History of Dakota Territory, volume III, Part 103

Author: Kingsbury, George Washington, 1837-; Smith, George Martin, 1847-1920
Publication date: 1915
Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : S.J. Clarke Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 1146

USA > South Dakota > History of Dakota Territory, volume III > Part 103

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).

"Friends close to both Governor Byrne and Lieutenant-Governor Norbeck, knowing the strong personal friendship that exists between them, know that it is next to impossible that they should be opposed to each other in any way in the 1916 campaign. If it is a fair guess that Norbeck will be a candidate, it is a better guess that Byrne will not. Another reason is that Governor Byrne is believed to have an ambition to represent the state in the United States Senate. The next senatorial campaign comes off in 1918. In the days when the Legis- lature elected the senators, it was quite common for a governor to step out of the state house into the United States Senate. Now he must take his case before

733

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

the people, and would be handicapped in conducting a campaign while governor of the state. It is well known that at the session two years ago which named Sterling senator, Governor Byrne had the senatorship offered him on a platter. He might have been chosen senator while protesting that he did not want it. But he refused to be a party to the fight against Sterling, and made the emphatic declaration which broke the deadlock in Sterling's favor. Therefore he would not, in all likelihood, feel any compunctions about entering the lists at the end of Sterling's six-year term."-Aberdeen American, March 16, 1915.

"At the November election in 1912 there was submitted to the people, under the initiative provision, a primary law, known as the Richards primary law. The people adopted this law by about 25,000 majority. It became the law of the state. At the general election in 1914 another primary law, known as the Coffey law, was submitted to a vote of the people for the purpose of repealing the Richards primary law. This (Coffee) bill was defeated by about 10,000 majority. But notwithstanding the expressed will of the people at the last two general elections, the recent Legislature deliberately repealed the primary law enacted by the people. This action was instigated by the politicians who have a well-known prejudice against Mr. Richards and who desire to retain the spoils system. The Legislature, as a trick, attached the emergency clause denying the people a vote on the measure. Without going into the merits or demerits of either primary law, the potential facts stand out in bold relief, that the Legislature has assumed a higher power than that given to them by the consti- tution or the people. If such an act will be countenanced by the Supreme Court of this state, then the state constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. If the Legislature, a servant of the people, has greater powers than the people, then it is high time a constitutional convention was called to restore at least part of the government to the people, because it has all been usurped by the officials."-Cor. Argus-Leader March, 1915.

"Aberdeen, S. D., April 19. 1915. Hon. R. O. Richards, Huron, S. D., Dear Sir: The undersigned, a few of those, who were active in the promotion, sub- mission and adoption of the initiative and referendum by the amendment of Article 3 of our state constitution, in 1897 and 1898, view with indignation and resentment the attempt being made to substitute the rule of a few for govern- ment by the people.

"In the initial enactment, we were at a disadvantage in not having a prece- dent to guide us. But our intent was very clearly expressed in the text of the addition to Article 3 of our constitution. For failure of the Legislature to enact a law wanted by the people, we provided that 5 per cent of the voters might by petition, propose a measure for enactment by the voters direct, and if adopted it should have the same force and effect as any other constitutional law, and could be amended or repealed by the same method as enacted.

"It would have been ridiculous in the extreme to propose to go to the expense and labor of initiating and conducting a state-wide campaign to enact a law in November by direct vote of the people that a Legislature, elected at the same time, could repeal in the following January. We also provided that the Legis- iature should have the same right to propose direct legislation, but without petition. Any member may propose and if both branches of the Legislature concur, it will be submitted to a direct vote of the people.

734

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

"To discourage the Legislature from enacting unsatisfactory laws, we pro- vided that any measure enacted, except those specially exempted, should in like manner, by petition, be submitted to a vote of the people. To defeat this con- stitutional safeguard, they have resorted to the expedient of adding an emer- gency clause, enacting an untruth and falsely claiming, that it barred a refer- endum, and thus they have practically annulled the constitution.

