Chapter XIX About Prohibition
In the month of November, 1889, the democratic party of the state of Iowa, for the first time since the election of Governor Grimes in 1854, succeeded in electing their candidate for governor; to-wit, Horace Boies. This was brought about by a singular combination between the railroad and the saloon interests of the state. I have already given some account of the effect upon the question of prohibition of the foolish policy pursued by the pretended friends of temperance in securing from the supreme court of the state a decision against the right to manufacture alcohol within the limits of the state for the purpose of export, and also the foolishness and wickedness of certain pretended friends of prohibition in instituting fraudulent prosecutions with a view to making costs and fees for their own personal profit. During the administration of Governor Larrabee the railroads of the state had become very restive under the control exercised by the Railroad Commissioners of the state under the law of 1888. In the month of August, 1888, some thirty suits were commenced in the district court of Polk county against the Rock Island, Northwestern, and “Q” railroads for penalties incurred in failure to make their reports to the Commissioners as required by the statute. The railroads of Iowa had become a very potent political power. We had five railroads extending from the Mississippi to the Missouri river, and in every county of the state in which these roads were located the railroads had one or more active attorneys to look after their interests, and under such captaincy as Blythe, of Burlington, and Hubbard, of Cedar Rapids, they exercised a very important influence over the politics of the state, controlling to a large extent the nomination of supreme judges and district judges and other state officers. The people of the state had become restive under the domination of this power. The open and shameless peddling of railroad passes to the members of the general assembly had begun to lose its power as against the rising indignation of the people. In the counties of Lee, Des Moines, Muscatine, Scott, and Dubuque on the Mississippi river, and such interior counties as Johnson and Crawford, with their foreign population, the saloon power of the state, uniting with the railroads, was sufficient to cause a successful revolt against the party in power. Horace Boies, the democratic candidate for governor, openly and shamelessly declared the prohibitory law to be cruel and unjust in its provisions, and his utterances in this behalf encouraged the violators of the law to believe what they afterwards realized, that though the courts might assess penalties, yet an executive who believed the penalty to be unjust could easily be persuaded to exercise pardoning power in their remission, and such was the result. For four years during the administration of Horace Boies the effort to enforce the prohibitory law was almost paralyzed. After incurring all the expense and trouble incident to the conviction of any one violating the prohibitory law, the people had the mortification of seeing the judgments of the courts rendered nugatory by the wrongful exercise of the pardoning power, vested by the constitution in the governor for wise and proper purposes, prostituted by an unscrupulous politician for his own political advancement and that of his party.
Another cause of this successful revolution in the politics of the state arose from the absolute cowardice of the leading republicans of the state in not defending the legislation for which they were responsible. During the candidacy of Boies for his second term, a gentleman who was a candidate on the state ticket for a state office applied to me and asked my consent to publicly discuss the question of prohibition with Mr. Boies in case the state central committee of the party would arrange for such discussion. I gave my consent to such an arrangement, provided the committee would agree to the same, but he afterwards reported to me that the committee did not think it advisable. On the part of the public speakers in behalf of the republican cause the only discussion of the question of prohibition was an apology for the enactment of the law. They did not attempt to discuss the question of right or wrong, but only that the law was enacted because the people by their vote upon the constitutional amendment had signified their approval of prohibition. The result of this cowardice and the four years’ domination of the democratic party had its result in the platform adopted by the republican state convention in the year 1893. Only the year before this the republican state convention had adopted a resolution promising the people of the state that the party would take no backward step on the subject of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and at this convention in 1893 they adopted the following resolution:
Resolved, That prohibition is not a test of republicanism. The general assembly has given to the state a prohibitory law as strong as any that has been enacted in any country. Like any other criminal statute, its retention, mitigation 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 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 other localities such methods of controlling and regulating the liquor traffic as will best serve the cause of temperance and morality.
Under this platform, which merely meant the return of the open licensed saloon to Iowa in such localities in which the people would tolerate them, Mr. A. B. Cummins and his followers were all received back with open arms as prodigal sons and became at once important leaders politically in the republican party. The friends of prohibition were shocked and alarmed at this result and at once the prominent and more courageous prohibitionists of the state joined in a call for an independent republican convention favorable to prohibition. At the solicitation of a number of prohibitionists in the city of Des Moines I prepared the following address and call for a state convention, which address was adopted by a public meeting, held in the city of Des Moines:
When, through the machinations of men who, in their desire for success, have lost sight of principle, causes dear to humanity are about to be sacrificed, it becomes the duty of patriotic citizens to make an organized effort to rescue their imperiled rights.
