Iowa History Project |
IOWA
JOURNAL OF HISTORY AND POLITICS
Volume 6, No. 3 July, 1908
THE HISTORY OF LIQUOR LEGISLATION IN
IOWA
1861-1878
The history of legislative attempts to regulate the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in Iowa during the period from 1861
to 1878 is characterized chiefly by the efforts, both in the legislature and on
the part of temperance workers, to strengthen and enforce the prohibitory law of
1855, and to secure the repeal of the wine and beer clause of 1858 which
practically made prohibition a farce. Referring to the operation of this famous
clause one writer says that "through the concessions made to native wines
and the specious plea for the lighter drinks as a temperance measure, drinks of
all kinds were sold."
LIQUOR LEGISLATION DURING THE CIVIL WAR
The temperance movement, which in 1855 resulted in the
passage and adoption of a rigid prohibitory law, had been forced farther and
farther into the background in the years immediately preceding the Civil War.
During the years from 1861 to 1865 it was lost sight of almost entirely. Nor is
it strange that, when nearly every home in the State was represented on the
field of battle, the temperance question should receive but little attention.
One might search almost indefinitely in the newspapers of those years and find
but little mention of the matter, except the occasional notice of a temperance
lecture or an article on the evil effects of strong drink. The war and the
preservation of the Union were the themes which overshadowed all others. It is
doubtless true, however, that during these years the various local temperance
organizations, such as the Good Templars and surviving societies of the Sons of
Temperance, continued to hold occasional meetings, but these were probably more
of a social or fraternal nature than for the purpose of active temperance work.
The General Assembly, however, took occasion during
these years to touch upon the liquor problem in three acts. The first of these
was an act supplementary to the prohibitory law of 1855 and was approved March
20, 1862. It provided that if any person should "by the manufacture or sale
of intoxicating liquors" contrary to the prohibitory law "cause the
intoxication of any other person" he should "be liable for and
compelled to pay a reasonable compensation to any person or persons who may take
charge of and provide for such intoxicated person or persons, and one dollar per
day in addition thereto for every day such intoxicated person shall be kept in
consequence of such intoxication, which sums may be recovered in a civil action
before any court having jurisdiction thereof." Moreover, it was provided
that anyone who should be injured as the result of intoxication in another,
should have the right to bring suit for damages against the person who had
furnished the intoxicating liquor. The property of the seller, "as well as
the premises and property, personal or real, occupied and used for that purpose
with the consent or knowledge of the owner thereof or his agent", was held
liable for the payment of such damages.
On April 2, 1862, "An Act to amend the law in reference to the sale of
intoxicating liquors" was approved. It will be remembered that the
prohibitory law as amended in 1857 had given the County Judge the power to grant
permission to sell intoxicating liquor for mechanical, medicinal; culinary' and
sacramental purposes to anyone who had secured the certificates of twelve
citizens of the township attesting his good moral character, and who had
furnished the proper bond and securities. The act of April 2, 1862, placed
further restrictions on this provision, by declaring that "all such
permissions hereafter issued by virtue of said Act, shall specify the house in
which intoxicating liquors may be sold by virtue of the same, and the length of
time the same shall be in force, which in no case shall exceed twelve
months." It was provided that the book of sales and purchases kept by the
agent granted this permission should be open to inspection by sheriffs,
constables or justices of the peace. Upon receiving information that the law was
being violated, the County Judge was required to summon the agent to appear and
answer for selling in violation of law. In case of conviction the permission to
sell liquor was to be revoked and the offender
declared incompetent to hold such permission again within the State for a period
of two years. All liquors held for sale contrary to law might be confiscated and
destroyed. Finally, it was provided that search warrants might be issued
"on the written information on oath, of one credible person, a resident of
the County, instead of three, " as had formerly been required. By an act of
March 28, 1864, the sale of intoxicating liquors at or within one hundred and
sixty rods of the grounds of any "County or District Agricultural Society
Fair" was strictly forbidden. Thus it will be seen that in the field of
legislation much was done during these four years to make the prohibitory law
more stringent. It was of little avail, however, for those who would have been
interested in the enforcement of the prohibitory law were putting forth their
energies in the endeavor to enforce the unwritten law of American Union upon the
seceding South. Under these circumstances dealers in intoxicating liquors
undoubtedly did a flourishing business. Under protection of the "wine and
beer clause" liquor was sold almost without
restrictions. Leaders in the temperance movement in this State looked upon the
Civil War as a great misfortune to their cause, since it gave the liquor dealers
opportunity to extend their business unmolested.
From the campaign of 1859, when the Democrats in their
State platform declared so emphatically against the prohibitory law, until the
year 1865, the temperance question was not mentioned in the platforms of the
political parties. On August 23, 1865, the so-called "Soldiers'
Convention" was held at Des Moines. This convention was made up largely of
bolters from the
Republican party, and the faction thus organized was termed "The Union
Anti-Negro Suffrage Party." The fifth plank in the platform adopted by this
convention was as follows: That inasmuch as we do not sufficiently know the
sentiment of the people of the State in regard to the prohibitory liquor law, we
deem it expedient to refer this matter to the different county conventions to
take such action in the matter as by them is deemed proper, and to instruct
their senators and representatives accordingly.
This moderate declaration would have been less
significant had it not been virtually adopted by the Democratic party which, at
its convention held on the same day, made no nominations but voted to support
the " Soldiers' Ticket", which was headed by Thomas E. Benton, Jr.
There is no evidence, however, that the temperance question figured to any
considerable extent in the election of 1865.
