition attitude, 271
Webb-Kenyon Act, 365, 440
Decisions upholding, 440
West Virginia, county vote for
prohibition, 370, 378
Leaders, national, work in, 347
No-license in, 358
Prohibition in, history of, 347
Statewide prohibition vote in,
dry
435
Whisky Frauds, 105
Whisky Rebellion, suppression
of, 14
Whisky Trust, 204, 336
Willard, Frances (4 118, #132,
E33 TAS TAG TOL LOO LO,
188, 447, 514
Addresses of, 276
Death of, 260, 290
“Gospel Politics,’ 280
National president W. C.
Te Ue e276
678
Willard, Frances E.,
“New Politics, The,” 285
Political messages of, 276
W..C. T. U. Memorial, 146,
154
Wine, capital invested, 546
Consumption of, 548
Wisconsin, civil damage act, first,
25
Constitutional amendment de-
feated, 130
Convention call issued, 131
Failure of first prohibitory
law, 32, 34
No-license in, 24
Submission petitioned for, 141
Vote in, 135
Woman’s Christian Temperance
Union, I16, 132, 170
Conventions, 276, 277, 280,
282, 289 :
Cooperation with Prohibition
party, 283
Lake Bluff Convocation, 279
Lathrap, Mrs. Mary T., 282
Membership, 288
Memorial of, 146, 154
Moral uprising in Georgia,
371
New Jersey petition, 172
PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES
Woman’s Christian Temperance
Union,
Non-partisan W. C. T. U. or-
ganized, 288
Resolutions, 280, 285, 287, 289
Service of, 291
Temperance instruction laws,
178
Willard’s messages, Miss, 276
Woman’s Crusade, The, 105,
116, 142, 276
Woman’s Prohibition Club of
America, 344
Woman Suffrage, 90, 127, 628
Woolley, John G., 273, 316
Addresses of, 274
Apostasy of, 336
World Prohibition Federation,
343
Officers of, 344
World Temperance Convention,
39
Wyoming, percentage of vote
IN, 377
Prohibition in, 377
Vote in, 435
Young People’s Prohibition
League, 323
Zurcher, Father George, 269
y
¢
fr; iP end ren ae a aD fy ny it
x
Sa RT Te eal ae ee ae Ci ity AVNET Ae SOUS Cod ta otc
F vy bar y 4 i are ; ts WV
hy ae, Rh: ‘Mt ’ Af Pi , j ‘ie a iy t : 7 ay ‘ a Vf,’ wy uF
i . ry vo aa
ee pe ; i
wee as ee cp a)
iach A) i WA
ey N fe: eo }
~
3
it _
Part»
fm,
|
i ! ’ y \ i } ; OMe as 7 ley \ eat Ain ihe
: Wily) a wi 3 ' ' whey b, yet j :
Ve hae int PO aan ; : athe ean
y : { ‘ .
Tar : + } i Fi}
{ r ¥ d q i va
; ve itd ye : ; be : ' : iM
i,
er Library
y—Spe
r
t
ates; <
c
Semina
Theologicz
~
—
oD
cB)
~
c
—
a
<=
~~
c
c
°o
P=)
=
Princetor
~N
™
©
oO
ie)
©
uy
>
a