As republicans we assert our unqualified devotion to the doctrines and principles of the republican party as heretofore set forth in our national platform, and as declared by republican state conventions and put in practical effect in the state of Iowa by republican legislators prior to the meeting of the republican state convention, held at Des Moines on the sixteenth inst. We declare that through the patriotic efforts of the republican party of Iowa prohibition had become the settled policy of the state, and that any attempt on the part of the politicians to induce the party to take a backward step on that question is to repudiate a past honorable record and to uselessly endanger future success by a base imitation of a hitherto despised opposition.
More than forty years ago the people of Iowa without distinction of party declared through the enactment of their general assembly, that the “people of this state would hereafter take no part in the profits of the retail of intoxicating liquors.” This principle was again approved by the people of the state in the adoption of the act of 1855, approved by Governor Grimes, and more recently the people again endorsed the principle by adopting a constitutional amendment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of a beverage. The people of the state of Iowa have never indicated any desire for a change of policy on this question, but on the contrary through the action of their representatives expressly elected upon this issue, they have constantly and consistently adhered to our present law.
The declarations of the recent republican convention have not been brought about by any change of sentiment on the part of the republicans of the state, but in our judgment its action is the result of a combination of politicians who had other and ulterior purposes at heart, and have failed to realize that whatever may have been their own want of convictions upon the question, the great mass of people have been honest and sincere. The honest voters of the republican party are not “clay in the hands of the potter,” to be molded into any fashion that may suit the professional politician. The battle that for the past quarter of a century they have been waging against the liquor power and influence, and in which they have gained so many signal triumphs, has not been prompted by a mere desire for office or place, nor have our forces been kept together by the mere “cohesive power of the hope of public plunder.” Hence if the defeat of 1891 could in any measure have been attributed to the position of the party on the question of prohibition, it would not constitute a valid reason for a shameful surrender and retreat. When the republican party declared for the maintenance of the prohibitory law, and promised that the party would take no backward step on this question, the earnest and honest men of the party did not mean that the party would only pursue that policy so long as it would win, but they meant that prohibition was right and that they would maintain the right, and that they intended to fight it out on that line, not only that summer, but until the saloon should make an unconditional surrender.
We have reasons to believe and do believe that the platform of the convention of the sixteenth inst., on the subject of temperance, was brought about by the same combination of railroad and saloon influence that defeated our party in the election of 1891, aided by the timid and half-hearted defense of our platform through the weakness of our state central committee.
The implied threat of the same combination to repeat their opposition in the approaching election, induced the republican state central committee to unite in accomplishing this surrender. It is said and often repeated that there is no hope for the cause of prohibition except through the success of the republican party. This was undoubtedly true so long as the state platform pledged the party to maintain and enforce the law.
The platform adopted on the sixteenth inst. not only does not promise to maintain prohibition as a state policy, but expressly declares in favor of “something else” in those localities where the prohibitory law was not enforced. This “something else” in the pretended “interest of true temperance” can deceive no man who does not desire to be deceived. It is a base imitation of democratic state platforms, and intends merely the “Schmidt bill” or the “Gatch bill” or some other equally objectionable attempt to abandon prohibition as a principle and as a state policy.
We believe in the sovereignty of the state of Iowa, and in its undivided sovereignty over every foot of territory within its boundaries. We do not believe the general assembly should attempt to exercise the power to make an act criminal in one part of the state and license the same act in another part of the state. The constitution of our state requires that all laws enacted by the general assembly “shall have a uniform operation.” If the state shall concede that the sale of intoxicating liquors may be licensed in one part of the state and saloons may be lawfully established in one city or county, with what consistency can the state punish such acts as criminal when done in another locality within her jurisdiction. The establishment of a saloon for the propagation of drunkenness is either innocent or a criminal act. We recognize no middle ground. We do not believe in compromising with criminals or commuting offenses committed against the best interests of humanity. Neither do we believe the republican party of Iowa can ever survive an act so inconsistent with principle and her former professions, as would be the repeal of our present prohibitory law or the enactment of a license system for any part of the state.
