Page images
PDF
EPUB

day for the election. The State Temperance Alliance (J. H. Fussell, President), and the State Woman's Christian Temperance Union (Mrs.

668 Red River..... 1,885 2,052 Lide Meriwether, President) were the active

forces supporting the Amendment in the campaign. The brunt of the canvass was borre by the trained Prohibition workers, and there was no discrimination against Northern sympathizers. Valuable help was given by leaders like Miss Willard, A. A. Hopkins, Sam Jones, George W. Bain, C. N. Grandison and Senator Colquitt. But some assistance was received from eminent public men of Tennessee, like A. S. Colyar, editor of the Nashville American, and ex-Supreme Judges East, Campbell and Freeman. Governor Taylor expressed his intention to vote for the Amendment, but made no effort in its behalf. Most of the leading newspapers were violently opposed to it (particularly those published in Memphis), although the chief Democratic organ, the Nashville American, was neutral. The principal Republican, journal, 2,421 4,104 the Nashville National Review, was intolerantly hostile.

924 1,177

1,719 2,939

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

313 Rains.....

1 395

275 387

[blocks in formation]

78 Reeves

54 73

[blocks in formation]

512 Refugio

13 133

Johnson.

2,127 2,161 Robertson

1,423 3,219

Jones..

269

65 Rockwall.

459 544

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

797 Shackelford..

[blocks in formation]

La Salle

60

135 Shelby.

Lavaca.

591 2,393 Smith..

Lec

447 1,473 Somervell

[blocks in formation]

253 282

18 250

451 668

617 669

91 180

229 1,178

528 1,392

385 1,533 1,592 3,430

56 694

225 1,175

43 113

129 146

187 118

184

148 Washington

Montgomery..

803 1,059 Wharton

Morris..

428

[blocks in formation]

2,338 2,018

[blocks in formation]

Though the Amendment election in Tennessee was held only eight weeks after the great defeat in Texas and was materially affected by that result, it was not productive of a proportionately large anti Prohibition majority. or one commensurate with the expectations of the liquor men. The campaign of the opposition was just as unscrupulous and corrupt as in Texas, and the various influences for controlling the popular verdict were manipulated with well-nigh equal success. But the Prohibition canvass was made under more favorable conditions; the temperance organizations stronger; the work of education and agitation in behalf of personal temperance and against the saloon had been more thoroughly done; the smaller area of the State gave better opportunities for systematic management of the contest, and the benefits of the "Four Mile" Prohibitory law had prepared the people for more radical action.

were

The anti-Prohibitionists were under the leadership of George S. Kinney, President of the State Liquor-Dealers' Association. The United States Brewers' Association donated $3,000 to their campaign fund, and the National Protective Association, at a meeting held in Cincinnati two weeks before the clection, appropriated $15,000. Very few public meetings were held by the Amendment's opponents, but their secret work, especially among the leaders of the colored men, was perseveringly and shrewdly done. The Knoxville Journal (Rep.) circum stantially charged that Mr. Kinney offered a Republican Congressman $5,000 for his influence; and the Democratic Collector of Internal Revenue at Nashville compelled all his employees to contribute to the anti-Prohibition campaign fund. Prominent lawyers and politicians were also persuaded to perform special services. Col. J. J. Vertrees, a well-known member of the bar, and State Treasurer Atha Thomas published artful appeals against Prohibition on revenue grounds.

One of the most striking incidents of the contest was the publication of the following, signed by 400 convicts of the State Penitentiary:

"To the Voters of the State of Tennessee: "In all ages in the history of mankind, crises, reformations and revolutions have been the direct result of practical experiences by the human family.

"One of these experiences has taught the people of the State of Tennessee that their prisons are filled, their poorhouses occupied and their paupers created by the direct influences of that soul-destroying demon, Whiskey. We, the inmates of the State Penitentiary, knowing by observation and convinced by undeniable facts that liquor is the cause of all the misery weendure, of all the hardships and privations we subject those to dependent upon us, do hereby most earnestly ask that the voters of this great

State may seriously consider the question before them

and in word and to the cause of Prohibition.