"Thus the issue has been clearly drawn by the late Legislature in attempting to repeal a law that had been adopted by the direct vote of the people, and attaching a fake emergency clause to the repealing enactment; the avowed object of which was, by subterfuge, to prevent the use of our constitutional right of referendum. A paramount issue in this state has once more been forced upon us. Shall the people of the whole state, or a mere faction of one political party, be supreme? That this issue may be determined at the earliest possible date, and finally settled beyond all question, we request you to press forward for the freedom of the ballot and supremacy of the people, by making a thorough test in our state courts, and federal courts, also, if necessary.

Respectfully, Robert W. Haire, H. L. Loucks, Andrew E. Lee, L. N. Crill, James A. Grant.

CHAPTER XIX

TEMPERANCE

Early in June, 1888, Messrs. Grover, of Huron, and Cranmer, of Ipswich, were elected delegates of the prohibition party of Dakota Territory to the Na- tional Prohibition Convention to be held at Indianapolis the same month of that year. Mrs. P. E. Johnson was elected delegate from the Woman's Christian Tem- perance Union of the territory to accompany them to that convention. In nearly all counties of Dakota Territory where local option had been adopted it had proved largely unsatisfactory, and accordingly, in the fall of 1888, a concerted effort to re-submit the question to the voters was made. In July, 1888, the edi- tors of ten leading papers of what is now South Dakota united in a call for an editorial prohibition convention at Huron on July 9th to arrange for a systematic and sweeping newspaper campaign on behalf of prohibition for which a plank. was planned in the new state constitution.

In June, 1889, the South Dakota prohibitionists organized thoroughly and issued their campaign edicts as follows: (1) To secure the adoption and enforce- ment of constitutional prohibition; (2) to see that this temperance movement should be wholly non-partisan, the members being asked only to vote for candi- dates who favored prohibition; (3) to adopt all honorable means to win success ; the result to depend wholly upon God's grace and pleasure. In July, 1889, the liquor dealers of South Dakota also assembled and perfected an organization for active work against the proposed prohibition plank or clause in the consti- tution. They raised a large sum of money, brought able speakers from outside, and used every endeavor to have the voters defeat the proposed prohibition clause. They called attention to the fact in their circulars that during the years from 1880 to 1885 only six or seven states had adopted prohibition, while from 1885 to 1889 nine states which voted on the same question caused its defeat.

At the Constitutional Convention in Sioux Falls on July 4, 1889, the pro- hibitionists announced with much satisfaction that the prohibition clause had already been adopted by the vote of May 14th of that year, and that it had been made clear by such vote that the measure would be made a clause of the new con- stitution. However, the enabling act provided that this question should be sub- mitted separately to the voters of the state; but the prohibitionists were confident, owing to the results of the May election and of the attitude generally of the peo- ple throughout the state, that the clause even though submitted separately would be carried and become a part of the new constitution. The vote of May 14th was merely to authorize the submission of the constitution, to the vote of the people, and the separate articles were to be submitted at the October election of 1889, at which time all questions were to be voted upon.

735

736

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

During the summer of 1889 large and enthusiastic prohibition meetings were held in all parts of what is now South Dakota. The prohibition advocates raised a large expense fund, secured tents, visited all the thickly settled rural communi- ties as well as the towns and cities, and did everything in their power to kindle interest in the subject and win votes at the October election. Editors in many of the cities were secured to assist the movement through the medium of their papers. Able speakers were brought here from abroad and the brightest minds of South Dakota were placed on the stump to accomplish the result desired. Ex-governor St. John, of Kansas, was here in July. He spoke at Aberdeen and sharply assailed local option, and eloquently predicted victory for constitutional prohibtion in October. The prohibition campaign committee tried to secure Sam Jones and Sam Small to speak forty days during the fall, twice a day on prohibi- tion, to begin August 20th, but were unable to do so. Rev. J. H. Heater, a colored temperance orator, was secured to help the movement. At this time a prohibition periodical called the Bulletin was issued at Yankton under the editorship of Prof. A. F. Bartlett, of Yankton College. It did much to aid the cause at this critical period. During the campaign he printed and sent out 20,000 copies of the paper, and announced that every copy was paid for. At the Democratic State Convention at Huron in September, 1889, a prohibition plank intended for the party platform was voted down after an acrimonious discussion by the delegates. A plank oppos- ing constitutional prohibition was finally adopted amid much confusion and many uncomplimentary personalities. The convention platform favored a well regu- lated license law. The convention declared that prohibition was not a party ques- tion, but was only one of expediency.

