USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume II > Part 24
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
824
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
by the Republicans at Roraback's insistence, placed Rogers at a dis- advantage in a state generally conceded as "wet," and the Republican call for better rural roads did not transcend the appeal of their op- ponents.75
The most grievous error of the Republicans was to make an attack upon Cross himself central to their campaign. Attempts to discount the "pedagogue in politics" by decrying the lack of political experience of "the dear old gentleman down at Yale" were not successful. Neither Roraback nor his lieutenants were a match for Cross in repartee, and he turned the Republican thrusts to his advantage. Cross was able to identify himself with the interests of the farmers in rural areas and those of the laborers in cities without arousing the militant opposition of the guardians of the past. The result was not a revolution, but it was a personal victory for Cross. His majority of about 5,000 was insufficient to elect any other candidates on the Democratic ticket. The victory in- dicated a degree of disenchantment with Rorabackism, an economic climate which called for change, and Cross' personal strength to capital- ize on the errors of his opponents and to identify himself with con- temporary Connecticut.76
Connecticut viewed prohibition, not as a promising experiment, but as an hypothesis which had long since been tried and discarded. In 1854, Connecticut had passed a prohibition law which had proved in- effectual. Governor Dutton, who had signed the law, charged that its failure was due to the temperance men themselves who permitted en- forcement "to go right into the hands of men who did not care a straw for the law, and who made use of it for the purpose of making money." In lieu of state-wide prohibition, Connecticut had developed a local option law under which a town, upon petition of 10 percent of its voters, could vote no more than once a year upon prohibition, choosing absolute prohibition or the sale of spirituous liquors under a licensing system.77 In 1920, there were 2,000 saloons operating under the license plan in approximately 70 towns in which more than 80 percent of the state's population resided.78 If the system were not all that the prohibi- tionists desired, it apparently had the consent of the majority of the citizens.
When the Eighteenth Amendment was formally ratified many in
825
THE BUSINESS MAN'S COMMUNITY
Connecticut considered it foredoomed to failure and a protest was voiced by private citizens and by public officials. The liquor dealers of the state joined the National Association of Liquor Dealers in efforts to have the courts set aside the ratification. The chorus of protest was attributed to the alien, Catholic population which congregated in the cities, many of whom, it was charged, were accustomed to the unre- stricted use of alcoholic stimulants. The part played by the foreign born in this opposition was studied by Constantine Panunzio, who con- cluded that "by and large the foreign born . .. followed the lead of the American community in their practice in regard to prohibition."79 In any case, "Old Yankee" elements concurred and articulated Connect- icut's opposition. The political machinery and the public institutions of the state had remained strongly "Yankee" and it was here that Con- necticut's opposition was most effectively articulated. The press of the state was consistently and strongly opposed; the Assembly refused to ratify the amendment.80
Connecticut framed her opposition to prohibition in terms of the tenets of states' rights and personal liberty and was consistent in her position until the act was repealed. In Connecticut, in 1920, the Demo- cratic platform said the amendment was "an indefensible curtailment of personal liberty," and the Republicans were equally opposed. Gov- ernor Templeton, even as he called for the enforcement of the act, sug- gested that possibly a majority of the people "felt it was an infringement of their personal rights." Lucius Robinson, one of the foremost oppo- nents of the bill, stated in 1933 that fundamentally the fight had been "against the tyranny inherent in an attempt to put a free people into a strait-jacket." Connecticut, always sensitive to the potential encroach- ment of outside influences, saw in the Prohibition Act an intrusion of Federal authority. It was pointed out that police powers were properly vested in the state. The Democrats asked that the Federal government return all the power which it had usurped. When the amendment was finally repealed, Connecticut hailed the action as "returning to the several states their constitutional rights to govern themselves without interference from the Federal government." To the delegates assembled to ratify repeal, Wilbur Cross, then the Democratic Governor, quoted the Republican platform of 1860 on the inviolate rights of the states.81