After several years of unavailing agitation for the submission of a Constitutional Amendment, the Prohibitionists persuaded the Legis. lature of 1885 to take the initial step, and the next. Legislature, in 1887, completed the work, appointing the 29th of September, 1887, as the

"We do not say that every prisoner in the State is an habitual drunkard. We do not claim that every criminal act was perpetrated under the influence of whiskey; but we fearlessly assert that three-fourths in these walls can trace their downfall directly or indirectly to that cause.

1 Both Legislatures had large Democratic majorities. The vote on submission in 1885 stood: Senate, 20 yeas to 11 nays; House, 57 yeas to 20 nays. In 1887 the vote stood: Senate, 39 yeas to 2 nays; House, S7 yeas to 4 nay.

"Wearing the garb of disgrace, being dishonored and counted unworthy to mingle with the people of our State, we yet have the same devotion to our mothers, the same affection for our sisters; and for their sake and for the sake of our children we appeal to you to unite as one man and free the State from a curse created by the hands of men, discountenanced by the law of God."

The table below shows the vote by counties :

PROHIBITION.

PROHIBITION'

Yes. No.
614 915

94 252

1,911 2,840
905 381

[blocks in formation]

423 1,117

[blocks in formation]

1,621 928

Campbell..

[blocks in formation]

880 1,173

Cannon

486

945 Madison

2,152 2,532

[blocks in formation]

682 1,148

Carter.

1,032

386 Marshall..

1,833 1,510

Cheatham.....

302 1,160 Maury.

2,756 3,523

[blocks in formation]

687 Meigs.

[blocks in formation]

450 648

1,210 791
1,312 3,626

226 912

338

448

444 1,299

103 579

791 1,073 1,001 1,237 2,245 1,451 4,300

447 513

83 286 1,113 1,223

897 1.880

682

most emphatic ground against the Amendment. The power of the Oregonian had been demonstrated in the political canvass of 1886, when it had bolted the Republican ticket because of the corruption of the party and had given its support to the Prohibition candidates. Although the State had always been reliably Republican, the Oregonian's attitude defeated the Republican nominee for Governor and increased the vote of the Prohibition party from 492 in 1884 to 2,700. At the same election the Chairman of the Republican State Committee, Joseph Simon, had sacrificed the interests of the decent elements of the party by deliberately "knifing" Hon. J. В. Waldo, Republican and Prohibition candidate for Judge of the Supreme Court, and causing the election of his Democratic opponent, who was a tool of the liquor men. This disgraceful act caused the Oregonian to say:

"The Republican party has been betrayed by villainous leadership into an alliance with the liquor ring. It has been debauched and prostituted to the liquor ring's services. It must shake off that leadership, repudiate that alliance or go to its death. It cannot support the infamy of such associations. It will lose all its men of character, conscience and decency, and it will die ignominiously, as it deserves. Redeem the Republican party from the liquor ring! Disenthrall it, or let it die."

But in the Amendment campaign of 1887 the respectable Oregonian and the disreputable Simon united their energies against Prohibition. Simon was still Chairman of the Republican State Committee, and he used his position to help the liquor men. He controlled the distribution of the large fund brought into the State a short time before the election by an emissary 1,818 1,863 of the Eastern liquor interests. Under his dexterous management the Republican counties gave a very large anti-Prohibition majority, although the vote of the counties that had gone Democratic in the June election of 1886 was nearly equally divided for and against the Amendment. It was charged that Simon opposed the Amendment on the distinct understanding that the liquor vote would be thrown for the Republican party in the Presidential year of 1888; and developments justified this charge.

2,483 1,783 Shelby.

4,550 10,574

Hamblin.....

