History of Dakota Territory, volume III, Part 105

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 105

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).

At a union service meeting held about this time by the Ministers' Association of Sioux Falls they stated their belief that enforcement in Sioux Falls would be a difficult measure to put into effect. Bishop Hare stated that he was not a prohibitionist and declared that the present campaign against liquor was of no use. Reverends Meredith and Walsh led the crusade against the liquor men in Sioux Falls in the summer of 1893. A petition was prepared and presented to the attorney general asking that State Attorney J. R. Bailey be instructed to take no further action to execute the enforcement law.

In January, 1895, Mrs. Cranmer, Mrs. Simmons and other prominent mem- bers of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, earnestly and vigorously op- posed the proposition of resubmission. Strange as it may seem many saloon keepers and wholesale liquor dealers likewise opposed resubmission, because their net profits under the existing conditions were known to be greater than they could possibly be under the proposed license law. The Val Blatz Brewing Com- pany and the Pabst Brewing Company both opposed resubmission. They believed

748

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

that should license succeed, it would mean grave injury to their business. All owners of drug stores and all wholesale and retail liquor dealers accordingly did all they could against resubmission. They desired to continue as they had been doing business and were opposed to license. It was known at this time that the state government had granted in the district east of the Missouri River a total of 1,100 liquor licenses. As there were but about two hundred drug stores in that section, it was realized that there must be 900 blind-pigs or saloons. Saloons . at this time were running wide open with no concealment or hindrance as they seemed to have nothing to fear. Mrs. Cranmer and Mrs. Simmons worked for a law that would take the sale of liquor from druggists and permit all sales to be made by state agents appointed for the purpose. This action was taken because they believed it would prevent drunkenness and because they did not believe that prohibition could be enforced.

Early in January both houses were deeply immersed in the consideration of the resubmission question under the spur of the lobbies for and against that move- ment. On a test vote in the House forty-nine favored resubmission and thirty- one opposed it. About the same time the Senate showed a decided majority for resubmission. Thus it appeared at this time that the wishes and demands of the liquor element for the resubmission of the question to the voters of the state would triumph. With this Legislature as with the former ones, but even more so now, the question of economy was of preponderating importance owing largely to the hard times that, it was believed, would result from the Taylor defalcation. At this session also, there were proposed many amendments to the constitution. All were discussed and analyzed, but nearly all were defeated in the end. This Legislature was petitioned by thirty-one counties, with a total of 6,000 names, which asked that the prohibition clause of the constitution be not resubmitted. In spite of this lengthy and impressive petition, the Senate almost immediately thereafter voted in favor of resubmission by twenty-six for and seventeen against. This was the testing or preliminary vote after a stormy session of two and one- half hours, during which all sides of the question were considered, discussed and torn to tatters. On final vote the Senate stood-for resubmission twenty-four, against it nineteen.

In October, 1895, at a conference of prohibitionists at Huron it was decided to place a full prohibition ticket in the political field in 1896. A. considerable expense fund was raised and measures to secure strong speakers from outside of the state to assist in the movement as well as to place on the stump the ablest friends prohibition had in South Dakota, were put in operation.

In January, 1896, there were in the state east of the Missouri River 1,400 liquor licenses. Of this number only a comparatively few were saloons, the largest number being drug stores which dispensed liquor in bottle to any person who had the money.

In April, 1896, the prohibition district convention was held at Yankton. George S. Evans delivered the opening address. Present were Prof. J. E. Todd, of the University, who discussed the subject "The Saloon versus the School;" Mrs. Luella Ramsey, of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, addressed® the convention on the work of the Union; A. E. Turner delivered a strong speech on the subject "Saloons versus Business;" W. D. McMullen spoke on the sub- ject "The Saloon Always a Destroyer;" Dr. T. M. Williams delivered an able

749

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

address on the subject "Ammunition of Our Foe;" H. R. Warren spoke on the subject "The Saloon in Politics;" Col. C. J. Holt delivered an address on the subject "Ten Dollars and Costs." This convention resolved that prohibition was the best means to annihilate the liquor traffic and that inaction to enforce it was a crime. The convention further endorsed the object and work of the non-partisan prohibition convention of South Dakota and the action and course of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

In May, 1896, the Bankers and Business Men's Association of Sioux Falls prepared to fight the prohibitory law during the fall campaign and during the summer continued to enroll members until they had a large following. Nearly all the business men and bankers of that city signed their names to this agree- ment. They formed personal rights leagues throughout the state and carried on a vigorous educational campaign, and in doing this published statistics which they sent out in circulars.