During the campaign of 1889 the prohibitionists became arrogant and self- important and threatened to defeat the entire constitution unless the prohibition plank was supported and made successful at the October election. As nearly all residents of the state ardently wanted admittance to the Union many no doubt supported prohibition in order to be sure that no straw would be placed in the way of the election in October.

At the election in October, 1889, prohibition was triumphant. The clause which was voted upon read as follows: "No person or corporation shall manufacture or aid in the manufacture for sale any intoxicating liquor ; no person shall sell or keep for sale as a beverage any intoxicating liquor. The Legislature shall by law prescribe regulations for the enforcement of the provision of this section, and provide suitable and adequate penalties for the violation thereof."

The republican party, previous to the election and at their state convention held in Huron, adopted a plank favoring prohibition. It was thought during the campaign that this might cause members of the party who opposed prohibition to vote the democratic ticket. However, the result of the election showed that the prohibition plank cut no figure in the votes on the other questions. The democrats had predicted all sorts of calamitous results. If the prohibition question had any outside effect it rather seemed to increase the strength of the republican party ticket. The total vote cast in favor of prohibition was 39,608 and against prohibi- tion was 33,456. The constitution received 76,411 in its favor and only 3,247 were cast against it. Minor representation received in its favor 23,309 and against it were cast 45,307. The total vote polled in this constitutional contest was 79,658.

737

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

On October 14, 1889, several praise meetings over the result were held in the state. One assembled in Pierre was largely attended and enthusiastic, the rink being crowded and even the aisles filled. Amid great enthusiasm eloquent speeches were made by Governor Mellette, L. G. Fletcher, Congressman Gifford, Senator Moody, Senator Pettigrew, Attorney-General Dollard, A. Wardall, Judge Edgerton, T. D. Kanouse and others on the splendid start thus far made by the young state in the cause of temperance. Music enlivened and punctuated the brilliant speeches. Similar meetings were held in Sioux Falls, Aberdeen, Water- town, Huron, Vermillion and other cities and villages of the state.

Succeeding the triumphant election of October, 1889, the temperance people of the state strengthened the South Dakota Enforcement League and sent warm congratulations and greetings to the people of the state for the great victory. The non-partisan prohibition organization performed this much and then passed out of existence. The South Dakota Enforcement League took up the work and prepared to see that the prohibition clause was duly enforced. The organization was perfected in Pierre on October 15th and six days later, at a subsequent meet- ing, the following officers were elected : Rev. William Fielder, president ; E. Eng- lish, secretary, and T. H. Kent, treasurer. The object of the new organization, as stated in its circulars and manifestoes, was to strengthen and keep up the spirit and fight against the liquor element which was yet prominent and strong in South Dakota, and to secure a Legislature that would aid the officers of the league and the temperance people generally to enforce the prohibition clause of the con- stitution just adopted. All temperance people were urged to join the organization and assist in the enforcement movement. It was realized that the adoption of the prohibition clause was only the first step in the direction of the desired result, and that the next step was to secure from the Legislature the passage of the necessary enforcement laws. This step proved to be a much more difficult one than had been expected.

In November, 1889, the Enforcement League after mature deliberation decided that it would take no steps, was useless to try to enforce prohibition until the Legislature should fix a penalty for violations of the recently adopted prohibition plank of the constitution. This at once was seen to be a weakness in the move- ment-no penalty for violations had yet been provided. In the meantime the Enforcement League prepared to raise $1,000 with which to enforce such a law as was expected would be passed by the Legislature in January, 1890. In every part of the state the old prohibition league branches were reorganized, recon- structed and made active members of the new organization.

The proclamation of President Harrison in November, 1889, admitting South Dakota to statehood, put the new constitution into effect immediately. Likewise the prohibition clause went into effect at the same time. The whole constitution was made the law when the proclamation was issued, but, as before stated, there was no penalty attached to the prohibition clause until the Legislature should estab- lish one. It was known that the new law would not take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the session, unless passed by a two-thirds majority of all the members elected to each house. Thus the lack of a penalty clause really rendered the prohibition plank of the constitution nugatory until a law fixing a penalty should come into effect. This fact caused great rejoicing among the liquor people throughout the state. They immediately saw that they had the Vol. III-47

738

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

advantage, because they could in all probability run wide open until such a law should be passed and should become operative. The liquor people also believed that if they could postpone the passage of a penalty law by the Legislature, they might in the end succeed in defeating wholly the prohibition clause by the voters of the state.

