PROHIBITION
One of the things for which the Wilson Administration was held to "strict
accountability" was the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal
Constitution, establishing nation-wide prohibition.
Unfair critics of the President, in their foolish attempt to charge the
Administration with every unusual happening in the eight years of
Democratic control, had stated that the President was the real motive
force that lay back of the movement to establish the Eighteenth Amendment
as part of the fundamental law of the country. As a matter of fact, during
the discussion of this amendment in the Senate and House, the President
maintained toward it an attitude of absolute neutrality. While he was an
ardent advocate of temperance, he felt that Congress in enforcing the
amendment by the passage of the Volstead Act, so extreme and unreasonable
in character, had gone a long way toward alienating the support of every
temperance-loving citizen in the country, and that certain of its
provisions had struck at the foundation of our government by its arbitrary
interference with personal liberty and freedom. He felt that the practical
unanimity with which the Eighteenth Amendment was supported arose from a
nation-wide resentment against abuses by the American saloon and the
economic evils that had grown out of the unorganized liquor traffic. He
felt that it was unreasonable for Congress, in the Volstead Act, to
declare any beverage containing an excess of one half of one per cent. of
alcohol intoxicating and that to frame a law which arbitrarily places
intoxicating and non-intoxicating beverages within the same classification
was openly to invite mental resentment against it. He was of the opinion
that it required no compromise or weakening of the Eighteenth Amendment in
order to deal justly and fairly with the serious protests that followed
the enactment into law of the Volstead Act. He was, therefore, in favour
of permitting the manufacture and sale, under proper governmental
regulations, of light wines and beers, which action in his opinion would
make it much easier to enforce the amendment in its essential particulars
and would help to end the illicit traffic in liquor which the Volstead Act
fostered by its very severity. This would put back of the enforcement of
the Eighteenth Amendment the public sentiment always necessary to the
execution of laws. Satisfied with a reasonable recognition of their rights
to personal liberty and control of their personal habits, he believed that
the American people would be the readier to turn their attention to the
grave issues of reconstruction and steadier in meeting these issues which
would test to the utmost our capacity for progressive self-government.
Time and time again when we discussed the Volstead Act, he would say: "The
wrong way of doing the right thing. You cannot regulate the morals and
habits of a great cosmopolitan people by placing unreasonable restrictions
upon their liberty and freedom. All such attempts can only end in failure
and disappointment. In the last analysis, in these matters that seek to
regulate personal habits and customs, public opinion is the great
regulator."
In New Jersey, where he served as governor, the liquor question had been
for many years a burning issue and had been thrust into every
gubernatorial campaign up to the time when Woodrow Wilson as governor took
hold of the situation. Many political futures had been wrecked and wasted
by ambitious politicians who tried to "pussyfoot" on this issue. But there
was no shying away from it by Woodrow Wilson. When the question was
presented to him by the ardent advocates of the Anti-Saloon League early
in his administration as governor, without evasion of any kind, he stated
his views in the following letter addressed to the head of the Anti-Saloon
League:
Executive Office,
Trenton, New Jersey.
I am in favour of local option. I am a thorough believer in local
self-government and believe that every self-governing community which
constitutes a social unit should have the right to control the matter
of the regulation or the withholding of licenses.
But the questions involved are social and moral, not political, and
are not susceptible of being made parts of a party programme. Whenever
they have been made the subject matter of party contests, they have
cut the lines of party organization and party action athwart, to the
utter confusion of political action in every other field. They have
thrown every other question, however important, into the background
and have made constructive party action impossible for long years
together.
So far as I am myself concerned, therefore, I can never consent to
have the question of local option made an issue between political
parties in this state. My judgment is very clear in this matter. I do
not believe that party programmes of the highest consequence to the
political life of the state and the nation ought to be thrust to one
side and hopelessly embarrassed for long periods together by making a
political issue of a great question that is essentially non-
political, non-partisan, moral and social in its nature.