826
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
During the period of prohibition, Connecticut assumed an official position in support of government by law. Citizens were admonished that "violation of this law must inevitably lead to a breakdown of re- spect for all law and such a situation cannot be tolerated in Connecti- cut."82 Governor after Governor reiterated this warning emphasizing that orderly government required obedience to law.83 Despite the ex- istent disparity between theory and practice, the constitutional position which Connecticut had assumed in regard to this law which was odious to her was clear. In calling for the legislation necessary to insure the enforcement of the act, Governor Lake told the Assembly bluntly "that your ratification of the amendment or your failure to ratify it, has no bearing whatever upon your duty to enact legislation which shall insure the positive enforcement of this act."84
The legislation enacted in 1921 was in accordance with the na- tional Prohibition Act. The definition of spirituous liquors and the search and seizure provision were believed adequate to assure enforce- ment. Additional provisions fixing as an accessory all persons accom- panying those engaged in the transportation of liquor and establishing the possession of five gallons or more of liquor as prima-facie evidence of engaging in trade were regarded favorably by the Anti-Saloon League.85
In Connecticut, enforcement was complicated by the entrenched licensing system. It had been established that fees would be refunded if licenses were surrendered within a certain period. Many dealers held their licenses beyond this period apparently in the expectation that prohibition would not govern in the post-war period. Subsequently, after the expiration of the time allowed, claims for refunds were filed and the matter was brought before the Assembly which granted no re- lief. Apparently while the matter of the license fee refund was at issue and the license still held, even though it lacked legal force, saloons continued to operate. The Anti-Saloon League reported that 2,068 saloons existed in Connecticut when prohibition became effective and that 805 of these had continued and were in operation in 1922.86
Enforcement, it was charged, was hampered by a provision that fines imposed in appealed cases would be paid into the state treasury, whereas those imposed by lower courts would be paid to the town. Since
827
THE BUSINESS MAN'S COMMUNITY
the higher courts in many cases reduced the fines imposed by the lower courts, appeals were encouraged. The threat of potential appeal was a lever by which towns could be coerced into smaller penalties, otherwise they bore the cost of prosecution without recompense.87
The greatest support for the enforcement of prohibition appar- ently came in the first years after the enactment of the measure. The Report of the state police indicated in 1923 that there was a "wide- spread interest" in the enforcement of the laws. In the same year an investigation into court methods and procedures was followed by con- ferences between Chief Justice George M. Wheeler and groups of judges and attorneys and resulted in more vigorous prosecution and greater uniformity in penalties. In March, 1924, the State's Attorney, Hugh M. Alcorn, had subpoenas issued to 20 of Hartford's prominent lawyers and doctors whose names appeared on what was presumed to be a customers' list and these were scathingly denounced by Judge William M. Maltbie for their part in illegal liquor traffic. Both the Federal Prohibition Department and the State of Connecticut reported greater activity in the early period. Seventeen percent of all the arrests made by the state police between July 1923 and June 1924 represented violations of the Prohibition Amendment and this was higher than for other years. Patrick J. O'Sullivan, who, as a Representative from the Fifth District, had introduced bills to legalize beer, was defeated when he ran for reelection in 1924. However, the Assembly in 1925 refused to provide for stronger enforcement of the law. Connecticut would not exceed the enforcement requirements of the Federal Government, but within these limits would prosecute to the extent demanded by the public.88
A precise determination of the effect of prohibition on Connecti- cut life seems indeterminable. Statistics advanced by public officials, the Anti-Saloon League, and others leave many questions unanswered. Case studies made in the cities of Stamford, New Haven, and Hartford and reported to the Association of Organized Family Social Workers indi- cate a marked decrease from 1917 to 1922 in the percentage of the cases of dependency which were caused by intemperance. However, it might be asked whether in a climate of opinion, such as that of 1922, which demanded observance of prohibition, intemperance would be as readily