The following year (1866) the question was forced into
politics in a somewhat more decided manner by the action of the Liquor Dealers'
Association. In 1865 this association had imposed dues upon its members for the
purpose of raising a fund to be used in fighting the prohibitory law and in
influencing elections. At their meeting in the spring of 1866 the liquor dealers
complained that not only had their "numerous and urgent petitions" for
the repeal of the prohibitory law been ignored by the legislature, but there had
even been threats that the law would be made more stringent. As a consequence of
this state of affairs they adopted the following resolution: Resolved, That we
deem it expedient to make this a paramount issue above all others, and to use
all honorable means to bring about the repeal of this fanatical law, and that we
for that purpose mutually pledge ourselves henceforth to vote for no candidate,
for any office, whatsoever, unless he shall publicly and in writing declare
himself opposed to the present liquor law, and that he will exert all his
influence to obtain the repeal of the same. This resolution apparently induced
the Democrats to place in their platform of 1866 a plank denouncing the
prohibitory law, just as in 1854 a similar resolution of a temperance convention
had induced the Whigs to embody in their platform a declaration in favor of the
enactment of such a law. The plank in the Democratic platform of 1866, as in
1859, declared the prohibitory
law "inconsistent with the genius of a free people, and unjust and
burdensome in its operations," and expressed the opinion that it should be
repealed. Moreover, in the platform of 1867 this same party not only declared in
favor of the repeal of the prohibitory law, but advocated the enactment of
"a well regulated license law in lieu thereof.'' It may be added that this
policy has been consistently followed by the Democratic party in Iowa ever since
the declaration in 1867. During these years the temperance question was entirely
ignored in the Republican platforms.
THE LIQUOR LAWS OF 1868
The twelfth General Assembly convened January 13, 1868,
and adjourned April 8. Between these dates there occurred on the floors of both
houses a lively contest between the forces of license and prohibition, and in
the end the matter stood about where it did at the beginning. Petitions to the
legislature poured in from both factions. Late in 1867 a petition for a license
system and the repeal of the prohibitory law was circulated and it received a
large number of signatures, especially in the river counties. This petition,
together with the determined attitude which the liquor dealers had assumed,
aroused the friends of prohibition to action. A petition for absolute
prohibition was circulated and was signed by approximately forty thousand
people. Thus it would have been somewhat difficult for the legislature to
determine exactly what was the
will of the majority of the people in regard to liquor legislation.
Without going into details it may be said that during
this session of the legislature, numerous bills were introduced into both
houses, touching upon the liquor problem. In substance these bills varied all
the way from a license system with no prohibitions to absolute prohibition
of the sale of all liquors, including beer and wine. Indeed, a study of these
bills would reveal the attitude which the various groups of people took toward
the question at that time. In the end a majority of the bills were either laid
on the table or reported upon unfavorably by the committee to which they were
referred; but the battle was fought with considerable earnestness by both
factions. In the Senate the Committee on the Suppression of Intemperance made a
majority report in favor of the passage of a compromise measure of which mention
will be made later. Two minority reports were also submitted by members of this
committee. One of these minority reports was submitted by two men who desired
the enactment of a rigid and absolute prohibitory law, and hence were
dissatisfied with the half measure recommended by the majority report. They
urged that the prohibition of crimes, such as murder, theft, swindling, forgery,
and counterfeiting, was recognized by all as right and proper; and that since
the traffic in intoxicating liquors was productive of greater evils than any or
all of these other crimes, it should also be prohibited. Moreover, they
contended that in cases of this kind "individual rights must be given up
for the good of the many." The other minority report was prepared by one
member of the committee who was strongly in favor of a license law. He advanced
the usual arguments that prohibition had failed as a temperance measure, and
that it violated the rights of citizens. In the House of Representatives the
sentiment was apparently stronger in favor of prohibition than of a license
system. On January 22 the following resolution was introduced:
Resolved, That it is the sense of this House that the
present prohibitory liquor law of Iowa should be repealed, and a judicious
license law enacted in lieu thereof.
This resolution was immediately laid on the table by a
vote of sixty-nine to twenty-seven. Later on the same day another resolution was
introduced which reads as follows:
Resolved, That it is the sense of this House that the
sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage is a crime, and as such it can not be
licensed, but-should be entirely and unqualifiedly prohibited as any other
crime; and if necessary for the suppression of intemperance, we ought to enact a
more stringent law upon the subject, and also to provide for its perfect
enforcement by creating a State constabulary for this express purpose.
There was an effort made to lay this resolution on the
table also, but it failed by a vote of sixty-nine to twenty-eight; and by a vote
of seventy to twenty-seven it was referred to the Committee on the Suppression
of Intemperance. A comparison of these votes will show that the majority of the
members were consistent in their opposition to a license system. Finally, after
much debate, two bills received the required majority in both houses and were
enacted into laws which were both approved on April 7, 1868. One of these laws
was entitled "An Act to Amend Sections 1575 and 1576 of the Revision of
1860 in relation to Permits for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors." It
provided that the certificate of good moral character, signed by
twelve citizens of the township, which the applicant for a permission to sell
intoxicating liquors was required to present, must also state the purpose for
which it was obtained. Furthermore, the County Judge was not allowed to grant
such permission until a final hearing (of which ten days notice had been given)
should be held; and the applicant was required to pay the expenses of notice and
a fee of two dollars for final hearing. It was provided that at such hearing any
citizen of the county might "appear and show cause why such permit should
not be granted," and if the judge should consider these objections valid,
or that in any other way the law was not being complied with, the permission
should be refused.
The other law approved on April 7, 1868, was "An
Act in Relation to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Incorporated Cities and
Towns." Section two of this act made the following provision:
"All incorporated towns and cities not
incorporated under the general incorporation law shall have the power to
regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors not prohibited by State
law, and such power to regulate shall include the power to assess or impose a
tax on such sale."
Moreover, the general incorporation law was so amended
as to extend to all other incorporated towns and cities the same privilege which
was hereby granted to the special charter communities. This law, as may readily
be seen, meant local option in all incorporated towns and cities, but only in
regard to the sale of beer, native wine, and cider, since these were the only
liquors the sale of which was not prohibited by law. It was distinctly a
compromise measure and was not satisfactory to either faction. It fell far short
of absolute prohibition and it was by no means a general license law. Thus
another legislature adjourned without satisfying either side.