Holding these views, that the liquor question was one which was
"essentially non-political, non-partisan, moral and social in its
nature," the President refused by any act of his to influence public
opinion when the Eighteenth Amendment was up for consideration in the
Senate and House.
He deeply resented and strenuously opposed the passage of war-time
prohibition as uncalled for and unnecessary. In his opinion, it was not a
food-conservation measure, but an out-and-out attempt by the anti-saloon
forces to use the war emergency to declare the country "dry" by
Congressional action. There was another reason for his attitude of
opposition to war-time prohibition. He believed with an embargo placed
upon beer, the consumption of whiskey, of which there were large stocks in
the country, would be stimulated and increased to a great extent. In this
opinion he was supported by Mr Herbert Hoover, Food Administrator. In a
letter of May 28, 1918, to Senator Sheppard, the leader of the prohibition
forces in the Senate, he explained his opposition to war-time prohibition
in these words:
THE WHITE HOUSE,
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1918.
HON. MORRIS SHEPPARD,
United States Senate.
MY DEAR SENATOR:
I was very much distressed by the action of the House. I do not think
that it is wise or fair to attempt to put such compulsion on the
Executive in a matter in which he has already acted almost to the
limit of his authority. What is almost entirely overlooked is that
there were, as I am informed, very large stocks of whiskey in this
country, and it seems to me quite certain that if the brewing of beer
were prevented entirely, along with all other drinks, many of them
harmless, which are derived from food and food stuffs, the consumption
of whiskey would be stimulated and increased to a very considerable
extent.
My own judgment is that it is wise and statesmanlike to let the
situation stand as it is for the present, until at any rate I shall be
apprised by the Food Administration that it is necessary in the way
suggested still further to conserve the supply of food and food
stuffs. The Food Administration has not thought it necessary to go any
further than we have in that matter already gone.
I thank you most cordially, Senator, for your kindness in consulting
me in this matter, which is of very considerable importance, and has a
very distinct bearing upon many collateral questions.
Cordially and sincerely yours,
WOODROW WILSON.
War-time prohibition was ingenuously made part of the Agricultural
Appropriation Bill, which contained many items necessary for the effective
prosecution of the war. So strongly did the President feel about the
matter, that I am frank to say that if war-time prohibition had stood
alone and was disconnected from any other bill, I believe it would have
been vetoed.
After the Armistice, agitation at once began, inspired by the "dry"
advocates throughout the country, to prolong war-time prohibition, but the
President felt that the object and purpose of war-time prohibition, if any
ever existed, having been served, it was only right, proper, and fair that
there should be an immediate repeal of it, and that only resentment and
restlessness throughout the country would follow the attempt to prolong
war-time prohibition beyond the time provided in the statute which created
it.
It was unfortunate that the "dry" advocates did not see the thing through
the eyes of the President. Apparently not fully satisfied with the victory
they had won through the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment, they sought
to push the advantage thus gained still further, and through war-time
prohibition to establish their policy of restriction as a permanent policy
of the country. Realizing that prohibition as a permanent policy and by
constitutional amendment had been definitely established in a
constitutional way, the President was reluctant to take a stand that would
even in spirit be a violation of this, but he also felt that the "dry"
advocates were simply using a war crisis ruthlessly to press forward their
views and to cajole vacillating congressmen into supporting it because it
was known as a "dry" measure. In a letter which I addressed to the
President on September 7, 1918, I strongly urged the veto of the
Agricultural Appropriation Bill containing war-time prohibition:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 7, 1918.
MY DEAR GOVERNOR:
In the discussion we had a few days ago with reference to the pending
"dry" legislation, I tried to emphasize the fact that under the Food
Control Law you had the power to do what Congress is now seeking to do
in a way that will cause great irritation. Your action of yesterday
fixing December first as the day on which the prohibition of the
manufacture of beer is to take place, I believe, strengthens what I
said. Your action and the action of the Senate a day or two ago in
giving you the right to establish zones about shipyards and munitions
plants again shows the unnecessary character of this legislation. You
are, therefore, now in a strong position to veto this legislation as
unnecessary and unwarranted.