Thus prohibition at once became one of the most important subjects for con- sideration. There was present a strong delegation of lobby ready to fight for the passage of an enforcement law. Rev. William Fielder was present and had in his possession a bill to this effect, which had been prepared in advance by the State Enforcement League. This bill was extremely drastic and far-reaching in its restrictions, provisions and effects. It provided for regulating the sale of liquor for medicinal, mechanical and scientific purposes; for compensating the wife, child and parents for injuries suffered through the intemperance of relatives; for preventing the dispensation of intoxicants through clubs and associations; for procuring evidence to be used in suits against liquor sellers; and for the annihila- tion of the so-called blind-pigs, holes-in-the-wall and boot-legging saloons. Severe punishment for violation of this law was provided.

In January, 1890, Judge Aiken, of the Second Judicial Circuit, in a case brought before him, decided as had been expected that there was no law in existence in South Dakota by which a violator of the prohibitory clause of the constitution could be punished. This case came before him at Canton. A citizen was enjoined for selling liquor. He disregarded the injunction and continued to sell, and thereupon was arraigned for contempt of court, but upon trial the judge decided that he was not in contempt.

The Enforcement League at once presented their bill providing a penalty for violations of the prohibition clause of the constitution. It was duly introduced in the Legislature in January, 1890, and was simliar in its provisions to one that was then pending before the Legislature in Kansas. Its six objects were: (1) To regulate the sale of liquor for medicinal purposes; (2) to pay families for damages caused by sales of liquor ; (3) to stop the circulation of liquor by clubs ; (4) to procure injunctions and obtain evidence; (5) to force drunkards to tell where they obtained the liquor ; (6) to control the transportation of liquor by rail- ways. About this time Attorney-General Dollard expressed the opinion that vio- lators of the prohibition clause of the constitution were liable for punishment under the laws then existing. This gave great encouragement and delight to the temperance people throughout the state.

Late in January Rev. William Fielder, in an article in a temperance paper, announced that a clause concerning sacrament wine would be placed in the enforcement bill then being considered by the Legislature. He said: "In view of the magnificent service which the reverend gentleman (R. O. Brant) together with hundreds of his countrymen rendered in the recent prohibition campaign and to the end that they might not be inconvenienced in following their conscien- tious convictions in regard to this matter, the friends of the measure cheerfully agree to concede the point to them." Rev. R. O. Brant was a prominent Lutheran minister of Deuel County. The Yankton Press and Dakotan said on January 28, 1890: "The elder does not believe the use of fermented wine for sacramental purposes is authorized by divine law or should be encouraged by profane law, but is willing to outrage his secret opinions that he may pay an election bribe to

739

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

Rev. R. O. Brant and his followers. Bishop Hare's appeal in behalf of another denomination would have gone unheeded, because Elder Fielder does not know that Bishop Hare and the Episcopalians voted for the prohibition clause."

Governor Mellette, who had been present at the Republican State Convention in 1890, openly announced himself in favor of prohibition. As a matter of fact, Major Pickler was elected to Congress as a prohibitionist. All non-partisan democrats and republicans alike were treated as if they were prohibitionists by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union at the Chicago National Convention this year. Miss Willard presided on this occasion and protested in a strong speech against the proposed non-partisan amendment to the constitution of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Her views were opposed by all the dele- gates present who favored a non-partisan course. At the convention Mrs. Barker, in order to be heard amid the great confusion, went so far as to stand on a chair and state her views at the top of her voice. She, like Miss Willard, believed that both politics and suffrage could be, and should be, made to aid the cause of temperance. Hence both opposed non-partisan action. At this convention Sen- ators Allison and Quay and Hon. J. S. Clarkson were severely reproved by the delegates for their objectionable attitude on the prohibition question.

Early in March, 1890, both houses of the Legislature, after due consideration and brilliant debate, passed the enforcement bill and authorized that it should go into effect April Ist. The House agreed to the Senate amendments, but imme- diately after the passage of the measure there was introduced in the House a supplement to the law.