355 607 Smith.. 1,322 471 Stewart

[blocks in formation]

578 1,363 1,870 1,005 1,481 2,387

[blocks in formation]

333 196

[blocks in formation]

Oregon, at the beginning of her history, enjoyed Prohibition for a period of five yearsfrom 1843 to 1848. At various times before and after her admission as a State, unsuccessful attempts to procure Prohibitory measures were made by the Temperance Alliance and other organizations. In the Legislature of 1883 a bill for submitting a Prohibitory Amendment was introduced, but owing to a technical error it was withdrawn. The Legislatures of 1885 and 1887 voted for submission, the latter with but three dissenting votes (all Republicans). The temperance sentiment of Oregon had always

The Prohibition canvass was conducted by a State League, of which A. M. Smith was Chairman and G. M. Peirce was Secretary. The various temperance organizations gave cordial assistance. Numerous addresses were made by Oregon workers and by leaders from other States. The exclusion of ex-Governor St. John of Kansas from the campaign, at the demand of intolerant Republicans, caused much dissatisfaction. No important public meetings were held by the liquor men, but they had the services of some prominent persons, especially Abigail Scott Duniway. Characteristic liquor documents, specially appealing to the farmers, taxpayers and public generally, were abundantly distributed and frauds were committed at the polls. The election day was stormy and only a light vote was cast in places where there

been considered strong, and the result of the election was a surprise to many persons. It was, however, a perfectly natural consequence of irresistible influences. The Portland Oregonian, leading Republican organ, which had probably greater weight with the public of the State than all other newspapers combined, took

The editor is indebted to II. S. Lyman.

2 In June, 1888, the Republican candidate for Congress received 7,407 plurality, and Harrison's plurality in November was 6,769. These pluralitics were largely in excess of any that had been obtained in recent years by the Republicans in Oregon, even under very favorable conditions. În 1884 Blaine's plurality was only 2,256.

[blocks in formation]

The day of the Presidential election of 1888 was the day for deciding the question of Constitutional Prohibition in West Virginia. This has always been considered unfortunate by the Prohibitionists of that State. The ClevelandHarrison campaign was very exciting there, and the strength of the two leading parties was so nearly equal that there was a difference between them of only 506 votes in a total of about 160,000. At the same time warm contests were

The

A "non-partisan League" was organized. after considerable discussion, to manage the Prohibition campaign; but practically no support was given to it by the Republicans and Democrats who had strenuously demanded its creation, and it did no important work. Woman's Christian Temperance Union was the most serviceable organization, employing able speakers. But no very large public meetings were held, and the general feeling was apathetic. The liquor managers used money corruptly. After the election Nov. 10) Bonfort's Wine and Spirit Circular, the leading national organ of the whiskey-sellers, said:

"During months past tons of literature have been scattered broadcast over the State, and scarcely a county but has heard a public speaker for our cause, and, wherever possible, a joint debate. For this result, as in each of those preceding it, the trade owes a lasting debt of gratitude to the National Protective Association, and to the gentlemen who have so admirably directed its affairs."

The Wheeling Intelligencer (Rep.) and Register (Dem.), the chief dailies of the State, fought the Amendment unscrupulously, and comparatively few of the country weeklies favored it. The newspapers generally were corrupted by saloon money. The Parkersburg Freeman, State organ of the Prohibition party, was the principal supporter of the cause. An attempt was made to analyze the vote. Since the Amendment question was printed on the party ballots, it was possible to ascertain, by keeping a tally at each polling place, how the Republicans and Democrats stood concerning it. At the direction of the Prohibition State Commit

tee, tallies were kept at 43 precincts in 28 different counties, representing about one-twelfth of the vote of the State. Of the 5283 Democratic voters in these 43 precincts, 2004 were for the Amendment 2,168 against it and 1,121 did not vote either for or against. Of the 5 502 Republican voters. 1,967 supported the Amendment, 2.316 opposed it and 2,316 ig nored it.

waged for the State, Congressional. legislative
and other offices. Naturally in this fierce parti-
san fight the interests of Prohibition were sacri-
ficed. For other reasons there was not a fair
trial of the question on its merits Dissensions
among the friends of Prohibition prevented an
energeticand systematic campaign. Proper ef-
forts were not made for securing the services of
the best Prohibition workers from other States,
and the demands of the Prohibition political can-
vass throughout the Union engaged well nigh all
the speakers of national reputation. On the
other hand the anti Prohibitionists were not only
favored by conditions, but by abundant funds,
aggressive work, corrupt practices, newspaper Berkeley......
support and all the other agencies so indus-
triously and successfully applied in the typical
liquor campaigns against Constitutional Pro-
hibition.