THE PROHIBITIONISTS AND THE CAMPAIGN OF 1869
After the enactment of the laws of 1868 each side
seemed for a time to be resting on its oars. In its practical application it may
be said that the local option measure was on the whole more favorable to the
friends of license than to the advocates of prohibition. Nearly all the larger
cities of the State chose to "regulate" rather than
"prohibit" the sale of beer, wine, and cider, and imposed a tax on
such sale. Consequently, although the law was not all that the liquor dealers
might have desired, for several succeeding years they made no decided effort to
secure a more sweeping license law.
The Prohibitionists, on the other hand, soon found that
they had gained but little by the laws of 1868, if indeed they were not placed
at a disadvantage. Early in 1869, the year in which a Governor was to be
elected, some of the more radical temperance leaders caused a small ripple of
excitement by suggesting the advisability of forming a third party. This was a
bold suggestion for that day, and as might have been expected brought forth
violent opposition from the more conservative people. The old idea still
prevailed with many that the temperance question should be kept out of politics
as far as possible. Moreover, the majority of the Prohibitionists were members
of the Republican party and were not willing to leave its ranks. Furthermore,
they were convinced that it was only through the Republican party that
prohibition could be secured. Nevertheless, the possibility of the formation of
a third party caused some anxiety among Republican leaders, as the following
extract from an editorial in a Des Moines newspaper seems to indicate:
In this State there has been considerable talk among a
portion of the friends of temperance of organizing an independent party .... A
third party in this State could do no good, and might do much evil; as it would
be too weak to do any more than weaken the great party which has always been the
ally and helper of the temperance hosts. . . The Republican party has ever been
faithful to the interests of the cause; and has made as much haste with its
reform as prudence would justify and common sense would warrant.
Another Des Moines newspaper, while it was opposed to a
third party and recognized the Republican party as the best agency through which
prohibition might be secured, urged that "the Republican party declare as
openly and candidly against License as the Democratic party has declared for
License.''
On June 10, 1869, the Republican State Convention was
held at Des Moines. Early in the proceedings a communication from a committee of
temperance men was read, asking the party to declare in favor of prohibition.
The matter was referred to the committee on resolutions, but the committee
failed to embody any such declaration in the platform which was adopted by the
convention, and the temperance question was entirely ignored. The immediate
result may be seen in the proceedings of the State Temperance Convention which
met in Des Moines on the evening of the same day, June 10.
There were about fifty accredited delegates at this
convention, but no regular organization was effected, nor was anything done
except the adoption of a series of four resolutions. Of these the first three
were in the nature of declarations in favor of absolute prohibition and pledges
to use every effort to secure that end. It was the last resolution that was
really interesting in the light of its evolution in the convention. As adopted
this resolution reads. as follows:
Resolved, That this Convention pledge its support only
to such candidates as will squarely stand on temperance principles, and pledge
themselves to carry them out.
As originally introduced this resolution was of a
radically different nature:
Resolved, That we cordially endorse the ticket this day
nominated by the Republican Convention, and will give it our united and hearty
support.
Such opposition was called forth by this endorsement of
a party which had absolutely ignored the temperance question that the resolution
was quickly withdrawn, and the following substitute was made:
Resolved, That we are rejoiced to see that the
Republican State Convention has put in nomination sound temperance men,
notwithstanding it ignored wholly the temperance cause; but that this convention
pledge its support only to such candidates as will squarely stand on temperance
principles, and pledge themselves to carry them out.
It was then moved to strike out all recognition of the
Republican party, and the resolution was adopted as first given above. It is
evident that the refusal of the Republicans to declare in favor of prohibition
had caused much dissatisfaction among the friends of that cause. This
convention, perhaps, marks the real beginning of that feeling which in a few
years was to result
in the formation of a third party and in forcing the Republican party to take a
definite stand on the temperance question. At this time, however, the
prohibition issue had not gained sufficient strength to induce many men to leave
the party to which they were bound by stronger ties.
There were, nevertheless, a sufficient number who still
persisted in the third party idea to keep the question before the people during
the campaign of 1869. On the one hand, it was argued that since the Republican
party had taken no action, the formation of a third party was necessary if a
prohibitory law was to be secured. In reply it was contended that even though
the Republican party had "treated the license question rather
cavalierly," its candidates were in full sympathy with prohibition and
hence it would be foolish to organize a third party. But in spite of all the
talk and dissatisfaction the temperance question played little part in the
election of 1869. The Republican State ticket received a much larger majority
than in the election of 1867. In Marshall, Clinton, Boone, and Clarke counties
third party tickets were put in the field, but if they had any effect it was
purely local. It was charged that those who thus withdrew from the Republican
party did so, not so much because they were wedded to prohibition as because
they were disappointed political aspirants and "there was no other issue on
which they could manufacture thunder so cheaply."
The Democrats in their platform adopted July 14, 1869,
again declared that "in the opinion of this convention the so-called Maine
liquor law, which now disgraces the statute books of the State of Iowa, ought to
be repealed at the earliest possible moment."
THE LOCAL OPTION LAW OF 1870
The temperance question was treated with much greater
indifference by the Thirteenth General Assembly than at the preceding session.
No decided efforts seem to have been made by either faction to secure
legislation in accord with their views. A few petitions were presented and a few
bills were introduced by both sides, but there was not the struggle that was
witnessed in 1868. Aside from the ordinary matters of legislation, the members
seemed mote interested in the question of woman suffrage, and in the
ratification of the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States
than in anything else. Consequently a local option measure was passed without
much trouble, probably because it seemed the easiest way out of the difficulty.
It is interesting to note that nearly all the local option laws in the history
of Iowa liquor legislation have either followed a particularly sharp struggle
between the contending factions of license and prohibition, or have come at a
time when the party in power had no great fear of defeat at the next election.