The Non-Partisan Prohibition Union at the state convention held at Madison, July 6 and 7, 1896, issued the following address to the people of the state: "The people of South Dakota have three times voted upon the questions of the prohi- bition of the saloon: Twice at the general elections and once by counties. Each time the result has been in favor of prohibition, culminating in 1889 in the handsome majority of 6,053. This vote placed the principle in our constitution, and gave us our present prohibitory law. These several votes prove the settled conviction of our people that the liquor saloon ought to be suppressed. All good citizens, irrespective of their private opinions upon the liquor problem, must insist that the will of the majority, so often expressed at the ballot-box, should be implicitly obeyed. To admit the doctrine or practice of repudiation of that will, is to strike a deadly blow at the most fundamental principle of this free govern- ment.

The liquor traffic, true to its nature, has utterly set at naught the right of the majority to rule. Bribes, corrupt alliances, and open defiance of the law have marked its course in every detail, from the days of the whisky rebellion sup- pressed by Washington down to the present time. Owing to its great resources and compact organization it has to some extent prevailed in its rebellion against the people, and has finally thrust upon us again the issue three times previously decided at the ballot-box. The re-opening of this issue was not done, as has been pretended, in response to the popular demand, but at the instigation of those who were in a criminal relation to the law, and hence always with it. We must vote in .November next upon the question whether the principle of prohibition shall be maintained in South Dakota, or whether we shall submit to the domina- tion of that insolent, rebellious and utterly polluted and corrupting institution, the legalized saloon. We believe the answer this year will be the most decisive yet. Instead of a majority of 6,000 it is within our power to make the majority of 1,896 more than three times that sum. To this end we wish to call attention to some very important things :

I. A decisive majority will settle the matter for years, perhaps forever, in our state.

2. Such a majority will place the people at a great advantage in asking for and securing the improvements so greatly needed in our prohibitory law.

750

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

3. The utterly evil character of the saloon is universally confessed. Men have agreed upon prohibition as the method by which to deal with theft, murder, prostitution, gambling, lotteries, slavery, and all other things destructive to society. They are fast coming to apply the same principle to the saloon.

4. Having established the principle of prohibition, it is folly for the state to now surrender to its most destructive foe.

5. Prohibitory laws are as easily enforced as any upon our statute books. For proof of this we need but cite the facts that scores of South Dakota towns, and, elsewhere, several millions of our American citizens, now enjoy blessed immunity from the blighting presence of the saloon.

6. We call attention to the morally degraded and lawless class of men who conduct saloons. Being of such a character it is not strange that they have inso- lently resisted the people's will. The people cannot afford to yield to the dicta- tion of such men.

7. License laws have never been effective in reducing the evils that result from the saloon. The proof of this is overwhelming. Even so astute a liquor organ as the Wine and Spirit Gazette declares that "the men who favor high licenses as a temperance measure are either hypocrites or fools."

8. Our crusade is in no sense hostile to true personal liberty. While we may think it unwise for men to drink intoxicants at all, our laws do not forbid their doing so, but even seek to provide for all cases where the use of such elements is compatible with public safety.

9. The plea that prohibition must be abandoned because not universally en- forced is not defensible. Such reasoning would require abandonment of every principle the wisdom of God or man has yet expressed in law.

IO. If the saloon is right and safe, it ought never to be subjected to special burdens, nor favored with peculiar privileges; neither, in that case, should men at large be denied the privileges license propose to confer upon a very few. If the saloon is wrong, it should never be shielded and made respectable by law.