West Virginia's movement for submission began in 1880, and was originated and promoted by representatives of leading religious denominations of the State. The submission of the Amendment was due to the organization and activity of the Prohibition party. In the Demo cratic Legislature of 1887 the House promptly voted for submission by 55 to 10, but the Senate, while favoring the measure by a majority, refused to give the necessary two-thirds until the Prohibition managers threatened to pass a statutory law granting complete Prohibition, when the obstructionists permitted the submission resolution to go through.2

The vote in detail is given in the following table:

COUNTIES.
Barbour..

Boone.

Braxton

Brooke.

Calhoun....

PROHIBITION.

Yes. No. COUNTIES.

457 1.919 Lewis.

975 2,030 Lincoln

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Cabell..

[blocks in formation]

Clay

[blocks in formation]

Doddridge.

[blocks in formation]

Fayette

[blocks in formation]

Gilmer

[blocks in formation]

Grant

352 790 McDowell.....

[blocks in formation]

1 The editor is indebted to Dave D. Johnson of Parkersburg, W. Va.

2 The Legislature of 1887 was Democratic in both branches in the Senate by 14 to 12 and in the House by 38

Harrison

1,500 2,329 Pocahontas.

Jackson....

1,069 1,842 Preston

1,026 1,939 Putnam

2,720 3,350 Raleigh

Jefferson

Kanawha...

330 813 1,321 2,538 970 1,246

to 29. Of the 16 votes against submission cast in the two branches, 13 were given by Democrats and 3 by Republicans. The stubborn fight was due to the great fear of the liquor men that the Amendment would be ratified if sent to the people. It will be remembered that the West Virginia submission struggle was made before the votes of Michigan, Texas, Tennessee and Oregon had given new courage to the traffic.

3 See the Voice, Dec. 27, 1888.

[blocks in formation]

For a generation New Hampshire had been under a partial and defective Prohibition law before any recognition of the appeals made by its friends for more stringent provisions was vouchsafed by the political rulers of the State. The statutes, white prohibiting the common sale of intoxicating beverages, permitted the manufacture. Under this peculiar measure several extensive brewing establishments flourished, and in time they became exceedingly powerful in State politics. Remarkable and conflicting conditions prevailed. Though unable to establish thorough Prohibition the temperance people were able to compel the retention of the old law, and one of the most extreme Prohibition advocates of the entire country Henry W. Blair) was sent to represent New Hampshire in the United States Senate. They were also strong enough to command tolerably satisfactory enforcement of the law in nearly every community exceptinga few cities. On the other hand, wherever any real advantage was sought by the Prohibitionists the liquor influence seemed to be omnipotent. At one session of the Legislature a deputation of ladies alvocating certain amendments was received with great discourtesy, and members of the legislative committee filled the room with tobacco smoke while the ladies presented their case. It was a curious fact that while New Hampshire was intensely Republican her wealthiest Democratic liquor manufacturer (Frank Jones) had an influence with the Legis lature outweighing that of the best elements of citizens. The explanation of Mr. Jones's successful opposition to further Prohibitory legislation was significantly hinted at in testimony which he gave in the famous bribery investigation of 1887. "Men are a good deal like hogs." said Mr Jones in that testimony; "they don't like to be driven. But you throw them down a little corn and you can call them most anywhere."