The law of 1870 was entitled "An Act to Provide
for the Prohibition of the Sale of Ale, Wine, and Beer in Counties, by a Vote of
the People", and it was approved April 8. The first and second sections
prohibited the sale of "any ale, wine, malt liquors, or beer of any kind,
" with the usual exceptions, and provided penalties for selling in
violation of law. It was the third section which gave to the law its peculiar
character. It was made a duty of the Board of Supervisors of each organized
county to determine at their regular June sessions of each year "whether
the adoption of the provisions of this act shall be submitted to the legal
voters of the county at the ensuing general election." If the Board of
Supervisors did so determine they were to give due notice of that fact at least
four weeks before the regular election, and the electors of the county were
permitted to write or print "For Prohibition" or "Against
Prohibition" on their ballots. It was further provided that "if a
majority of all the votes cast at such election in said county be 'for
prohibition', then, and not otherwise, shall the provisions of this act be in
full force in said county from and after the first Monday in January next
following such election." In case the majority of votes should be against
prohibition then the sale of ale, wine, and beer was to be permitted according
to the provisions of the Revision of 1860 and the law of 1868 in relation to
such sale in incorporated towns and cities.
By some people this law was received with hearty
approval. "The Legislature", declared a Des Moines editor, " in
our opinion, made a wise disposal of this question when it left it for each
county to decide for itself". It appears that at the October elections in
1870 thirty counties took advantage of the law and voted on the question of
prohibition. Of these, seventeen declared in favor of prohibition, ten against
it, and three made no report.
The local option law of 1870 was, however, a
disappointment to the majority of the temperance party. One writer refers to it
as "a splendid exhibition of political legerdemain; of doing a thing and
not doing it at the same time." Certainly it would be difficult to find a
better example of a paradox in legislation. Obviously either this law was never
intended to be enforced
and was a mere trick to get rid of the matter, or the members of the General
Assembly were profoundly ignorant of the principles of Iowa Constitutional Law
as pointed out in a previous decision of the Supreme Court in regard to a law
almost identical with this one. At any rate the law of 1870 was short-lived, for
it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Iowa at its December
term in 1871, on the ground that it conferred the law-making power on a body to
which that power had not been granted by the Constitution of the State. This
decision, however, did not affect the validity of the law of 1868 which had
given cities and towns the power to regulate or prohibit the sale of
intoxicating liquors within their respective corporations.
THE LAW OF 1872
The two years from 1870 to 1872 were not marked by any
wide-spread temperance agitation in Iowa. The friends of a license system were
too well satisfied with the law as it stood to push matters further, and the
advocates of prohibition were so disheartened by their repeated failures that
they were not as active as before. Nevertheless, the interest in the temperance
question was merely lying dormant and occasionally blazed forth in various
localities. During June and July, 1870, a series of out-door temperance meetings
was held at Des Moines and considerable enthusiasm was manifested. During this
year also there was a revival of the Sons of Temperance, an organization which
in earlier years had been very influential.
On July 11, 1871, a Methodist convention was held at
Iowa City, and at this convention the temperance question was one of the leading
topics for consideration. The formation of a third party was strongly opposed on
the ground that the desired end could best be reached through the agency of one
of the existing political organizations. Moreover the convention declared that
"while we recognize it as the duty of the Christian citizen to obey and
enforce existing laws on the subject of temperance, and that moral sentiment
must precede such enforcement, yet we will not rest short of a thorough
prohibitory law that will ultimately sweep from our soil the accursed traffic.
During the autumn of 1871 a movement known as the
Peoples' Temperance Association was inaugurated in several localities; and it
became especially strong at Des Moines. These associations were composed largely
of men who were or had been addicted to the drink habit, and consequently the
movement might be termed one of personal reform rather than for the
purpose of securing legal regulation. Moreover, certain resolutions of the Des
Moines association indicate that this group, at least, was not in favor of
prohibition nor of the third party idea. They declared that government
interference with personal liberty was contrary to the spirit of American
institutions, and virtually took the position of favoring a license law.
The Iowa State Temperance Association met at Des
Moines, Thursday, January 18, 1872, and among the resolutions adopted were the
following:
Resolved, That the friends of Temperance, everywhere,
work together in harmony for objects pertaining to the Temperance cause.
2d. That members of this Association work earnestly for
the legal prohibition of the sale of intoxicating drinks.
4th. That men or parties that will not stand pledged to
this prohibition shall not receive our votes.
5th. That we ask of the present Legislature an
amendment to the present statutes that will secure absolute prohibition.
6th. That greater restrictions be placed on this
traffic by druggists.
7th. That the sale of wine and beer, and certain
"patent medicines " be punished by law the same as intoxicating
drinks.
These declarations were not followed by the earnest
work to which the members of the convention had pledged themselves, and hence
were not productive of any considerable results. An act of the General Assembly
entitled "An Act to Amend Article Two of Chapter Sixty four, Revision of
1860", was approved April 6, 1872. This act required all applicants for a
permit to sell intoxicating liquors to present "a certificate signed by a
majority of the legal voters of the township, city, or ward in which he desires
to sell said liquors, that he is a citizen of the county and State, that he is
of good moral character," instead of a certificate signed by only twelve
persons as had previously been required. Moreover, any person desiring a permit
was required to furnish a bond of three thousand dollars with two or more
sureties, that he would "carry out the provisions" of the laws. No
person holding a permit was allowed to sell liquor "at a greater profit
than thirty-three per cent on the cost of the same, including freights,"
and he was obliged to make monthly reports to the county auditor showing the
amount' the cost and selling price, of all liquors sold by him, and the purposes
for which they were to be used. Violations of these provisions were made
punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars for the first offense, and a
forfeiture of the permit upon the second conviction. The sale of intoxicating
liquors to minors without permission and to drunken men was forbidden under a
penalty of one hundred dollars for each offense.