We do not propose or recommend opposition to the election of any candidate for the general assembly on the republican ticket who is in favor of maintaining and enforcing our present law. The election of such is consistent with our past history and policy and will secure a republican United States senator. If, however, any candidate for the general assembly on the republican ticket shall declare for a saloon as against what has heretofore been recognized as republicanism, the responsibility of his defeat, with all its political consequences, will be upon him, and not upon those who are true to their convictions and principles and the past policy of the party.
We, therefore, the republicans of Polk county in mass convention assembled, at the instance and with the coöperation of the republicans of Sac and other counties of the state, who protest and dissent from the action of the state convention of the sixteenth inst., with the view of an organized effort that may save our party from committing the great wrong and outrage attempted, do hereby invite all citizens who agree with us in sentiment and purpose to meet in delegate convention in Calvary Tabernacle at Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday the fifth day of September, A.D. 1893, at 10 A.M., to take such steps and devise such measures as
First. Will secure the election to the general assembly at the November election of such candidates only as will maintain the present prohibitory law.
Second. As will secure such action and such an expression of the will and wishes of the people of the state as will convince the republican managers that the path of honor is the only path of safety.
The call for this convention alarmed the leaders of the republican party in the state, and they were very active in their efforts to counteract its effect. The convention was held according to the call on the 5th of September, 1893, and we had a very large representation and a very enthusiastic convention. We adopted a platform embracing the principles indicated in the call for the convention and nominated a state ticket. Our candidate for Governor, Mr. L. S. Coffin, was not present in the convention, but Doctor Fellows, a prominent prohibitionist of the state, vouched for his entire sympathy with the movement and his acceptance of the nomination. Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, who had been president of the national W.C.T.U., was sent by politicians from Washington, D.C., and was present at the convention, for the purpose, if possible, of alienating such as she could influence from taking part in or endorsing the movement. She seated herself in the gallery over against the chair occupied by the president and scowled and looked vengeance at those who took an active part in its proceedings. When I read the call for the convention before set out she looked for all the world like Tam O’Shanter’s wife when waiting for Tam’s return, “Knitting her brows like a gathering storm and nursing her wrath to keep it warm.” During the recess of the convention she was very busy button-holing first one and then another of the prominent prohibitionists in attendance, taking them to a private parlor in the hotel and laboring with them to convince them that the success of the republican party was more important than the question of prohibition. After our nomination of Coffin as our candidate for Governor, Mr. Lafe Young, editor of the Capital, made a visit to Mr. Coffin at his home at Fort Dodge. Mr. Coffin had prepared his letter of acceptance of our nomination, but Young induced him to cut it in two and change the latter half of it so that it would read a declination of the nomination, and by some means unknown to the public induced Mr. Coffin to take the stump and make a number of speeches on the tariff question during the political canvass that year. By some means unknown also to me, the leading railroad lawyers of the state who had supported Boies were induced to return to their allegiance to the republican party, and the party succeeded in electing Jackson their candidate for governor, and also electing a legislature in sympathy with their saloon platform. The general assembly that met in January, 1894, accordingly passed the act known as the mulct law, being chapter 62 of the laws of the 25th general assembly of the state. This act does not in terms attempt to repeal the prohibitory law then in force in the state. On the contrary, section 16 of the act expressly provides: “Nothing in this act contained, shall be in any way construed to mean that the business of the sale of intoxicating liquors is in any way legalized, nor is the same to be construed in any manner or form as a license, nor shall the assessment or payment of any tax for the sale of liquors as aforesaid, protect the wrongdoer from any penalty now provided by law, except that on conditions hereinafter provided certain penalties may be suspended.”