In view of all of this, I wish to emphasize the dangers, both of a
political and industrial character, that confront us should we agree
to go forward with those who favour legislation of this radical and
restricted character. Even the most ardent prohibitionists fear the
reactionary effect of this legislation upon the pending constitutional
amendment. I am afraid of its effects upon the voters of our party in
the large centres of population throughout the country, and of the
deep resentment from all classes that is bound to follow.
In matters of legislation that seek to regulate the morals and habits
of the people, the average American feels the only safe course to
follow is the method set forth in the Constitution for the regulation
of these vital matters. The proponents of this measure agree that it
is not a conservation measure, but that it is an out-and-out attempt
to declare the country "dry." In my opinion, it is mob legislation,
pure and simple.
The danger of submitting quietly to any class legislation that has its
basis in intolerance, especially at a time like this where the
emotions of people can be whipped into a fury, is obvious. Your
strength in the country comes from the feeling on the part of the
people that under no circumstances can you be "hazed" by any class. If
you yield in this instance, similar demands from other sources will
rise to harass and embarrass you.
The viewpoint of the gentlemen on the Hill in charge of this bill is
provincial. They have no idea of the readjustments that will have to
come in the finances of our largest cities and municipalities through
the country. Tax rates are bound to go up. Increased taxation in large
cities, coming at a time when federal taxes are growing more
burdensome, is bound to play a large part in the opinion of the
people, and we cannot escape our responsibility if we seem to be
afraid to oppose legislation of this kind. Our policy in every matter
at this time should be one based upon magnanimity and tolerance toward
every class and interest in the country.
Under date of May 9, 1919, I sent the following cable to the President who
was then in Paris:
I sincerely hope you will consider the advisability of raising the
embargo on beer. The most violent reaction has taken place throughout
the country since the enactment of this law, especially in the larger
cities. It is not, I assure you, the result of brewery propaganda. It
comes from many of the humbler sort who resent this kind of federal
interference with their rights. We are being blamed for all this
restrictive legislation because you insist upon closing down all
breweries and thus making prohibition effective July first. The
country would be more ready to accept prohibition brought about by
Constitutional amendment than have it made effective by Presidential
ukase. The psychological effect of raising this embargo would be of
incalculable benefit to America in every way at this time. The
Springfield _Republican_ says, _Quote_ The establishment of national
prohibition by Federal statute, through the mere act of Congress, does
not appeal to one as so desirable as the establishment of national
prohibition by the direct action of three fourths of the states _End
Quote_. The war-time Prohibition Law, according to the text of the
Act, was enacted for the purpose of conserving the man-power of the
nation and to increase the efficiency in the production of arms,
munitions, ships, and for the Army and Navy.
The New York _World_, in an editorial, says: _Quote_ This war-time
prohibition act is breeding social, industrial, and economic
discontent every day. What makes it still more infamous is that under
its provisions the rich man, because he has money, can accumulate for
his personal consumption whatever stocks of wines and liquors he
pleases, but the workingman, because he cannot afford to lay in a
supply of anything, is deprived even of a glass of beer with his
evening meal. There has never been another such measure of outrageous
class and social discrimination on the statute books of the United
States. It should never have been enacted by Congress. It should never
have been signed by the President. If it is not repealed it is bound
to cause more trouble than any other piece of Federal legislation
since the Fugitive Slave Act _End Quote_.
By taking vigorous action in this matter, you would do more for the
cause of real temperance and hearten those people who feel the sting
of the wave of intolerance which is now spreading over the country
than anything you could think of. I wish I could meet you face to face
and try to impress upon you the utter necessity for this action. You
will have to take action soon.
TUMULTY.
On May 12, 1919, I received the following cable from the President:
Paris.
TUMULTY, White House,
Washington.