II. The seductive plea that a revenue may be had from the saloon is meant only for men defective in moral and patriotic sentiments, and for those who do not reflect. Such a thing is repugnant to that law of God that society no less than individuals must obey to escape disaster. All students of economics agree that the damage to productive industry, and the others that result from the saloon, are many times greater than all the revenues.

Finally, there is absolutely no issue before the people, or duty devolving upon good citizens, that takes precedence of the persistent outlawing and speedy exter- mination of the saloon. As we look for the continued favor of Almighty God, we must pay heed to his just and righteous law.

We exhort all good citizens, laying aside every partisan prejudice, to rise to the supreme duty of the hour, and use every honorable effort to maintain our present constitutional prohibition .- August 14, 1896.

In August, 1896, the Supreme Court dismissed the case of South Dakota ex rel. S. H. Cranmer vs. Thomas Thorson, and gave the defendant judgment for costs against the relator. This decision permitted the question of a prohibitory amendment to go to the people at the November election, 1896. This was a test case and was backed by the prohibitionists of the state. They endeavored to pre- vent a vote on the question this fall. Therefore the decision was considered a

751

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

victory for the anti-prohibitionists. The decision of the court was based upon the ground that it had no authority to interefere until the full act of legislation had been completed by the action of the people at the polls in November; that the Legislature had the power to submit any question to the people whether it was a constitutional question or not and that the people had the right to pass upon the question thus submitted. The people of the state were much concerned over this proceeding. It was a step to secure a temporary injunction to restrain Secretary of State Thorson from certifying to the county auditors the question of resubmit- ting the prohibitory amendment.

In the fall of 1896 the prohibitionists engaged in a quiet warfare against the saloons and the repeal of prohibition. Injunctions against many saloons in the principal cities were served, but the sale of liquor was continued in most instances by being removed to other buildings. At this time it was considered by many that the prohibitory law as it existed in the statutes was pretty much of a failure. It could not be enforced, or was not. In only a comparatively few places was pro- hibition really enforced. At this time there were in Sioux Falls twenty saloons, in Yankton twenty-two and in Scotland about twelve. In both Yankton and Sioux Falls beer was manufactured, Yankton having two breweries and Sioux Falls one. This beer was sold throughout the state. In the larger towns a license fee was collected monthly, $1 per day being the regulation assessment; but in smaller towns the liquor dealer paid nothing and took his chances of being indicted by the grand jury.

In October, 1896, the Non-Partisan Prohibition Union held a two days' ses- sion at Miller. The old organization was disbanded and a new association called the Anti-Saloon League was formed. The first officers were: President, Rev. T. E. Carhart, Elk Point ; vice president, I. A. Ramsey, of Woonsocket ; secretary, S. F. Huntley, of Wessington Springs ; treasurer, W. H. Robertson. The league proposed at once to take up the fight where the old organization had left it. The league prepared to test the matter of the legality of the election for the constitu- tional amendment concerning prohibition before the Supreme Court. The league maintained that the proposed amendment was not submitted in such a manner. that the people could vote intelligently on the proposition.

The vote on the repeal of the prohibitory amendment at the November elec- tion, 1896, showed a majority in the state of 8,100 in favor of the repeal. Of this number 3,626 came from the three counties of Hutchinson, Lawrence and Yank- ton. These three counties alone gave 1,045 more majority in favor of repeal than all the counties which gave majorities against repeal combined gave in favor of the continuation of the law. The highest majority against repeal in any one county was 846 in Brookings. The counties which voted in favor of retaining the old law were Brookings, Clay, Deuel, Edmunds, Faulk, Hamlin, Hand, Hyde, Jerauld, Kingsbury, Lincoln, Marshall, Miner, Moody, Roberts, Sanborn, Spink and Sully. At this election there were cast a total of 57,722 votes on the question of prohibition. This was about 70 per cent of the whole vote cast.

