and also that the possibility of testing High License and other alternative measures (believed by a great many citizens to be preferable to Prohibition) depended wholly upon defeating the Constitutional Amendments. Influences of extraordinary potency combined to bring to the polls every opponent of Prohibitory legislation, to win to the anti-Prohibition side every hesitating voter, to confuse the minds of the Prohibitionists themselves and to fill the camp of the neutrals with backsliding Prohibition sympathizers.

Of these influences the most important

were:

1. The concentration, in each State contested since 1886, of the energies and resources of the thoroughly alarmed, powerfully organized and enormously wealthy liquor interest. Previously to 1887 the "trade" was not especially active in the Constitutional Prohibition fights. But after the result in Rhode Island in the spring of 1886, the National Protective Association of distillers and wholesale rumsellers was formed, for the sole purpose of defeating Prohibition. From that time forward the liquor traffic of the nation at large made the anti-Prohibition cause in each State its own, immense sums of money were raised to defeat the Amendments, and the campaigns were managed with the utmost shrewdness and unscrupulousness.

tributed to the anti-Prohibition majorities in all the States.

Having considered in a comprehensive way the chief general facts, we may now, as briefly as possible in justice to the importance and interest of the campaigns, present the main particulars for the separate State contests.

CAMPAIGNS OF 1880-6.

Kansas, 1

As already stated, the submission of the Prohibitory Amendment in this State was granted by the politicians as a compromise, the Legislature not being willing to pass the Prohibitory statute demanded by the temperance people, but readily consenting to the plan of referring the question to the people. The submission bill was introduced in the Senate on Feb. 8,

1879, by Senator Hamlin, and was passed by that body Feb. 21-ayes, 37 (33 Republicans, 2 Democrats and 2 Greenbackers); nays, none; not voting, 3 (all Republicans). The House of Representatives passed it on March 5, the vote standing: ayes, 88 (65 Republicans. 16 Greenbackers and 7 Democrats); nays, 31 (17 Republicans, 13 Demoocrats and 1 Greenbacker); not voting, 14(10 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 Greenbacker). It was approved by Governor John P. St. John March 8, and the day of the Presidential election, Nov. 2, 1880, was named as the day for the popular vote. The State Temperance Union, of which Governor St. John was the President. took charge of the Amendment campaign, and assistance was given by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Good Templars and other temperance organizations, headquarters being established at Lawrence in charge of Rev. A. M. Richardson. A weekly journal, the Kansas Palladium, was published at Lawrence, edited by James A. Troutman.

Prohibition.

3. The artful opposition of the most influential political leaders and the use of the machinery of both the old political parties.

4. The hostility of well-nigh every important daily newspaper and the consequent suppression or perversion by the representative public journals of Prohibition argument and evidence.

5. The employment by the anti-Prohibitionists of the most unfair methods of warfare. Newspapers were deliberately purchased outright; false statistics, scandalously dishonest statistical deductions,

"manufactured" news dispatches and misleading and meretricious appeals of all sorts constituted their stock of campaign material. Ridicule, intimidation, outrages, violence and fraud con

The State was thoroughly canvassed. The

Amendment. The Methodist Episcopal Conference (at Topeka), Kansas Baptist Convention (at Emporia), State Congregational Association (at Sterling). State Universalist Convention (at Junction City) and Presbyterian Synod of Kansas (at Atchison) were among the religious bodies that declared heartily for the measure. State Teachers' Association at Topeka, in June, 1880, passed a resolution as follows:

The

a very systematic way. Among the Prohibition speakers from other States who participated in the contest were Frances E. Willard, George W. Bain, John B. Finch, E. B. Reynolds Frank J. Sibley, Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, Miss Viola E. Dickman, George Woodford, David Tatum, Prof. George E. Foster and J N. Stearns. Some of the leading local speakers were Rev. D. C. Milner Albert Griffin, Rev Richard Wake, Mrs. Drusilla Wilson, Mrs. M. E. Griffith, Mrs. M. B. Smith, Mrs. R. C. Chase, Miss Blanche Heasbeth, Rev. D. P. Mitchell, Rev. J. H. Byers, Rev. J. R. Detwiler. J. P. Root. Sidney Clarke. A. W. Benson, Judge S. O. Thatcher, W. S. Wait, W. A. H. Hains and John H. Rice.