Please ask the Attorney General to advise me what action I can take
with regard to removing the ban from the manufacture of drink and as
to the form the action should take.
WOODROW WILSON.
On May 12, 1919, I replied to this cable as follows:
White House, Washington,
May 12, 1919.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
Paris, France.
Have consulted Attorney General with regard to removing ban upon
manufacture of alcoholic liquor. Am in receipt of a letter from him in
which he says: _Quote_ The only action you can take until
demobilization may be determined and proclaimed, will be to issue a
public statement or send a message to Congress declaring that since
the purpose of the Act has been entirely satisfied, nothing prevents
your lifting the ban on the manufacture and sale of beer, wine, or
other intoxicating malt or vinous liquors except the limitations
imposed by the Act which maintains it in force until demobilization is
terminated after the conclusion of the war. _End Quote_
TUMULTY.
On May 20, 1919, in a message to Congress, the President made the
following recommendation with reference to war-time prohibition:
The demobilization of the military forces of the country has
progressed to such a point that it seems to me entirely safe now to
remove the ban upon the manufacture and sale of wines and beers, but I
am advised that without further legislation I have not the legal
authority to remove the present restrictions. I therefore recommend
that the Act approved November 21, 1918, entitled "an Act to enable
the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out, during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1919, the purposes of the Act, entitled 'An Act to
provide further for the national security and defense by stimulating
agriculture and facilitating the distribution of agricultural
products, and for other purposes,' be amended and repealed in so far
as it applies to wines and beers."
Congress refused to act upon the President's recommendation.
Under date of June 27, 1919, I sent the following cable to the President:
There are only four days left until nation-wide prohibition becomes
effective and the country will go on a whiskey basis unless you act to
suspend it. Everything that has happened in the last few weeks
confirms the views I expressed to you in May excepting that added
force has been given to every argument made, especially by the action
of the American Federation of Labour whose membership almost
unanimously voted at its convention for lifting the ban. The action of
Canada in lifting the ban is regarded by the country as significant.
Workingmen and common people all over the country cannot understand
why light wines and beer cannot be permitted until the Constitutional
amendment becomes effective. Only this week the Pennsylvania
Legislature voted to legalize two and three-quarters per cent, beer
and light wines. Similar action will follow in other states. The
consensus of opinion in the press is that if prohibition is to be
effective, it might better be by action of three quarters of the
states rather than by Presidential proclamation for which you alone
and our party would bear the responsibility. The prohibitionists in
Congress are fearful that the enforcement of wartime prohibition will
cause a harmful reaction on real prohibition, and I believe that they
are secretly in favour of your lifting the ban for this reason.
Demobilization figures officially announced by the War Department show
that the number of troops now remaining in service is practically only
the number of troops in the Regular Army. Samuel Gompers, Mary Roberts
Rinehart, Mrs. Douglass Robinson, sister of the late Theodore
Roosevelt, Miss Gertrude Atherton, Frank S. Goodnow, president of
Johns Hopkins University, and Cardinal Gibbons out in strong statement
favouring retention of beer and light wines. If you do not intend to
lift the ban on July first, you can announce your intention to suspend
it as soon as the War Department notifies you demobilization is
accomplished which, the best opinion says, will be August first. The
feeling all over the country is one of harmful uncertainty and I
strongly recommend that a definite announcement, of some nature which
will clear the atmosphere, be made.
TUMULTY.
On June 28, 1919, I again cabled the President, as follows:
The White House, Washington,
28 June, 1919.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
Paris.
Received your message saying that you do not intend to lift the ban.
The Republicans have been industriously spreading the story throughout
the country that you in fact have power under the Act of November 21,
1918, to lift the ban. I think it important, wise, and politic,
therefore, for you to make a statement which we can issue from the
White House along the following lines: _Quote_ I am convinced that I
have no legal power at this time in the matter of the ban of liquor.
