p. 693 | PROHIBITION IN IOWA by J. O. Beard

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Sep 10, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 44.

PROHIBITION IN IOWA.

By J. O. Beard

BY ELDER J. O. BEARD.

THE FIRST EFFORT AND ITS FAILURE.

PROHIBITION in Iowa has had a checkered experience. At first the State licensed the sale of liquor. But in 1854 the Legislature passed a prohibitory law, and for three years Iowa tried prohibition. It appears that the law was quite well enforced.

But in 1857 the Legislature was importuned to so modify the law as to permit the sale of ale, wine, and beer. It was claimed at that time that these were not intoxicating, and it is also reported that two or three judges, on the evidence laid before them, declared that they were not. It was further argued that to allow the sale of these "non-intoxicating" drinks would advance the cause of temperance, because they would take the place of the stronger drinks, and would, therefore, decrease the illicit sale of the latter. The Legislature changed the law so that it prohibited the sale of all alcoholic liquors, "except ale, wine, and beer." The sale of these was to be regulated(?) by a license, and anyone, to get a license, must have a good "moral" character.

Of course it was found, as soon as the law was passed, that ale, wine, or beer would intoxicate. And a very little experience also showed that men of good moral character were not the kind that sold liquors, and that those who did sell them, with scarcely an exception, violated both the law and their oaths by secretly selling the stronger drinks.

This continued to be the situation until 1882. It was practically local option, because the rate of license was left to be determined by the local authorities, and could be made prohibitive. The following instance is vouched for personally: In a county seat the license fee had been $500, and there was only one saloon. When the year expired, the city council raised the rate to $3,000. Then the

saloonkeeper built just outside of the city limits. The city extended its corporation limits a mile into the country, and the saloon was closed. But in many other places the license was so low that it was practically free liquor.

THE SECOND EFFORT AND ITS FAILURE.

Finally, at the demand of the people, the Legislatures of 1880 and 1882 voted to submit a prohibitory amendment. This amendment was voted on in June, 1882, the State Constitution requiring amendments to be voted on at a special election in order to make them as free as possible from political influence. The amendment prevailed by a majority of nearly 30,000. As was expected, its enemies began to fight the amendment in the courts, and a test case was soon carried to the Supreme Court. There the liquor faction was defeated at every point but one. It was clearly established in the court that the bill passed in 1892 had two words different from the one passed in 1880. It was not claimed that this change altered, or in any way obscured, the meaning of the amendment. In fact, it was a mere technicality. But on that technicality two out of three of the judges decided to declare it invalid. An amendment, to be valid, must be passed by two successive Legislatures, and then receive a majority of the votes of the people. But, contended these astute judges, the proposed amendment that was passed in 1880 was not the identical amendment that passed the second time, and was voted on by the people, for were not two words different?

This decision threw the question into politics. The Republican party promptly espoused the cause of prohibition, and the Democratic party as promptly took up the opposition. The rallying cry of the latter was "personal liberty." Their position is shown by this plank from their "platform" in 1893:—

We demand, in the interest of true temperance, the passage of a carefully-guarded license tax law, which shall provide for the issuance of license in towns, townships, and municipal corporations of the State, by a vote of the people of such corporations, and which shall provide that for each license an annual tax of $500 be paid into the county treasury, and such further tax as the town, township, or municipal corporation shall prescribe, the proceeds thereof to go to the use of such municipalities. And as a partial reparation for the unjust confiscation of private property caused by the prohibitory law, we favor such legislation as will permit the manufacture of spirituous and vinous liquors within the State, thereby giving to our people at least equal rights in this respect with the manufacturers of other States.—Des Moines Leader.

And this from a eulogy of their candidate for governor the same year:— He has led the people of his State back to Democratic ideas on personal liberty. He is strong because he stood for opposition to all prohibitive, restrictive legislation, either in State or Federal government.—St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

This is their latest official utterance. Yet, with slight changes in the wording, it is what they have said all the time. The election following the defeat of the amendment chose a Legislature almost unanimously Republican, and

THE THIRD EFFORT

was made to secure prohibition. The Legislature did what it had been chosen to do—that is, it enacted a strong prohibitory law. That law, with some changes, mostly new restrictions and increased penalties, has been the Iowa prohibitory law for the last ten years. Its penalties were severe. Each sale of liquor was made a separate indictable offense, and the fines were cumulative, so they could be made very high. The law also required the court to issue a temporary injunction against the sale of liquor in a house. The penalty for violation of this injunction was a fine of not less than $300, and might be a permanent injunction. The latter meant that the sheriff would lock the door with a padlock, and keep the key until satisfactory assurance was given that only legitimate business would be carried on in the building.

For a while the law was reasonably well enforced over most of the State; and associations were formed to secure evidence and conduct prosecutions in parts of the State where the people would not do that work. But there were difficulties at every step. Clubs were organized to import liquor—for the club only, but not for sale. Drug stores sold it in bottles, for medicine, of course, or in their back rooms or cellars. "Holes in the wall" (sometimes in the floor) were made, and in many other ways was the law evaded. One firm sent into the State a model of a book(?) which, when opened, disclosed a pint flask of whisky. But notwithstanding all this illicit selling, many could not get what they wanted to drink. Especially was this true in the interior of the State.

The worst difficulty was in securing evidence that would convict. Drinkers refused to testify to what they drank, or of whom they bought. Prohibitionists were all "spotted" by the violators of the law, and when one of them was in sight, liquor was kept out of sight. Search warrants generally failed to yield satisfactory evidence, and many who would talk and work for a prohibitory law would give neither the time nor money necessary to enforce it. One prominent editor of this class said, "None of us like to sign an information." Yet, as was aptly replied, not "one of these men would hesitate to file an information against a man who set fire to his dwelling, who stole his horse, or committed an assault on his wife or daughter."—Correspondence of Daily Iowa Capital, September, 1893.

While great difficulty was being experienced in this respect, the enemies of the law made it both disagreeable and dangerous for those who ventured to prosecute. Merchants were injured in business, slanderous tales were circulated, and assaults were made privately, and almost publicly. A friend summed up the situation quite clearly in stating his own case. He said:—

I have fought the battle single handed for over four years. Professed prohibitionists would not help secure evidence nor appear as prosecutors. The last conviction I secured cost me $30 out of my own pocket. A man has to be sneaking and almost dishonest in order to get evidence that will convict. Then they egged me, stoned my house, and the insurance company canceled my "policy," because they considered the risk on my property too great for them to carry. So I was forced to give up the fight.

The town where he lived had about 800 inhabitants and 4 open saloons. But they did not stop with egging and stoning. Rev. Haddock was assassinated at Sioux City; a constable in Des Moines was shot by some hidden party, while making an arrest, and the houses of Editor Mahin and two others, at Muscatine, were blown up by bombs. No one was ever punished for these outrages. Arensdorf, the murderer of Rev. Haddock, was acquitted, although the evidence against him was clear and full. But the jury, after declaring him innocent, retired to his brewery and got drunk. In the other cases the perpetrators could not be found.

(To be continued.)