In New Hampshire the Legislature bas no power to propose Amendments to the Constitution, and such Amendments can be submitted only by Constitutional Conventions held not oftener than once in seven years. A two thirds vote of the people is required to ratify and adopt an Amendment. Therefore the Prohibitionists of the State in their efforts to improve the law were forced to appeal to the Legislature for statutory action. The Legislature of 1887 was asked to pass an act prohibiting the manufacture of liquor, but although the Republican State Convention of 1886 had made warm professions of loyalty to the Prohibition cause, the bill against the manufacture was defeated. In January, 1889, the Constitutional Convention met, and the Prohibitionists appeal

wa3

ed to it to submit an Amendment providing for complete Prohibition. Such an Amendment was accordingly submitted (Jan. 10. A campaign organization of Prohibitionists was effected soon afterwards, with George A. Bailey as Chairman. The different elements of Prohibitionists worked in harmony in the canvass. Chairman Bailey claimed that threefourths of the 500 clergymen in the State were "actively engaged" in behalf of the Amendment. Governor elect D. H. Goolell a prominent speaker for it, and even so shrewda Republican poiitician as Senator William E Chandler wrote a letter endorsing it. It was commonly known that the fund used by the liquor people aggregated $100,000. But they held only one small public mce ing, which was addressed by William P. Tomlinson, a Democratic editor from Kansas. The most notable feature of the discussion in the press was upon the cider-exemption clause of the Amendment. This clause had been inserted at the instance of some Prohibitionists who thought votes would be gained among the farmers by discriminating in favor of cider, and who reasoned that the Legislature could afterwards suppress the alcoholic cider traffic by statute, as the Maine Legislature had done. But by making this exemption the Prohibitionists introduced a confusing element into the contest, were forced upon the defensive and lost many votes. Although some of the newspapers refrained from offensive hostitity, the behavior of the press in general clearly showed that much of the money of the liquor managers had been placed in the newspaper offices. We give below the county votes.

[blocks in formation]

A long and eventful struggle preceded the Massachusetts campaign of 1889 for Constitutional Prohibition. In this struggle it was repeatedly demonstrated that the intelligent classes desired Prohibition by a strong majority; and more than once it was found that an actual majority of all the voters expressing themselves (even allowing for the ignorant and vicious classes and the whole saloon element) was opposed to the license system. But this powerful sentiment, though directed by excellent organizations and devoted individuals, achieved only local, imperfect and temporary successes. The best citizens of Massachusetts, and even the majority of all the citizens, though sentimentally preferring Prohibition were unable to cope with the artful liquor power and were forced to accept laws upon which the ingenuity of antiProhibition politicians had been expended In the 20 years from 1869 to 1889, three different systems of liquor legislation were establishedthe Prohibitory statute of 1869, repealed in 1875, the Local Option and license act that was passed soon afterwards, and the High License and Limitation law of 1888 (in force May 1, 1889).

After the repeal of the Prohibitory law, all the legislation enacted was cleverly devised for satisfying the moderate temperance elements of the State. The Local Option and license combination answered this purpose perfectly. It enabled the people of every town and city annually (the towns in March and the cities in December) to declare by majority vote whether licenses should be granted within their respective limits. More than once the aggregate vote of the communities on the license question (even including the results in the large cities) showed a majority against the traffic; and the sentiment in favor of banishing the saloon was so general that four-fifths of the communities annually refused to grant licenses. The normal sentiment of Massachusetts was therefore decidedly favorable to Prohibition; yet the very policy that invited its radical expression in the various localities operated to discourage exertion for the complete redemption of the State. It was argued that the people already had power to stop the traffic, and the conservative citizens manifested comparatively little favor for more advanced demands. Meanwhile the politicians made further concessions, granting a Metropolitan Police law for the city of Boston, prohibiting the sale of liquors on all public holidays, prohibiting the sale in tenement buildings, requiring the rumsellers to remove screens and other obstructions to a full view of their prem. ises from the street, etc. Finally, in 1888, the law establishing a minimum annual license rate of $1,300 for each saloon selling all kinds of liquors for consumption on and off the premises was passed, and the same Legislature enacted another statute limiting the number of saloons to one for each 500 of the population in Boston and one for each 1,000 inhabitants in every other community. These two statutes were not to go into effect until May 1, 1889, and mean. while, in December, 1888, the cities were to vote on the local question of license, and the towns were to vote on the same question in March, 1889. The results of the city votes fully confirmed the expectation that the general public would accept the bribe held forth by the High License act; for there was a very strong reaction against locally prohibiting the issuance of licenses. This reaction encouraged the political managers in the Legislature of 1889 to at last grant to the people the often-refused privilege of voting on a Prohibitory Amend