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF 1873 AND THE LAW OF 1874
During 1872 and 1873 there is even less evidence of any
general temperance agitation than during the two preceding years, and hence the
events of these years may be passed by without mention here. Such interest as
was shown in temperance was purely local and neither resulted in any State-wide
movement nor in any radical legislation. The Code of 1873 contained a
consolidated statement of all the liquor laws then in force. In addition to this
it contained one new provision which, while it did not affect the State at
large, is of interest. The chapter which dealt with the State Agricultural
College and Farm contained the provision that "No person shall open,
maintain, or conduct any shop or other place for the sale of wine, beer, or
spirituous
liquors, or sell the same at any place within a distance of three miles from the
agricultural college and farm; provided, that the same may be sold for
sacramental, mechanical, medical, or culinary purposes". The penalty for
violation of this provision was a heavy fine, or imprisonment in the county jail
not to exceed thirty days, or both.
The only liquor law enacted by the General Assembly in
1874 was one of seven lines, amending section 1548 of the Code of 1873. That
section had provided that any person arrested for intoxication might be
discharged by the magistrate and his fine remitted in case he should give
"information, under oath, stating when, where, and of whom he had purchased
or received
the liquor which produced the intoxication, and the name and character of the
liquor obtained." The amendment provided that no person should be thus
discharged or have his fine remitted until he had given bond that he would
appear "to give testimony in any action or complaint against the party for
furnishing such liquor.
THE OHIO WOMAN'S CRUSADE
During the early seventies there was manifest a
widespread revival of interest in religious and moral questions, and among these
the temperance problem was one of the first to feel the impetus of awakened
interest. In December, 1873, there was inaugurated in Ohio a movement which was
to sweep with remarkable rapidity over the entire country and produce
undreamed-of results. The " Ohio Woman's Crusade", as this movement
was called, originated in the towns of Hillsboro and Washington C. H., and as
the name indicates, was carried on entirely by women. Gathering in bands of
various sizes the women proceeded to the saloons where, after engaging in
prayer, they appealed to the proprietors to close their saloons, and in many
instances were astonishingly successful. The following account of their labors
at Washington C. H., Ohio, indicates clearly the earnestness and persistence
with which the work was carried on. The result of eight days of prayer and song
was the closing of all saloons and the pledging of three druggists to sell only
on physicians' prescriptions. The next week a liquor house in Cincinnati pledged
$5,000 to break down the movement. A new man took out a license, and a stock of
liquors was forwarded to one of the deserted saloons. The Crusaders followed the
liquors and remained in the saloon, engaged in prayer until 11 o'clock at night.
They returned the next day and remained without fire or chairs a part of the
time locked in, while the would-be dealer went away. The next day a temporary
tabernacle was built in front of the saloon, and the women continued in prayer.
Before night the man surrendered, and the saloon was closed.
The movement thus inaugurated soon spread over Ohio and
then to other States. Its influence began to be felt in Iowa early in 1874. In
January seventy ladies of Manchester waited upon the town council and petitioned
them to withhold all licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors; and at
Corydon a similar effort was made. At Atlantic the temperance party was
successful at the city election largely because of the efforts of the women of
the place who were present at the polls and used their influence to secure votes
for the temperance ticket. A little later a number of the ladies of Ottumwa made
an effort to induce the city council to pass a prohibition ordinance. These
instances will serve as examples of what the women were doing all over the State
in the interest of temperance reform.
As far as the actual closing of saloons is concerned it
can not be said that the movement was as successful in Iowa as it had been in
Ohio. But here it had, perhaps, even greater and more far-reaching results in
that it brought about a general awakening of temperance sentiment and aroused to
action the slumbering forces of prohibition. The most apparent result of the
Woman's Crusade in this State was the organization, in November, 1874, of the
Woman's Christian Temperance Union, an organization which has been a potent
factor in the battle for prohibition. Thus, although the Woman's Crusade was of
brief duration, it accomplished a purpose.
THE THIRD PARTY IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1876
Another result of the renewed interest in the
temperance question may be seen in its effect upon State politics in 1875.
During this year the Democratic party, which since 1869 had been silent in
regard to the liquor problem, placed the following planks in their platform: We
are in favor of the repeal of the present prohibitory law, and the enactment of
a practical
license law, strictly enforced, as the best guard against, and the safest
solution of, the evils of intemperance.
That we are opposed to all legislation that restricts
any citizen in his individual or social rights and privileges.
The friends of prohibition, realizing that they could
expect no assistance from the Democratic party, had called a State Temperance
Convention to meet at Des Moines at the time of the meeting of the Republican
State Convention, in the hope of inducing that party to take some action
favoring prohibition. A preliminary session of this temperance convention was
held on
June 29, the day before the meeting of the Republican convention. The declared
object of the convention was "to consolidate the temperance vote of the
State of Iowa, and to wield that vote as far as possible in favor of such party
or candidate as will sustain the prohibitory laws of the State." An effort
was made to adopt a resolution demanding of the Republican party that it make
some declaration in favor of prohibition, but this resolution was objected to on
the ground that it was not the place of this convention to dictate to the
Republican convention. However, many members of the temperance convention were
delegates to the Republican convention and it was hoped that party would take
some satisfactory action. Consequently the resolution was so modified as to
declare that " the Republican party of Iowa, having been organized upon a
great
moral issue, and sustained in part by the moral sentiment of the State owes it
to that moral sentiment as well as to the public weal, to maintain the foregoing
principles in its platforms and in the selection of its candidates and in its
legislators."
The attitude of the majority of the members of this
preliminary session was distinctly opposed to the formation of a third party,
and although there was much dissatisfaction as to the course pursued by the
Republicans in previous years, it was generally believed that they would not
ignore the temperance question in their platform to be adopted on the following
day. And so, after passing the above mentioned resolution the convention
adjourned to await the results of the Republican convention before taking any
more definite action.
