PROHIBITION IN IOWA by Elder J. O. Beard

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Sep 17, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 45.

PROHIBITION IN IOWA.

By Elder J. O. Beard

(Continued.)

THE THIRD FAILURE.

DURING all these years prohibition was a leading issue in all State campaigns. Through that and other means the Democrats elected a governor for two terms from January, 1890, to January, 1894. During his administration the efforts at enforcement rapidly declined, for the reasons already given, and also because the governor pardoned a large portion of those who were convicted.

That the law was in many cases a dead letter was evident from the fact that in many towns in the interior, as well as along the borders of the State, open saloons were common. And into other towns liquor was shipped in large quantities, sometimes secretly but often openly. And while the saloon element daily grew bolder, one seldom heard of their trial and conviction.

These statements were easily verified by anyone who was a close observer. The town in which this is written has a population of nearly 3,000. It has no open saloons, but from one who had been engaged in selling liquor it was learned that at six or seven places it was kept for sale, besides four drug stores. Drunken men could be met on the streets almost any day, and yet no effort appeared to be made to prosecute the offenders.

Having twice elected a governor, and almost gained control of the Legislature, the Democrats advocated more boldly than ever their demand for license. The Republican party became alarmed at their loss of power, and last year said:—

The Republicans of Iowa in State convention declare:— That prohibition is no test of Republicanism. The general assembly has given to the State a prohibitory law as strong as any that has ever been enacted by any country. Like any other criminal statute, its retention, modification, or repeal must be determined by the general assembly, elected by and in sympathy with the people, and to it is relegated the subject, to take such action as they may deem just and best in the matter, maintaining the present law in those portions of the State where it is now or can be made efficient, and giving to the localities such methods of controlling and regulating the liquor traffic as will best serve the causes of temperance and morality.—Bedford Times.

As to the meaning of this there was much disagreement. In Prohibition districts it was claimed to be a definite promise to retain the present law, but to provide for a "mulct tax" or some other system of fines that would amount to a high license for the "river counties." But in those river counties it was asserted that it left the whole subject to the Legislature, and if that body thought best it would enact local option or a license law. But all agreed "that prohibition is no test of Republicanism." And it was quite apparent that most of the men would follow party rather than principle. The following, from an independent Republican paper, is to the point:—

Nearly one-half the population of Iowa has been morally opposed to the law, and their influence has been great toward its destruction. . . . The law has suffered at the hands of its enemies and at the hands of its friends. Between these two influences, its friends being divided and its enemies united, the law has well nigh been ground to powder in the great mill of public opinion. The crowning mistake of all on the part of Prohibitionists has been that after all the legislation was enacted, they lay down and went to sleep on their arms.—Daily Iowa Capital.

The people thought if the law was once enacted it would be enforced, like other laws, by the regular police officers. But this the officers would not often do; and if the law was enforced at all, private citizens had to secure evidence, file informations, and appear as prosecutors.

What the outcome will be cannot now be told, but the prospects are not encouraging. The Legislature last winter enacted a "mulct tax." It provides that in cities of five thousand inhabitants, or more, a petition signed by fifty per cent of the voters shall authorize the authorities to issue a permit to sell alcoholic liquors as a beverage. Where the population is less than five thousand, sixty-five per cent must sign the petition. And while the old law is not repealed, yet when it is so stated in the petitions the payment of six hundred dollars "mulct tax" shall bar all prosecutions under the prohibitory law. Besides the six hundred dollars "mulct tax" the city may add what it wishes to for its own revenue. The law has not yet received interpretation by the courts, and as it is very complex, and some of its provisions are peculiar, no safe conclusions can be drawn until it is known what they will say. But it is generally considered as amounting to local option.

There were many who would have preferred to make no change in the law, but they would not step outside of the party lines to support it. For proof many statements like the following could be given:—

Now I conclude the best thing for us to do is to stand by the party that has saved this country and made it what it is, and by so doing we will be serving our country aright.—Hon. Lewis Todhunter, a lifetime Prohibitionist.

I have been a voter in Iowa for thirty-five years, and during that period every vote I have cast, where the saloons have been an issue, has been against them. . . . I do not believe that we, as true temperance people, should be wedded to one plan of liquor control, especially when it has been proven unsuccessful in those localities where regulation and control are most needed. Local option is in a sense prohibition. There is nothing implied in the term that need be feared.—Rev. Moulton, in a "Plea for Local Option," in Red Oak Express.

Ex-Governor William Larrabee led the fight for the change in the plank. He said that personally he was not satisfied with the backdown from prohibition which would be indicated by the plank, even after the adoption of the amendment. He was willing to accept it, however, in the interest of harmony.—St. Joseph, Mo., Herald, Aug. 24, 1894.

That platform will win thousands of votes for Frank Jackson and the Republican State ticket.—Guthrie Co. Guthrian.

But this much is sure; the people, having failed to enforce one of the strongest and most clearly defined prohibitory laws ever enacted, will not be apt to succeed in enforcing a weaker law. And the supporters of the saloon, having forced the adoption of a compromise measure, will work all the more earnestly for still greater freedom. And, further, the same methods of boycotting, bribery, and violence that prevented enforcement of the prohibitory law, will operate just as surely in the nullification of this law.

(Concluded next week.)