828
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
reported or as easily discerned as in later years of the decade when legal restraints were generally all but disregarded. All social statistics, in- cluding the percentage of patients admitted to the Connecticut State Hospital for alcoholic psychosis, show a similar trend in the early years of Prohibition, which suggests that to be effective legal restraint must secure a margin of consent. This margin seems not to have been long maintained by the Connecticut populace and as it narrowed adherence was limited to an official acquiescence to the form, but not to the spirit of the law.89
Public support for prohibition all but vanished in the years be- fore its ultimate repeal. Irving Fisher reported in 1930 that many lead- ing citizens "who never before used intoxicating liquors now serve them in their homes as an outspoken protest against the restriction of their social rights."90 Fisher reported that the heads of the insurance companies of Hartford were almost to a man opposed to Prohibition. The faculty and students of Yale registered their opposition. J. H. Barnett reported that in the academic year 1927-28, 35 of some 58 seniors questioned in Connecticut colleges favored repeal. In the same year, he reported, 56 out of 83 principals of Connecticut high schools replied that drinking was not a problem in the social life of the schools and 75 declared that it was of no importance in the discipline of the schools. In 1929, the Anti-Saloon League reported "a decided apathy" in the teaching of the effects of alcohol in the schools. Connecticut, however, apparently was not in the vanguard of the states who were demanding repeal. Barnett found Connecticut seniors less insistent upon repeal, for example, than those of seven other states. True to character, Connecticut struck a middle road. Even as late as 1929 a re- vision which was made in the laws was viewed favorably by the Anti- Saloon League. However, the National Committee on the Enforcement of Prohibition reported in 1931 that the enforcement of the law had almost broken down.91
To the mounting voices of dissent was added the anguish of the depression. The Democratic Party in its convention in 1932 sensed that it was time for a change. It was determined that the Party would stand for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. When Congress modified the Volstead Act, Connecticut acted quickly. At a special election in
829
THE BUSINESS MAN'S COMMUNITY
June 1933, Connecticut approved repeal of the Amendment and selected delegates who met in Hartford on July 11, 1933. The delegates voted unanimously to ratify the Twenty-first Amendment interpreted as re- lieving the people of the state from the hated tyranny which had been imposed.92
=
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
HARTFORD HOSPITAL
Despite a long-standing interest in women's rights which had been expressed in Connecticut, the state failed, when it had the opportunity, to cast the decisive vote to accomplish ratification of the amendment granting suffrage to women. The so-called Susan B. Anthony Amend- ment was approved in 1919 and, by the Spring of 1920, had been rati- fied by 35 states, one short of the two-thirds vote necessary for approval. Twelve states had rejected the amendment and three, Tennessee, Ver-
830
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
mont, and Connecticut, had not acted. If J. Henry Roraback and Gov- ernor Marcus Holcombe had had their way, Connecticut would never have acted. Roraback refused to take seriously the platform of the Re- publican Party which had endorsed the amendment, and Holcomb adamantly refused to call a special session of the Assembly to consider the Amendment. Meanwhile, just prior to the Democratic National Convention, President Wilson appealed to the Governor of Tennessee, who called a special session of the Tennessee Legislature for the early part of August. By that time, it became evident that Governor Holcomb did not represent the will of a majority of the business community or of the General Assembly. The Amendment was finally approved unani- mously by the Senate and by a vote of 216 to 2 in the House in a special session of the Assembly in September, 1920.93