In January, 1897, there was a strong contest in the Legislature and through- out the state in regard to the pending bill to regulate the traffic in intoxicating liquors. The temperance people were represented by a powerful lobby, with a large fund for expenses ; and a stringent liquor law prepared by them was intro- duced. It resembled the South Carolina Dispensary System which provided for

752

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

the appointment by the governor of five state controllers who were empowered to appoint a state commissioner or inspector. The law further provided for county controllers with ample powers. At this time the South Dakota license was $300, one-half of which went to the county and the other half to the state. The wholesale beer license was $600; the wholesale whiskey and brandy license was $1,000.

The high license bill grew in favor with the Legislature as time passed and its measures were considered. It planned to regulate the license, manufacture and sale of spirituous, malt and vinous liquors under rigid rules and a high license. Governor Lee said that at the last election the people had seen fit to vote against the prohibition plank of the constitution, had really voted in favor of resubmis- sion, and now it was incumbent upon the Legislature to comply with the demands of the people as expressed at the polls. It was not a party question, the governor declared, but all men were free to do in the matter what they thought best regard- less of party lines and restrictions. It was soon believed by the Legislature that high license was wiser than any other measure that could be adopted. At first it seemed that Governor Lee would veto the bill, owing to the fact that no part of the license money was to be paid to the state. The people had just voted down the prohibition clause, so that now all the Legislature and the governor could do was to adopt license in the best form practicable, and dispose of the license money to the best advantage of the counties and the state. This change was made, the bill finally passed and was signed at once by the governor.

The passage by the Legislature of 1897 of the combined dispensary and high license law quieted temperance matters until the summer and fall of 1898 when the friends and enemies of the measure began campaigns of education to inform the people of the state in regard to the designs of the law. The merits and demerits of the bill were fully discussed, and at the election in November it was duly carried. It was now the duty of the Legislature to put it into effect. Instead of doing this, however, that body, on March 2, 1899, killed the measure by a sub- stantial majority, thus restoring the old conditions regardless of the will of the people as expressed at the polls. It was openly charged that the measure was defeated through purchase or graft. The conflict over the bill in the Senate was violent, and personal encounters in several instances were narrowly averted. The friends of the measure were greatly disappointed at the outcome. For many months they had labored and fought with all the power, money and influence they could command, and had finally carried the battle to the lobby chambers of the capital. But the enemy was too strong, too well armed, and too skillful in the warfare, and so victory went to the opposing element. It was contended that the state had no fund to be used in executing a dispensary law, because it could not exceed the two mills tax provided in the constitution. This claim was ridiculed unstintedly by many newspapers and speakers throughout the state. It resulted in agitating a movement for a constitutional amendment to increase the regular tax above two mills. The failure to pass the law left the state with the dispensary amendment to the constitution, but with no way to enforce it. The Legislature failed absolutely to carry out the wishes of the voters at the polls. Thus the old irregular liquor license measures continued in vogue. The matter really was left wholly to the liquor men themselves.

753

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

In September, 1899, in an important case before Judge Corson, of the Supreme Court, it was held that the liquor license law was in full force and effect, and was in no way affected by the dispensary amendment adopted by the people in Novem- ber, 1898.

"It is very apparent from a mere inspection of the license law that it is merely a restrictive measure and suitable provisions are set forth in the act for sales of intoxicating liquor without complying with certain conditions. Any sales made without first having procured a license would be sales in violation of law. Such sales would also be in violation of article 27 of the state constitution adopted at the last general election. It would also seem clear that the penalties provided for the violation of the license laws are not in conflict with the provisions of the amendment to the constitution. It is true that in a moral sense license should only issue to sell intoxicating liquors for medical, scientific and mechanical purposes ; but penalties should not attach to sales made under such licenses unless they were made in violation of the provisions of the law. It does not seem to me that it would be unlawful for the counties to receive license money. The Legislature has not prescribed regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of article 27 of the constitution as authorized by section 2 of such amendment, and hence there is no provision of law for the enforcement of the amendment and until the Leg- islature has passed some kind of a dispensary law the provisions of chapter 72 of the session laws of 1897 will still continue in force for all practical purposes." -John L. Pyle, Attorney-General, March 9, 1899.