The prohibitionists at this time did not take a position that was altogether satisfactory to many people in the state. During the campaign of 1889 they had conducted their proceedings with a high hand, had invaded politics, had threat- ened and domineered, and had used every practical method which politicians adopt to win at the polls. They did not hesitate, as before stated, to threaten the life of the constitution itself in case their demands were not granted and their purposes upheld. This attitude was regarded by many as no better than the bull- dozing and domineering tactics employed so often and so successfully during political campaigns. A considerable number of people throughout the state who were in favor generally of temperance, opposed therefore the high-handed and domineering tactics of the prohibition movement. Bishop Hare in the Church News of March, 1890, said, "What I would dwell upon is the ominous fact that his disdainful and supercilious conduct largely marks the course of the prohibi- tion movement. Excellent as some of its advocates are, the movement has become self-righteous and pharasaical. It looks askance at every one who does not wear a coat cut after its fashion, and points him out as a target for the back-biter. Honest Christian men who would be brethren and fellow workers in the cause of temperance are flung off as enemies, or worse, as traitors. With them the temperance man, unless he be a teetotaler, is as bad as an inebriate. And the advocate of high license is denounced as worse than a saloon keeper. It is for- gotten that our Lord rebuked those who reported to him, 'We found one casting out devils in thy name and we forbade him because he followed not us.'" The bishop further said, "In my opinion the bill in question is unworthy of a free, straightforward people. It is essentially levitical and non-Christian. It is apron- string legislation. It undertakes to treat all persons as though they were chil-

740

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

dren. Besides it is inquisitorial and particular. The legislation regarding an article which in one shape or another, for one reason or another, men will have, and its stringent provisions, will drive them to get it by equivocation and by tricks and evasions. Under its operation subterfuges will abound. There will be no way of blocking one's self against the powerful and intolerant majority than by equivocation and circumvention. Intended to make men sober, this law will tend to make them liars. Drunkards are loathsome, but more hateful still are a people who, deprived of their liberty, have become cowardly, secretive and false." This was the attitude of the whole Episcopal Church. Probably the atti- tude of the church was caused by the course of the prohibition movement against wine at the sacrament. However, there was a general feeling much of the same character that was entertained by many other people than Episcopalians through- out the state. It was not so much what was at stake as it was the intolerant, domineering and self-righteous attitude of the prohibition movement at this time.

In the spring of 1890 saloons generally throughout the state, regardless of all laws or absence of laws, conducted their business wide open. At Deadwood for a time there was no pretense at closing the saloon doors. Accordingly the temperance people assembled in large numbers in mass meeting for the organiza- tion of an enforcement league branch. E. W. Martin, a member of the State Constitutional Convention at large, presided. The organization was effected with a total membership of twenty-six. It was concluded to commence a vigorous campaign against the sale of liquor, but they soon found that there were many obstacles in their way. There was the original package subterfuge. This was used as a pretense to introduce large quantities of liquor into the citites of the state. A general system of evasion and deception was practiced brazenly and with immunity at this time. Many saloons where opposition was encountered filled liquor bottles with soda water and other light drinks and displayed the same in windows, but their intention was soon well understood by the temperance people. The Enforcement League generally opposed the original package. In other places, as for instance Sioux Falls, where the open selling of liquor over the bar was violently opposed, the sale was accomplished ostensibly in original packages under certain legal conditions. The same situation prevailed in Aber- deen. In several places public opinion was so strong against the saloons that the open saloons were closed, open treating was abolished; but still liquor continued to be sold in large quantities in original packages. In this emergency the En- forcement League enjoined several large liquor houses from disposing of liquor in original packages. This occurred at Aberdeen and required many months before the subject was settled, if it was settled at all. Finally such places became called "original packages" instead of saloons.

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.

History of Dakota Territory, volume III, Part 103

Author: Kingsbury, George Washington, 1837-; Smith, George Martin, 1847-1920 Publication date: 1915 Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : S.J. Clarke Publishing Company Number of Pages: 1146

Author: Kingsbury, George Washington, 1837-; Smith, George Martin, 1847-1920
Publication date: 1915
Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : S.J. Clarke Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 1146