Under the Act of November 21, 1918, my power to take action is
restricted. The Act provides that after June 30, 1919, until the
conclusion of the present war and thereafter until the termination of
demobilization, the date of which shall be determined and proclaimed
by the President, it shall be unlawful, etc. This law does not specify
that the ban shall be lifted with the signing of peace but with the
termination of the demobilization of the troops, and I cannot say that
that has been accomplished. My information from the War Department is
that there are still a million men in the service under the emergency
call. It is clear, therefore, that the failure of Congress to act upon
the suggestion contained in my message of the 20th of May, 1919,
asking for a repeal of the Act of November 21, 1918, so far as it
applies to wines and beers, makes it impossible to act in this matter
at this time. Of course when demobilization is terminated, my power to
act without congressional action will be exercised _End quote_.
TUMULTY.
The President replied to my cables as follows:
Paris, June 28, 1919.
TUMULTY,
White House, Washington.
Please issue following statement: I am convinced that the Attorney
General is right in advising me that I have no legal power at this
time in the matter of the ban on liquor. Under the act of November,
1918, my power to take action is restricted. The act provides that
after June 30, 1919, until the conclusion of the present war and
thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which
shall be determined and proclaimed by the President, it shall be
unlawful, etc. This law does not specify that the ban shall be lifted
with the signing of peace but with the termination of the
demobilization of the troops and I cannot say that that has been
accomplished. My information from the War Department is that there are
still a million men in the service under the emergency call. It is
clear therefore that the failure of Congress to act upon the
suggestion contained in my message of the twentieth of May, 1919,
asking for a repeal of the Act of November 21, 1918, so far as it
applies to wines and beers makes it impossible to act in this matter
at this time. When demobilization is terminated my power to act
without congressional action will be exercised.
WOODROW WILSON.
When the Volstead Act reached the President, he found, upon examining it,
that it in no way repealed war-time prohibition, and so he vetoed it.
In vetoing it, he admonished Congress, that "in all matters having to do
with the personal habits and customs of large numbers of people, we must
be certain that the established processes of legal change are followed. In
no other way can the salutary object sought to be accomplished by great
reforms of this character be made satisfactory and permanent."
The House of Representatives with its overwhelming "dry" majority passed
the Volstead Act over the President's veto. The President clearly foresaw
the inevitable reaction that would follow its passage and its enforcement
throughout the country.
As the days of the San Francisco Convention approached, he felt that it
was the duty of the Democratic party frankly to speak out regarding the
matter and boldly avow its attitude toward the unreasonable features of
the Volstead enforcement act. In his conferences with the Democratic
leaders he took advantage of every opportunity to put before them the
necessity for frank and courageous action. So deep were his convictions
about this vital matter, that it was his intention, shortly after the
passage of the Volstead Act over his veto, to send a special message to
Congress regarding the matter, asking for the repeal of the Volstead Act
and the passage of legislation permitting the manufacture and sale of
light wines, or at least a modification of the Volstead Act, changing the
alcoholic content of beer.
Upon further consideration of the matter it was agreed that it would be
unwise to ask for any change at the hands of a congress that had so
overwhelmingly expressed its opinion in opposition to any such
modification. We, therefore, thought it wise to conserve our energies and
to await the psychological moment at the Convention for putting forward
the President's programme.
A few days before the Convention the President delivered to a trusted
friend a copy of a proposed "wet" plank, and asked his friend to submit it
to the Committee on Resolutions at the Convention in San Francisco. The
tentative draft of the plank was as follows:
We recognize that the American saloon is opposed to all social, moral,
and economic order, and we pledge ourselves to its absolute
elimination by the passage of such laws as will finally and
effectually exterminate it. But we favour the repeal of the Volstead
Act and the substitution for it of a law permitting the manufacture
and sale of light wines and beer.
Evidently, the trusted friend who had this matter in charge felt that the
"dry" atmosphere of the Convention was unfavourable and so the President's
plank, prepared by himself, was not even given a hearing before the
Committee on Resolutions.