The move for the rights of women had its roots deep in Connecti- cut history. Emma Willard, Almira Phelps, and Catherine Beecher, in the first half of the century, gave an impetus to the emancipation of women which was pursued in the latter half of the century by such leaders as Anna Dickinson, Isabella Beecher Hooker and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. In the twentieth century Katherine Hepburn, Emily Pierson, Katherine Lydington, and M. Toscan Bennet kept the is- sue before the state. Efforts on behalf of women led to their admission to institutions of higher learning and to the professions. The position of women was advanced by legislation which accorded them equal property rights and made them eligible to serve on certain public boards. Nevertheless, the Assembly had turned from the demands for equal suffrage rights in the years from 1867 to 1915. The only conces- sion granted was that of 1893 when women were allowed to vote in the election of school boards. Privileges had followed the demonstration of abilities, especially during the war, in factories and in countless vol- unteer agencies.94
At the end of the decade 26 percent, or 178,368 women as com- pared to 498,924 men, were among the state's gainfully employed. More women continued to be employed in domestic service than in any other occupation, but those in industry were no longer being shunted to the least desirable positions. In 1914, women constituted 40 percent of the labor force engaged in manufacturing and by 1929 they represented
831
THE BUSINESS MAN'S COMMUNITY
only 27 percent of the total. More and more women entered the pro- fessional and semi-professional positions and came to outnumber men almost two to one. Working girls showed a preference for working as typists even though the salaries were lower than for clerks in industry. Women predominated in such areas as teaching and nursing and were being attracted to such fields as architecture and interior decorating.95
When women in large numbers first joined the labor force there resulted a higher standard of living. A continuous rise in prices and relatively constant wages over a period of several years made it almost impossible for a single salary to suffice for a family and motivated women to seek employment.96 As the impact of the depression became more grave, however, questions were raised as to the ethics of a married woman's holding a job and thereby denying employment to a single girl or to a man. Some employers, including the insurance companies, gave preference when hiring women to single persons.97
Despite the number of women among the employed, legislation especially designed for their benefit was limited. The humanitarian argument for shorter hours for women, including evidence of the harm- ful effects of long hours and assertions that a reduction of hours did not reduce the quantity of production, was dismissed by charges that the reformers were not competent in the matters they argued. Alpheus Winter of Bridgeport suggested that, rather than "punish" industry for the ill health of a few "weak women," these should enter domestic service or be supported by charitable contributions such as those to the community chests, which, Winter asserted, were supported by large industry.98 The only advances made were the limitation of the legal work week in mercantile establishments to 50 hours and the extension of the regulation forbidding work after ten o'clock in the evening in industry to billiard halls, bowling alleys, restaurants, and cafes.99
The state had opposed the Federal imposition of Prohibition in the name of individual rights; the state had accepted the Federal enact- ment of women suffrage and had gradually extended opportunities to women in the name of individual rights. Concurrently, a challenge of Connecticut's position on birth control was initiated, and, again, pro- test was framed in terms of economics, health, and finally individual rights.
832
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Connecticut, in 1879, defined its position on birth control in a law patterned on the Federal Comstock Act and similar to acts adopted in many states of the nation. The Comstock Act to suppress obscenity and vice had been passed in 1873 and included literature on contraception and contraceptives as obscenities which could not be imported or dis- tributed through the United States mail service. The Connecticut stat- ute was the most sweeping statute enacted by any state and forbade the dissemination of information on contraception and the distribution and use of contraceptives. The Connecticut law was uncontested for half a century. In the winter of 1922-23 a Connecticut branch of the American Birth Control League was formed and supported the bill in- troduced by Representative Samuel Sisisky to except doctors and nurses from the Connecticut statute governing birth control.101 During the decade the challenges of Connecticut's position focused upon the Assembly. Protest was sustained primarily by the Birth Control League in this period, although the League's efforts were reenforced at the end of the decade by the Congregational churches of Connecticut. The one major and effective opponent to reform was the Roman Catholic Church.