The vote by counties was as follows:

the wine-and-beer-exemption clause was accordingly continued, while no effort was made to shut up the numerous flourishing breweries. In 1877, however, there sprang up a strong political movement for restoring full Prohibition to Iowa. The activity of the Prohibitionists was increased by the nomination in that year of John H. Gear as the Republican candidate for Governor. Mr. Gear was reputed to be an uncompromising anti-Prohibitionist; and the friends of Prohibition set up an independent candidate, Elias Jessup, for whom they polled the considerable vote of 10,545-a vote large enough for the first time since the Republicans obtained the ascendancy in Iowa, to deprive their nominee of a majority of the entire popular vote. This demonstration of political strength by the Prohibitionists made them still more aggressive, and, as we have seen, the demand for Constitutional Prohibition was openly made in 1878. But this demand was held subordinate to that for a strengthened statute. In 1879 Governor Gear aspired to re-election, and the shrewd leaders of his party, in order to avoid the direct issue of improving the Prohibitory statute, caused the following plank to be inserted in their platform, adopted at Des Moines in June:

"That we reaffirm the position of the Republican party heretofore expressed on the subject of temperance and Prohibition, and we hail with pleasure the beneficent work of Reform Clubs and other organizations in promoting personal temperance, and, in order that the entire question of temperance may be settled in a non-partisan manner, we favor the submission to the people, at a special election, of a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating liquors as a beverage within the State."

In spite of the Republican pledge, the Prohibition party that had polled 10,545 votes in 1877 did not disband in 1879. Strong pressure was exercised to persuade its leaders not to nominate a candidate against Gear, and Prohibition advocates of much prestige-including Mrs. J. Ellen Foster-opposed a separate nomination. Nevertheless D. R. Dungan was put in the field as the candidate of the Prohibition party for Governor, and 3,258 votes were cast for him. The respectable strength thus retained, under adverse circumstances, by the party Prohibitionists, convinced the politicians that they would become an organized and determined partisan factor in the event of bad faith. Both branches of the Legislature of 1880 were controlled by the Republicans, and a Prohibitory Constitutional Amendment resolution was passed in each House and referred to the Legislature of 1880 for final action. That body (also dominated by the Republicans) approved it, and the question was submitted for the decision of the people at a special election to be held June 27, 1880. The friends of Prohibition worked harmoniously, made a thorough campaign and carried the Amendment by the following vote:

PROHIBITION.

Yes. No.

1,966 1,103

2,761 1,855

2,427 1,811

2,538 1,798

1,327 1,018

Clinton.

2,629 3,537 Mills...

Crawford...

1,200 881

2,450 1,055 Monona

853 399

1,362 1,366 Monroe.

1,340 1,137 Montgomery..

1,284 700 1,832

1,803 1,355 Muscatine

2,114 2,023 719 278

Decatur.

Delaware

394 2,206

511

671

168

965

306

432 558 1,921 553 2,244 1,477

1,656 654

374 102 Osceola.

Dubuque...

1,223 6,283 Page..

Emmet..

214 29 Palo Alto..

Fayette

2,371 1,528 Plymouth..

Floyd....

1,381 1,457 Pocahontas.

Franklin.

1,071 557 Polk....

4,630 2,519

Fremont.

1,563 1,126 Pottawattamie 2,576 3,468

Greene

1,572 773 Poweshiek...

2,211 1,048

1,318 1,231

Totals.... 155.436 125,677

259 101 Majority.. 29,759

This decisive result did not, however, immediately have its legitimate effect. The Republican State Convention met Aug. 1, 1882-five weeks after the great Prohibition victory--and strangely refused to allow any expression on the Amendment or Prohibition question to appear in the platform. It was the programme of the leaders to divorce the party, if possible, from the Prohibitory issue, so as to hold the German vote for the Republican candidates for Congress in the coming November. But this cowardly attitude had the contrary effect; general demoralization ensued and the Republicans lost three Congressmen.

Another and a more serious repudiation of the will of the people seemed, for awhile, to vitiate the effect of the vote. In the fall of 1882 the Supreme Court of Iowa, by the decision of four of its Judges, declared, in an appeal case, that the Amendment had not been properly submitted to the people. The Court found that a certain amendment of three words which had been added by the Legislature of 1880 to the original text of the Submission act did not appear in the Legislative Journal as kept by the Clerk of the House. It was admitted that the Constitutional Amendment itself, as voted on by the people, was precisely the same, in every word, as the Constitutional Amendment submitted by the Legisiatures of 1880 and 1882; but the Court held that the slight and immaterial omission in the Clerk's Journal of three words that had been added to the original text of the act of submission was sufficient to in

validate the popular vote. Accordingly the

Constitutional Amendment was on this technical ground annulled. The Prohibitionists quick

test of all efforts made for its repeal or the modification of its provisions.