ment.

It seems absolutely certain that if compromise measures had not been enacted in Massachusetts, the demand for Constitutional Prohibition would have proved irresistible long before the carefully laid schemes for defeating it were perfected. At one legislative session (1883) petitions for Constitutional Prohibition from 50,000 citizens were presented, and at another session (1884) the petitions had 106.000 signa tures attached. In consequence of the evasive action of successive Republican Legislatures,

1 For figures, see the the editor's postscript to the article, LOCAL OPTION.

the vote of the Prohibition party increased from 1,881 in 1883 to 10,947 in 1887, and some of the most distinguished and devoted temperance Republicans of the State (including Mary A. Livermore and Henry H. Faxon) openly rebelled against the faithless party. If the Republicans had not been able to point to their Local Option legislation, to Prohibitory conditions in fourfifths of the towns and to stringent restrictive acts, they could not have prevented a vote on Constitutional Prohibition when the temperance forces were eager for a contest and before counteractive devices had been set up.

As it was, the Republican leaders found it necessary to make very plausible professions of friendship for the temperance cause. State Convention for 1886 (Sept. 29) declared :

Their

"Believing, also, that whenever a great public question demands settlement an opportunity should be given the people to express their opinion thereon, we favor the submission to the people of an Amendment to our Constitution prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors to be used as a beverage."

In 1887 a more elaborate utterance was made, as follows:

"Recognizing in intemperance the most fruitful source of pauperism, crime, corruption in politics and social degradation, we affirin our belief in the most thorough restriction of the liquor traffic and the enforcement of law for its suppression. We approve the action of the last Legislature in enacting so many temperance statutes, and demand the continued enactment of progressive temperance measures as the policy of our party. We repeat the recommendation of last year's Convention as follows: 'Believing that this great public question now demands settlement, we favor the submission to the people of an Amendment to our Constitution prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors to be used as a beverage.' In order to have this matter placed before the people, we call upon those who are opposed to the political control of the grog-shops to unite with the Republican party in electing Senators and Representatives who will vote for the submission of the Amendment."

But the crowning deliverance of the Republicans of Massachusetts was that emanating from the State Convention held on April 26, 1888, to choose delegates to the National Convention. It was:

"The Republican party of Massachusetts has committed itself in favor of pronounced and progressive temperance legislation. It has demanded the restriction of the liquor traffic by every practicable measure, and now it calls upon the National Republican Convention to recognize the saloon as the enemy of humanity; to demand for the people the privilege of deciding its fate at the ballot-box; to insist that it shall be crippled by every restraint and disability which local public sentiment will sanction; in short, to take that attitude upon the temperance question which will win to the party all foes of the liquor traffic and all friends of good order."

The popular vote on the Constitutional Amendment, taken under the circumstances to which we have briefly alluded, was necessarily farcical. It was shown by the Boston Transcript (April 18, 1889) that of the 29 Senators and 161 Representatives voting to submit the Amendment in the Legislature of 1889, only 18 Senators and 91 Representatives were sufficiently friendly to the principle of Prohibition to vote for the measure at the polls. The same Legislature that passed the submission resolution refused to pass a Prohibition statute and even refused to enact a law permitting women to vote on the license question. The controlling Republican influences were skilfully directed against the Amendment, and the Democratic party was openly hostile. The Boston dailies espoused

« PreviousContinue »