The next section of the act provides for the circulation of a petition, and by obtaining a certain majority or percentage of the voters to sign a petition to that effect the penalties provided in the prohibitory liquor law shall not be enforced against the offender. Under this law the brewers of St. Louis and Milwaukee employed men to circulate petitions, paying them five dollars a day for their services in obtaining signatures to petitions in certain counties of the state, under which the parties who paid the required tax were secured against any prosecutions for violations of the law. I tried several cases in the district and supreme court of the state for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of this act of the legislature. It placed the pardoning power theretofore exercised by the Governor of the state in the hands of the brewers of Milwaukee and St. Louis and their employees, provided they could by such means as they might adopt, obtain the required number of signatures to such petitions. It clearly recognized that what was a crime under the law in one part of the state, might be committed provided the necessary amount was furnished and paid into the public treasury as a commutation for the offense, and that payment should be made in advance without reference to the number of offenses that might be committed. It was clearly not a law of uniform operations under the decisions of our supreme court as theretofore held, for it was a crime in one city or county in the state and not a crime in another city or county of the state; notwithstanding the law making it a crime was still left in full force and effect, except as it was abrogated in a particular locality by the signing of certain petitions. Strange to say the supreme court of Iowa, notwithstanding their former decisions to which I have heretofore referred, sustained this law and its constitutionality, and under it in all of the counties of the state where we had any considerable foreign population the legalized saloon has returned to do its deadly work and the only compensation for it is that men who call themselves republicans have been able to hold and enjoy the honors of public office. After the decision of our supreme court upon the question of the constitutionality of this act I received from the editors of a law publication east a communication requesting my views and opinions for publication in their law magazine, and I simply wrote upon the letter addressed to me the statement that the decision made by our supreme court under this law was a political necessity and that it was an old and true adage that necessity knew no law, and I had no further comments to make upon it.
Since the prominent part that I took in this canvass of 1893 my standing with the republican party has been rather impaired; nevertheless, subsequently in the campaigns of Mr. Wm. Jennings Bryan involving the national policy of the republican party, I have taken very active part. The free coinage of silver heresy of Mr. Bryan I regarded as a serious menace to the integrity and honor of the nation, and I spent very considerable time and my own private means in making public speeches condemning that wild and visionary scheme. In state politics I have taken no active part since 1894. I never belonged to or coöperated with what has been known as the “Third party” or the prohibition party as a national organization. When the prohibitionists of Iowa united with the national organization I strongly advised against it. I could not see any hope of accomplishing anything by such an organization. The states of Kansas, Iowa, and the Dakotas had become prohibition, and in my judgment the only effectual way of reaching the question of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or the establishment of places of resort for such sale, was by the exercise of the police power of the states in the management of their own domestic affairs. The congress of the United States had no control over the subject, except in the matter of revenue laws or the taxing of the manufacture or sale of liquors. Our courts and the supreme court of the United States had agreed that the payment of taxes under these revenue laws and the issuing of what has been called a license, was really no protection as against the state law and its penalties. The general government does not exercise police power within the state but it may enforce penalties for the violation of revenue laws or enact laws regulating commerce within the states, but it cannot prohibit the establishment of the saloon or the maintenance of such a place merely upon the ground of preserving public order and morality. I could not and never have been able, therefore, to see the propriety of a national organization based upon the idea of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or establishing places of resort for such sale.
Another objection to this third party, the national prohibition party, so-called, has been the adoption of a platform favoring universal suffrage without reference to sex. This also is a question over which the congress of the United States have not heretofore exercised any jurisdiction. The question of suffrage or the right to vote has been a matter peculiarly within the control of each state of the Union and its local constitution and laws, and is not and never has been a matter of national politics. I have always believed and still believe that if the prohibitionists had confined their efforts to the several states, capturing those in which they had some prospect of success, their cause would have grown and become stronger each year. The great centers of population such as New York City, Chicago, Cincinnati, and St. Louis, and such other cities filled as they are with foreign population, who have no sympathy with the manners and customs pertaining to these agricultural states, cannot in my judgment be brought under the control of prohibition at any time during the present or next generation of men, and I regard it as foolish to spend our time and our money in such quixotic efforts. My hope in inaugurating the movement that we made in 1893 was simply to teach the republicans of Iowa the lesson that success politically was not to be attained in this state by subservience to the saloon power, and that defeat in the election of that year might result in a return of the party to its better and higher purposes in maintaining that which was right and just and humane. That we were defeated in that effort at that time was most unfortunate, but the domination of the political power of the saloon, I still have faith to believe, will work its own destruction, and that the people of this state will return to their former convictions.