The Republican State Convention convened at Des Moines
on June 30, and as was expected the question of prohibition was one of the
leading topics for discussion. Early in the proceedings a resolution declaring
that the party was opposed to the repeal of the prohibitory law was introduced
by General Weaver and was referred to the committee on resolutions. The
resolution was reported back by the committee with a substitute resolution to
the effect that "the State has the right, and it is its duty, to provide
such legislation upon the subject of the liquor traffic as will best protect
society from the evils of intemperance." This was followed by the
introduction of a number of substitute resolutions and much debate. General
Weaver warned the party not to disregard the temperance question or they would
lose many supporters. Mr. Potter of Scott County, on the other hand, urged that
to place a prohibition plank in the platform would be to alienate thousands of
voters throughout the State. He closed his argument by presenting a resolution
which declared that "as the questions involved in the suppression and
regulation of the liquor traffic have never been a test of Republicanism, it is
inexpedient now to make any distinction relating thereto, and we leave the
subject to be passed upon by the proper tribunal, the people in the election of
members of the Legislature." A motion to lay the whole matter on the table
was now made and carried, and the convention adjourned without placing in the
platform any reference to prohibition or the temperance question.
That same evening the temperance convention reconvened
and held a session which lasted far into the night. To those who were opposed to
a third party and who had looked to the Republicans to espouse their cause, the
failure of the party to do so was a keen disappointment. Nevertheless, they were
still opposed to the organization of an independent party and early in the
meeting introduced a resolution to that effect. A sharp debate followed and when
the resolution was put to a vote it was defeated. Another resolution was
immediately introduced favoring the formation of a temperance party and this in
turn was debated and finally adopted. At this point many of the members of the
convention withdrew. A platform was then drawn up and adopted after much debate
by the remaining members of the convention, and an executive committee was
appointed to make nominations for State officers and provide for the further
organization of the party. This committee subsequently nominated Rev. John H.
Lozier for Governor, but it does not appear that they made nominations for any
other State officers.
The platform adopted by this convention consisted of a
preamble and six resolutions. The reasons for the formation of the new party
were stated in the following words:
WHEREAS, The legal prohibition of said traffic and use
of liquors is the prime duty of those who frame and execute laws for the public
welfare; and,
WHEREAS, The existing political parties, in their State
platforms, have either ignored or repudiated the foregoing principles, the one
declaring for license, the other refusing to pass a resolution opposed to the
repeal of the existing prohibitory law of our State; therefore,
Resolved, That the temperance people of Iowa are, by
this action of these political parties, forced to seek the promotion of their
objects by such organizations and combinations as may prove most effective for
the success of the temperance cause, without reference to previous political
affiliation.
In addition to this declaration the convention in its
platform expressed approval of the policy of the administration "in the
settlement of difficulties between ourselves and other nations, by
arbitration," declared against "the desecration of the Christian
Sabbath by public amusement," favored "maintaining our free public
school system at the expense of the whole people," and
called upon the temperance people of the State to organize and put forth their
efforts to secure the election of legislators and officers who were favorable to
prohibition.
Thus a Prohibition party was launched upon the
political sea in this State. But it played a very insignificant part in the
campaign of 1875. In spite of the dissatisfaction because of the attitude of the
Democrats and Republicans, only a few of the more radical Prohibitionists were
willing to leave the parties of which they had so long been members. Moreover,
the majority of the conservative Prohibitionists regarded the third party as
worse than useless. Consequently John E. Lozier, the Prohibition candidate,
received only seven hundred and thirty-seven votes, while the Republicans
elected their candidate, Samuel J. Kirkwood, by an even greater majority than
had been given to Cyrus C. Carpenter in the previous campaign. An effort was
made during the campaign to alienate votes from Kirkwood on the ground that he
favored a license law, but it is evident that this attempt was not very
successful. A similar effort was made to discredit
Shepherd Leffler, the Democratic candidate, by the
charge that he advocated a high license law which would operate in favor of
wealthy saloonkeepers, but it is doubtful whether many votes were influenced
thereby. It is evident that the Prohibition party in its debut in Iowa political
society did not make a very favorable impression nor attract to itself many
ardent admirers. An incident which occurred during the progress of this campaign
shows the determination of the friends of prohibition in one locality at least.
At Mitchellville a man named Smith purchased a business lot and began the
erection of a building to be used as a saloon, contrary to the wishes of the
citizens of the place. Repeated protests and warnings failed to induce him to
desist. One night a party of citizens gathered and marched in two lines to the
partially completed building. "
The leader clapped his hands together; a move was made for the building, and in
less than fifteen minutes the thing was leveled to ground and the lumber
scattered over the commons. The foundation was picked up, carried back some
distance and pitched into a pond. The company re-formed in two ranks and
disappeared." Shortly afterward a mass meeting was held, at which the
citizens declared that "We will not have any such business carried on in
Mitchellville if it is in
our power to prevent it—and it is."
A reference to the Journals of the Senate and House of
Representatives for 1876 will reveal the fact that at that session of the
General Assembly an earnest effort was made, both by the license men and the
friends of prohibition, to secure legislation in accord with their views. Many
petitions were received and one especially, protesting against the repeal of the
prohibitory law, contained a large number of signatures from all parts of the
State. Many bills were introduced in both houses, but none of them was enacted
into a law. Consequently, although it was recognized that the existing law was
ineffective, no additional provision was made, and, to use the words of one
editor, the State was forced to continue with "a prohibitory enactment in
the Code, and liquor in most places flowing as freely if not so cheaply as
water."