The efforts made in support of the Sisisky Bill by Mrs. Thomas Hepburn and the handful of women in the newly formed Birth Con- trol League in Connecticut were reenforced by the arguments pre- sented by Margaret Sanger, from whose work had grown the national birth control association. It was argued that the bill would reduce the relief burden of the state, alleviate economic conditions among the poor, promote marital harmony, reduce abortion, and provide eugenic benefits. To meet the Catholic charge of immorality, it was argued that the bill violated natural law no more than celibacy. Op- position was led by Bishop John G. Murray of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Hartford, who appealed to the Judiciary Committee's re- spect for morality, religion, patriotism, and motherhood. The Judiciary Committee returned an unfavorable report on the proposed change. This was the fate of similar proposals in 1925 and 1927. In 1925, how- ever, the committee noted that the bill had merit, but concluded that "it was unwise to change the law at the present time." In 1927, a vari- ant reform measure which simply proposed rescission of the existent law, rather than attempting to secure a special authorization for doctors
833
THE BUSINESS MAN'S COMMUNITY
and nurses, received an unfavorable report only by a majority of one vote. In the last session of the Assembly in the decade, the League con- centrated its efforts in support of simple rescission and was supported by the Congregational Churches of Connecticut. In this session the bill reached the floor of the House, where the committee's unfavorable re- port was sustained by a vote of 226-18. Charges that the Connecticut law transgressed upon a physician's responsibility and invaded per- sonal liberties had been added, but did not avail against the Catholic dogma that modification would legalize unpardonable sin against a natural moral law. Dissent continued and received expression in sub- sequent Connecticut history as relief from Connecticut's law was sought in the courts as well as in the Assembly.102
In addition to implementing Federal legislation in the areas of prohibition, women's suffrage, and birth control to achieve a general imposition of controversial conclusions, Connecticut faced, in the post- war decade, continuing social problems in health and welfare, some of which were attendant upon urbanization.
Although a boom in real estate followed the war, housing condi- tions for the industrial worker were not improved. Those with moder- ate incomes, especially salaried employees, sought a plot of land in the semi-urban area where they could build a bungalow, have a garden and chickens and commute to work by trolley or automobile. Those who could not afford the single family dwellings selling for about $5,000 turned to two-family dwellings in town. Investment funds were attracted to apartment house contruction, particularly in the larger cities. With the decrease in domestic service, older couples found in them more comfortable living. For younger married couples, in in- stances where the wife worked, it was a method for decreasing domestic areas and saving money for radios, automobiles, and other consumer goods. Young women, teachers, clerks, and others, flocked to the city to staff its necessary services. With this shift in population groups, invest- ment monies were no longer attracted to the construction of tenement houses. As a result workers were herded into old homes, converted into multiple living units. They stayed until they saved enough money to purchase a home of their own and were followed by successive waves of foreigners and negroes. As owners sought to realize the greatest prof-
834
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
its, such structures went unrepaired and inevitably developed into slum areas where were found children "caked and flaked with dirt" and women who had "dickered away all that was woman" against a back- drop of "rabbit hole shops." State or public housing was renounced as a way of solving the issue and the problem of housing for the wage earner was passed on to vex subsequent generations.103
To relieve the crowded conditions of the cities, certain recrea- tional outlets, such as the new motion pictures, were provided within the metropolis and public parks and forests offered respite. Since 1902, the state had been adding an average of 400 acres a year to its forests. In addition, between 1913 and 1930, the state secured 10,000 acres for recreational purposes. The need for additional recreational facilities was accentuated not only by the increase in population and its concen- tration in the cities, but also by the increasing number of large estates, multiplication of houses on the shore, and the growing tendency of farmers to post their lands against trespassing. A more liberal appro- priation made possible the acquisition of more fishing rights, but many of the state's parks remained unimproved for lack of funds. The most popular spot was Hammonassett, which opened in July, 1920, and which a decade later was attracting 650,000 each year.104
The changes in the routine of daily living were nowhere more evident than when people purchased their daily provisions. The corner grocery and the general store began to vanish. Department stores grew until specialty shops could be found only in the larger cities and there only in decreasing numbers. Millinery shops, for example, all but dis- appeared. Chain stores expanded in size and number so that they were to be found in many new areas. The Atlantic and Pacific and Grand Union were leaders among the food stores; Woolworth and Kresge reigned among their type, while Grant's made headway.105
To care for the defective and the delinquent, the state continued to take over some of the private institutions and to create special insti- tutions of its own. Special institutions for those afflicted with tuber- culosis and those who were mentally ill had been opened in the early years of the century. In 1917 the Mansfield Training School for the epileptic and mentally retarded was established. The state assumed additional responsibility with the purchase of the Mystic Oral School
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.