Ohio.

We have seen that Ohio has since 1851 sustained a unique relationship to the liquor question. While the Constitution prohibits license it does not provide for Prohibition. Although the Anti-License clause was at first regarded by the temperance people as a decree in favor of Prohibition, the politicians refused to recognize it as such and the traffic was practically unrestrained. But the representative liquor men and their political friends looked with much dissatisfaction upon the Anti-License clause. Its effect was to discourage all attempts to define the precise status of the business and put it on a permanent and strictly legal basis. Consequently efforts were made to repeal the Anti-License clause and substitute for it a Constitutional Amendment permitting license. In 1874 such an Amendment was submitted to the people, and the vote on it stood: For, 172,252: against, 179,538: total vote on Secretary of State at same election, 461,425; necessary to the adoption of the License Amendment, 233,713; License Amendment short of a majority, 61.461; majority against license of those voting on the question, 7,286. This defeat of the license advocates demonstrated the impracticability of the scheme of amending the Constitution in behalf of the liquor interests, although the Democratic party did not cease to advocate license. Meanwhile the liquor question continued prominent in State politics. The Prohibition party maintained its organization and nominated separate candidates each year, and there was every probability that the pressure for Prohibition would increase. The brewers and liquordealers-or the responsible men among themdesired a definite law for the "regulation" and protection of the business. The conservative temperance people favored regulation, restriction and revenue, and also advocated Local Option and Sunday-closing. The Germans, forming a very influential element in Ohio, manifested extreme sensitiveness and stood ready to resent at the polls any serious interference with "personal liberty." The State, though naturally Republican, was considered fickle, and the problem of dealing judiciously with the delicate liquor question was a most perplexing one for the politicians.

During the administration of Governor Foster -one of the shrewdest of all the Ohio Re

publican leaders-the policy of circumventing

the Anti-License provision of the Constitution by the enactment of "tax" laws at last became the settled policy of the Republican party. The Pond Tax law was passed in 1880, and though soon declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court, was followed by the Scott Tax law of 1883. Meanwhile the Republicans experimented with Sunday-closing legislation, passing the Smith Sunday bill only to repeal it after finding that it was distasteful to the Germans and the whole liquor element. During the 1883 session of the Legislature the chief work before the Republican majority was to frame and pass a liquor tax bill to take the place of the unconstitutional Pond law. The Scott bill (introduced by Dr. Scott, Representative from Warren County) was accepted by the party leaders after it had obtained the full approval of the brewers. At the last preceding Gubernatorial election (1881) the Prohibition party had polled the largest vote ever cast by it up to that time in Ohio-16,597, as against only 2.616 in 1880. The Prohibitionists now made no secret of their hostility to the Scott bill and demanded the submission of a Prohibitory Amendment. Both the Scott bill and the Amendment proposition had active supporters in the Legislature, while a strong element opposed both. Finally a compromise was effected, the Amendment advocates voting for the Scott bill and the champions of the Scott bill consenting to submission. This agreement was not carried out, however, until it was arranged that two Amendments should be submitted to the people concurrently, one providing for license and the other for Prohibition, so that the liquor men might have another opportunity to insert a license clause in the Constitution. During the campaign that followed the License Amendment was familiarly known as the 1st Amendment, and the Prohibitory Amendment as the 2d Amendment. The day for deciding whether license or Prohibition should prevail was also the day of the State and legislative elections. J. B. Foraker and George Hoadly, respectively, were the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor. Mr. Foraker, in a speech delivered soon after his nomination, made the notable declaration that the principles of regulation and taxation for which it [the Republican party] declares 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 committed." Mr. Hoadly, who had been connected with the liquor interests as their lawyer, announced himself as decidedly for license, and both the Republican and Democratic parties were arrayed against Prohibition throughout the contest, although the latter was the more demonstrative.

treating the arguments of its friends unfairly, unscrupulously and contemptuously. It was impossible to obtain a hearing for the Prohibition cause in the influential press. The liquor interests, although they did not fight so actively and systematically against Prohibition as they did in subsequent Amendment contests in other States, were far more aggressive than they had been in either Iowa or Kansas. The brewers offered organized resistance, under the leadership of Leo Ebert of Ironton, and the local organizations of saloon-keepers exhibited a lively interest. Besides, the Prohibition movement was discountenanced by many individuals who professed devotion to the interests of "true temperance." One of the particularly discouraging things was the publication of a letter from Rev. Theodore L. Cuyler D. D., the well-known Eastern temperance champion, in the National Temperance Advocate for October, 1883, in which Dr. Cuyler wrote:

"The defeat of the Scott law would be a disaster to our cause. It is probably the best law that the present Constitution of Ohio makes possible; and our friends ought not to assume the responsibility of overthrowing it. A partial victory this year in the election of Foraker and the maintenance of the Scott law must strengthen our hands for a further advance in restrictive legislation. During the Civil War some of the old and impracticable Abolitionists did little else than cavil at and cripple Abraham Lincoln because he did not adopt their shibboleth and pursue their policy. We temperance reformers must not sacrifice our blessed cause to the unreasonable demands of the impracticables. If we can hold the Scott redoubt in Ohio, then are our guns planted just so much nearer the enemy's citadel." 2

Nevertheless the Prohibitionists made a most aggressive, enthusiastic, thorough and hopeful campaign It was in charge of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Circulars were addressed to well-nigh every class of citizensministers, educators, students, manufacturers, railroad companies and their employees, etc, and abundant encouragement and assistance

was volunteered. There were scores of able speakers in the field, including John B. Finch, John P. St. John. George W. Bain, George Woodford. M. V. B. Bennett, Frances E. Willard. Mary T. Lathrap and Walter T. Mills. Crowded meetings were held everywhere, and the masses showed a very cordial feeling. The prospect of victory seemed to grow brighter as the campaign progressed. The evidences of the great strength of Prohibition sentiment were not apparent to the politicians at the outset, but they became distinct in the closing month. John B. Finch one morning announced at Prohibition headquarters that a political council had been held in Cincinnati and it had been decided that the Amendment must not carry. Mr. Finch also said that every political device would be used to keep down the vote, and exhibited many Democratic and Republican tickets upon which the Prohibitory Amendment proposition was inaccurately printed. In Hamilton County and other counties all the Democratic ballots had printed upon them, after the 1st Amendment only the word "Yes," and after the 2d Amendment only the word "No"-a deliberate device for securing, in behalf of license and against Prohibition the support of all Democrats who were indifferent on the liquor question or who were accustomed to vote the "straight" Democratic ticket without critical inspection. Other unscrupulous tactics were used by the opposition, and the work of the Prohibitionists was thus handicapped in the most effective manner. Notwithstanding all, the vote for Prohibition was so overwhelming, as evidenced by the returns received up to midnight of the day of the election, that there was no reasonable doubt in any quarter of the success of the proposition. The figures of the Central Committees of the Republican and Democratic parties on that evening indicated a vote for Prohibition many thousands in excess of that subsequently shown by the official returns. Both these Committees, in telegraphic messages, reported 30,000 votes for the Prohibitory Amendment in Hamilton County; but the official canvass gave only 8.402 for the Amendment in a total of 60,761 in that county. There were indisputable evidences of fraud in the count, and the result was that though the Prohibitory Amendment had a majority of 82,214 of those voting on the question, it lacked 37,467 of a majority of all the votes polled on State candidates, and therefore, according to the requirements of the Ohio Constitution, failed of adoption. An effort was made by the Prohibitionists to bring about a recount of the ballots, but it was urged that the docket of the Supreme Court was overcrowded and that, since the Court would soon be Democratic, nothing could come of such an attempt.

The outcome was, however, a great moral victory for the cause of Prohibition, all the greater in view of the ignominious defeat of the License Amendment. That proposition was supported by the whole strength of the liquor influence and the managers of the Democratic party-the party that carried Ohio on the same day for its State and legislative tickets, polling 359,793 votes for Hoadly for Governor; yet the License Amendment received only 99,849 votes, while 192 197 were cast against it, making an anti-license majority of 92,268 of those voting on the license question, while the license programme lacked 260,807 of a Constitutional majority. Yet though the people, by a most extraordinary preponderance of sentiment, showed their preference for Prohibition as against license, every effort to establish the Prohibitory policy in Ohio has been crushed by the politicians of both the leading parties, and the liquor legislation of the State has been shaped, as it was previously to the election of Oct. 9, 1893, in behalf of the liquor interests.

The following table shows the vote by counties for and against the License and Prohibitory Amendments:

COUNTIES. Adains.

138

3,150

Majorities......

92,268

82,214

Whole vote on State officers....

721,310

Necessary to adopt either Amendment.........