INTOXICATING LIQUORS

The legislation of Iowa in reference to the sale or keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors, is a disgrace to the state. It may well be doubted whether any law, outside of a law absolutely prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor of any kind or character, would operate to prohibit the evils arising from the use of such liquors. It does not seem to matter how stringent the provisions of a law are made, or how severe the penalties for violating a liquor law are made, it seems that men will violate such laws, and if such liquors are made or manufactured, they will be used as a beverage. The desire to use such liquors is planted in the constitution of men, and so long as this appetite for liquors exist, and they are manufactured, men will find some way to procure them.
In the early history of the county there was no law attempting to limit the right to purchase or sell intoxicating liquors, and as physicians claimed that they were absolutely necessary as a medicine, the validity of a law absolutely prohibiting the manufacture thereof was considered doubtful. But the evils resulting from the use of intoxicating liquors became so glaring and alarming, that quite a large number of the voters of the state began to threaten both of the controlling political parties that if they failed to adopt strong resolutions against the sale of liquors, that this class of voters would vote against their party. In this way they caused the republican party to adopt resolutions in favor of a prohibitory liquor law. This party undertook to redeem its promise to enact prohibitory legislation. It caused the voters at the next election to vote upon a proposed amendment to the constitution, conferring constitutional power on the Legislature to absolutely prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. This vote carried, and Iowa was preparing to enter upon a plan or scheme of absolute prohibition, when the supreme court declared that on account of some informality in the manner in which said vote had been submitted, that the result of such vote was invalid.
In the meantime the question of prohibition became so unpopular that Horace Boles, the democratic candidate for governor, was elected over an ordinary republican majority of more than thirty thousand votes. This result frightened the leaders of the republican party, and they were further frightened by the complaints of the republican Germans in towns and cities located along the Mississippi river, that they must be given the right to manufacture, sell and use their lager beer. The result was that the republican leaders undertook the difficult task of enacting laws whereby the republican Germans might be given the right to manufacture, sell and use lager beer at points and places where the people desired to do so, and at the same time, and by and in the same act, it was declared that the sale of such liquor was criminal in the county and in the small towns and villages where the great majority of the people favored prohibition.
The idea was to pacify the German voters in the large towns and cities, by giving them their lager beer, and at the same time to make their peace with the ultra temperance voters in the country and the small towns and villages, by declaring the sale of all kinds of intoxicating liquors, including wines and lager beer, to be criminal, and fixing their punishment at a fine of at least three hundred dollars. They undertook to effect this result by enacting what was called the "Mullet law." It is evident that this law is contradictory on its face, that it, they first declare that the sale of any kind of liquors, including wines and lager beer to be absolutely criminal, but provide that if the party who is found guilty of selling any liquor or beer, has obtained permission to do so from the county board of supervisors, then he must go scott free. The penalty of his crime will not be enforced against him. It clearly appears that this law is ridiculous on its face, and many lawyers in the state contend that the provisions of the Mullet law, relieving the party from punishment for his violation of the law are invalid, and that the courts would be compelled to hold the same invalid if such a case is presented to them.
Again, the injurious effects of this law are plainly seen, in the fact that it creates disrespect for the law, and men us it for malicious purposes. One man for some reason becomes offended at another, and especially if the other man is a druggist, he awaits an opportunity to commence some criminal proceedings against him for failing to comply with said liquor law, and if he can show that such druggist sold a bottle of lager beer, or in fact any preparation like Jamaica Ginger, containing a certain per cent of alcohol, he can gratify his malicious feeling towards the druggist by causing him to be fined at least three hundred dollars for selling a bottle of beer, or a few ounces of Jamaica Ginger, or any other preparation containing a certain per cent of alcohol.
The result of this legislation is to cause many men to purchase liquors by the gallon and keep it in their cellars, and it also furnish lucrative employment to a class of men called "boot-leggers," who carry around liquors in their pockets and in a valise and sell it. The result is that such vendors of liquors sell a poisonous stuff of positive injury to any person using it. It is true that the sale and use of intoxicating liquors is one of the greatest national evils in existence. Its injurious effects are cast upon wives and innocent children, but there is very little common sense or honesty in the different remedies that have been provided for this evil. The moment that the question enters politics, all hopes of it securing a sensible, reasonable and effective legal remedy is gone. May we not hope that some non-partisan movement may occur whereby the fallacy of the claim that intoxicating liquors is necessary as a medicine will be exposed and the manufacture will be prohibited. Until this is done, the great evil resulting from its use, will continue to curse the people of this country.
Efforts to enforce liquor laws in this county have been spasmodic. The people would endure such evil for a time, and during this time no effort would be made to enforce the law against it. Then upon the commission of some crime arising from its use a wave of reform would pass over the country, and the people for a time would organize to enforce the law, and for a short time liquor sellers would be prosecuted, fined and perhaps placed in jail, but in a short time the people would begin to tire of this crusade against rum, and for a while prosecutions would cease and liquor sellers would be comparatively free from prosecutions.
One bad feature of the law was to permit druggist to sell intoxicating liquors for medicinal purposes and permit physicians to prescribe the same to their patients. The purchasers of liquors were required to file with the druggist a written request to purchase the same for lawful uses, but this provision simply operated as an inducement to the druggist to violate the law. He was permitted to purchase and sell liquors for medicinal purposes. He would and did sell them at from fifty to one hundred per cent above cost. The more he could sell, the more money he would make, and hence the law operated as a standing bribe to the druggists to violate its provisions.
Thus, for years, the people of this county have struggled to find some remedy for this great evil, but as yet their efforts have been in vain.