The events of the early months of 1876 are
comparatively unimportant. On January 19, the State Temperance Association held
its annual session at Des Moines, declared in favor of prohibition, and elected
officers. In April the ladies of Cedar Rapids organized what was called a
"Reform Club", rented and furnished a room and supplied it with
reading matter, music, and other means of entertainment. The purpose was to
provide a place which would possess all the attractive features of the saloon
with the exception of liquor and thus draw from the saloon many who went there
primarily as a place for social gathering. This, as will be seen, was an idea
which was later adopted and carried out in many parts of the State. On April 26
the Iowa State Brewers' Association met at Burlington and among other things
declared that "We will support only those
candidates without regard to party, who are not in accordance with the narrow-
minded element of prohibitors.
In September, 1876, there occurred an event which in
itself, but more especially in its results, was significant. Early in that month
a number of the leading temperance workers met at Clear Lake for the purpose of
consulting "upon the best means of carrying on the temperance work in
Iowa." All the various temperance organizations and many churches were
represented at this meeting; and the result of the deliberations was the
formation of the Iowa State Temperance Alliance, an organization which embraced
all the various temperance agencies and which was in its subsequent history more
effective, perhaps, than any other similar organization in the history of this
State. Articles of incorporation and by-laws were drawn up and adopted, and the
former were signed September 4, 1876, by the following incorporators: James P.
Pinkham, Albert Boomer, John Hogarth Lozier, Mrs. M. F. Gray Pitman, Isaac
Brandt, Josiah F. Kennedy, James Wright, J. Ellen Foster, M. M. Myers, R. W.
Keeler, and Wm. H. Fleming.
The articles of incorporation stated that the purpose
of the Alliance was "to promote the cause of Temperance in the State of
Iowa." It was proposed "to secure a permanent fund, not to exceed one
hundred thousand dollars, for the benefit of this corporation." The fourth
article declared that "This corporation shall not be made the ally of any
sect, nor of any party not in full accord with its principles, nor shall the
funds be used except for the purposes set forth herein." The private
property of members was not to be held liable for the debts of the corporation.
Des Moines was made the place of business. Anyone might be come a member by
signing the articles of incorporation and paying a fee of one dollar; membership
could be retained by the payment of an annual fee of one dollar, and any person
paying into the treasury ten dollars or more was entitled to life membership. No
other taxes than the annual fees were imposed upon the members. The officers
were to consist of a President, Secretary, Treasurer, two General Agents, and a
Vice President and a Director from each Congressional District, and were to be
chosen annually, with the exception that the directors were to serve three
years. The annual meeting of
the corporation was to be held "on the first Tuesday after the third Monday
of January of each year."
The plan of endowment which was adopted at this same
time provided that the fund of the corporation should be raised " by gifts,
grants, devises, bequests, membership fees, and collection of money, personal
property and real estate," and that it should be loaned "upon real
estate securities of the first class, the principal to remain inviolate, the
annual accruing interest
only to be used as hereinafter provided.
It is very evident that the Iowa State Temperance
Alliance, being, as the title suggests, an alliance of all the various
temperance organizations was a distinct advance over anything of the kind that
had previously been attempted in this State. It brought together all the
scattered forces under a definite plan of action, without depriving any
organization of its identity, and provided, moreover, for permanent headquarters
from which the work could be directed at all times. Furthermore, it recognized
the fact that the work could not be carried on successfully without money, and
so provision was made for a fund which would be adequate to the needs. Indeed,
the formation of this Alliance may be regarded as one of the important events in
the history of prohibition in this State.
During 1876 the National Prohibition Party was
organized and at the November elections of that year, Green C. Smith, the
Prohibition candidate for President of the United States, received ninety-nine
votes in Iowa.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1877
Early in 1877 it became evident that an
effort would be made to force the temperance question into the political arena
in a more decided manner than in 1875 when the Prohibition party had for the
first time stepped into the field. A convention of the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union was held at Sabula, May 13 to 16, 1877. At this time a petition
"was drawn up, to be circulated for signatures and presented to the
political parties when they assemble in convention, asking them to nominate for
officers men whose views upon temperance accord with those of the Union.'' While
the writer has found no evidence that this petition was actually presented at
either of the State conventions, it is nevertheless an indication of the
determination of the temperance workers to force the political parties to take
some notice of their cause. Pursuant to a call by the State Temperance Alliance
a State Temperance Convention met at Des Moines, May 29, 1877. In the
discussions there was expressed considerable opposition to continuing the
independent party idea, but at the same time there was much objection to John H.
Gear, who it was generally conceded would be the Republican nominee for
Governor. The platform contained a rehearsal of the evils of intemperance and a
strong declaration in favor of absolute prohibition. It favored woman suffrage
and complained that the laws of the United States protecting liquors imported
from foreign countries crippled "the power of the State governments in
enacting and enforcing such legislation as is and may be demanded by the people.
" In addition to the platform a resolution was adopted which provided for
the appointment of a central committee which was to call a Prohibition
nominating convention in case the two leading parties should not espouse their
cause.
The Republicans at their State Convention evidently
decided that the time had come for them to recognize the temperance issue, for
it was with but little opposition that a plank was adopted declaring the party
to be "in favor of the rigid enforcement of our present prohibitory liquor
law and any amendment thereto that will render its provisions more effective in
the suppression of intemperance." The growing strength of the Greenbackers
doubtless had as great effect in inducing the party to take this stand as the
threatening attitude of the Prohibitionists. It was feared that the party might
need all its vote at the coming election.
The Greenbackers held their State Convention at Des
Moines on July 12, and in their platform demanded "that all legal means be
exhausted to eradicate the traffic in alcoholic beverages, and the abatement of
the evil of intemperance. " The Democrats, on August 29, repeated their
time-honored declaration in favor of a license law and the repeal of the
prohibitory
law.