In June, 1899, Judge Moore, of Deadwood, in a case before him, held that there was no liquor law in force in the state and that no license need be paid until a new law or an amendment to one should be passed by the Legislature. This decision was broad and far reaching, and in effect gave the liquor dealers an opportunity to open and do business without securing a license. Scores of saloons throughout the state, therefore, refused to pay license and numerous suits were instituted against them. In Lawrence County, owing mainly to this decision, nine saloons only out of forty-eight took out licenses. Many other cities showed the same conditions of things at this time.

In 1900 and 1901 the Anti-Saloon League organized and conducted a stirring campaign against the existing conditions of liquor dealing in this state. They issued a newspaper called the State Issue, with Rev. A. E. Carhart as editor, who conducted the paper until January, 1901, and then retired. He openly stated that the paper did not help the movement, as the information contained therein con- stantly unmasked the position of the temperance people to the common enemy. During the year 1900 the league collected a total of $4,203.96 and paid out $4,140.84. At the close of the year the league owed Mr. Carhart $400 and Rev. J. C. Thomas, for field work, $325. As assets they had about $2,000 due from sub- scribers. During the year 1901 the league continued to circulate the State Issue which served as the organ of the league to disseminate information concerning the temperance movement and concerning the evil effects caused by the saloons. Many local temperance societies in different parts of the state took active part in the campaign and flourished this year. The South Dakota Scandinavian Total Abstinence Association was a power in the eastern part of the state. At their meeting held in Webster in July, L. Lewis, of Lake County, was chosen president. This was an enthusiastic and well attended meeting at which resolutions to continue the fight to the finish were passed. Vol. III-48

754

SOUTH DAKOTA: ITS HISTORY AND ITS PEOPLE

The friends of temperance began a stirring campaign in the fall of 1900 for a general law to regulate, restrict and control the sale of liquor. They centered their efforts in securing men for the Legislature who were pledged to carry out the reforms wanted. Evidently they succeeded in their plans, because the Legislature of 1901 passed a general liquor license law, one ever severer and more rigid in its restrictions than had been expected by the friends of the measure. As prohi- bition was gone, temperance people wanted the next best measure, and were divided among themselves as to what was best. In this state of uncertainty they were willing to accept a high license law. Early in 1901 a druggist of Meckling received a notice from the women of the local Woman's Christian Temperance Union informing him that if he did not at once remove or destroy all the liquors in his store they would do so together with the furniture, fixtures, etc. The women were led by Mrs. C. N. Taylor. The druggist promptly took all his liquors, worth about two hundred dollars, and poured them into the gutter while the women joyously watched the proceeding and sang hymns of praise.

The Good Templars in the southeastern corner of the state met at Sioux Falls in March, 1901, to perfect a district organization. It was decided to hold districts meetings every three months. The counties concerned were Yankton, Union, Clay, Turner, Lincoln, McCook and Minnehaha. Major Carpenter, of Watertown, Grand Chief Templar of the state, was present and assisted in organ- izing the new district lodge.

By 1902 it had been learned that the general license law of 1901, while satis- factory as far as retailers were concerned, did not possess a proper and efficient grasp or hold upon wholesalers. Accordingly at the legislative session of 1903 pressure was brought to bear upon the members, but in spite of all efforts the pro- posed wholesale liquor bill was defeated.

The South Dakota Anti-Saloon League remained passive in the spring of 1903 and did little or nothing toward effective work. However, soon afterwards, the league secured the services of Rev. Herbert E. Frohock, of New York, to superintend the proposed new movement. The inactivity at this time was partly due to the suspension of work by Rev. A. E. Carhart who had been called to other duties. The state paper of the organization had likewise been discontinued, but in the summer of 1903 it was decided to revive the issue and use it as an assistant in the fall campaign on the temperance issue.

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 105

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