None of these declarations by the three parties in the
field seemed to satisfy the radical Prohibitionists, for the Central Committee
called a nominating convention which met at Oskaloosa on August 30. The platform
adopted at the May convention was affirmed and Dr. Elias Jessup of Mahaska
County was nominated for Governor. The Republican candidates for all the other
officers were approved —thus furnishing another indication of the opposition
to Gear.During the campaign earnest efforts were made to discredit Gear and
attract votes to the Prohibition candidate. On the other hand, it was charged
that Jessup was a temperance man by trade and not by conviction and that this
was the case with many of the Prohibition leaders. It was urged that the
Republican party had done all that could be expected of it and that its
candidates were bound to support the platform, whatever might be their personal
beliefs on the temperance question. And so the battle of words was waged until
the day of election. Gear was elected by a large plurality, although he did not
receive a majority, and the Prohibitionists gave Jessup 10,565 votes, an
alarming increase over the meager showing in the previous gubernatorial
campaign.
THE BLUE RIBBON MOVEMENT
The year 1877 marks the beginning of a temperance
re" form movement which in the following year swept over the entire State
and contributed largely to the popular agitation in favor of prohibition,
although its promoters were opposed to prohibitory measures. The principle upon
which the movement was based was a direct appeal to the judgment of men addicted
to the use of intoxicating liquors and its aim was to induce a voluntary
abandonment of the habit. The work was introduced by a number of lecturers who
went from place to place until they had covered nearly all sections of the
State. Those who took the total abstinence pledge were given a blue ribbon which
they wore as a sign of the stand they had taken, and from this custom the
movement received its name. The work of the lecturers was followed in almost
every case by the
organization of a "Reform Club" very similar in nature to the one
already mentioned as having been formed by the ladies of Cedar Rapids.
These temperance lecturers were received with great
enthusiasm at nearly every place they visited. At Des Moines Mr. John W. Drew
met with great success. "This city is having a remarkable revival in
temperance interest", stated one newspaper. "Thousands are signing the
pledge, and donning the colors of abstinence and self-control." At Clinton
the opera house was
filled to its utmost capacity for several evenings by people eager to hear the
lectures. Nearly four thousand people signed the pledge and a fund of $1300 was
raised, "to be used in fitting up a reading and entertainment room on
strictly temperance principles. " When the lecturers, Messrs. Drew and
Getchel, left the city they were escorted to the station by a long procession
led by a brass band, and the train departed amid rousing cheers. And not only in
the cities was the movement successful, but the smaller places also were carried
by storm At Delmar the lectures of Messrs. Rowell and Hoofstitler resulted in
the signing of the pledge by a large number of people, among whom was a
saloon-keeper who proceeded to his saloon, took down the sign, and emptied the
beer into the street." At Manchester all the saloons except one were closed
as a result of the blue ribbon movement.. The instances here enumerated are only
illustrations of what was accomplished all over the State by this remarkable
wave of reform.
A "Blue Ribbon Jubilee" was held at
Marshalltown on June 27, 1878. It was attended by fifteen thousand people,
according to one account, and was under the charge of John W. Drew, the
lecturer. The city was decked in gala attire and at night was brilliantly
illuminated. "The jubilee ended with a grand torch-light procession through
the streets, and a magnificent display of fireworks. Two thousand persons signed
the pledge during the day." similar jubilee was held at Des Moines on
September 28, 1878. A long procession, carrying banners, marched through the
streets, headed by a band and a series of floats depicting the progressive
decline of the drunkard. A mass meeting was held at one of the opera houses and
much enthusiasm prevailed. A scheme to disrupt the Blue Ribbon movement was
exposed late in the fall of 1878. It was charged that the scheme originated with
a certain Des Moines clergyman and that it was eagerly adopted by a group of
professional temperance men who saw in the Blue Ribbon movement no opportunity
to further their own ends. The plan selected was the formation of what were
called "Black Ribbon Clubs", which were strictly secret organizations.
Their ostensible object was to
secure prohibitory laws, but the real purpose seems to have been to keep alive
the Prohibition party and thus satisfy the political ambition of its leaders. It
was hoped that many of the Blue Ribbonites would be drawn into this organization
and thus they would be able to sap the strength of a movement which had never
received the approval of the radical Prohibitionists, because it was in no sense
a political movement.
This counter movement does not seem to have had any
decided immediate effect at any rate, for an enthusiastic Blue Ribbon convention
was held at Waterloo on January 15, 1879. There were nearly two hundred
delegates present and the reports given at that time indicate that there were
thirty-eight Reform Clubs in the State. The resolutions expressed opposition to
making temperance a partisan question, but favored every effort to elect
temperance men in the existing parties. Further amendments to the prohibitory
law were recommended and also the rigid enforcement of the law as it then
existed.
The influence of the Blue Ribbon doctrine was felt for
many years, although as a State-wide
movement it soon lost its identity in the agitation for a prohibitory
constitutional amendment.
THE TWO-MILE LIMIT LAW OF 1878
Although an earnest effort was made to
secure the enactment of a law imposing absolute prohibition, the only liquor law
passed by the General Assembly which convened in January, 1878, was one which
was approved March 25. It was "made unlawful for any person by himself, his
agent or employee, directly or indirectly to sell to any person ale, wine, beer
or other malt or vinous liquor within two miles of the corporate limits of any
municipal corporation", with certain exceptions; and furthermore it
prohibited the sale of such liquors "upon the day on which any election is
held under the laws of this state, within two miles of the place where said
election is held. " The power of municipal corporations to "regulate,
prohibit or license the sale of ale, wine and beer" was declared to extend
two miles beyond the corporate limits. This law was generally obeyed without
resistance and was recognized as beneficial by both Prohibitionists and license
men. At some places, however, there was strong objection to it. At Dubuque, for
instance, on election day there were posted in front of many of the saloons
placards bearing the words, "Closed by Updegraff's Two-Mile Law", in
the hope of creating sentiment
against the law.
This act closes the period in the history of liquor
legislation in Iowa which this paper has attempted to discuss. The year 1878
marks the beginning of the movement for a prohibitory constitutional amendment
which will be considered in a subsequent paper.
DAN ELBERT CLARK.
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA
IOWA CITY