THE LAW THAT FAILED.
The commonplace truth that, under representative Government, restrictive
legislation can only succeed so far as it is backed up by the hearty
support of the great majority of the people, has recently received a
striking illustration in Iowa. Twelve years ago the people of this State
voted, by a majority of 29,759 out of 280,000 votes, in favour of an
amendment to the Constitution making the sale of intoxicants for ever
illegal. Owing to some flaw in the method of taking the vote, the
amendment was subsequently declared by the courts invalid; but in 1884 the
State Legislature carried, and for a long time the authorities in most
parts have tried to enforce, what is probably the most drastic measure of
prohibition known. Everything possible has been done to make the
conviction of liquor sellers sure; the law has been so drawn, even in the
opinion of many in favour of restriction, as almost to refuse those
suspected of trafficking in drink a fair trial; imprisonment, hard labour
and disgrace have followed conviction; yet the one result of it all has
been--failure!
Iowa is a thinly populated, somewhat newly settled State, almost in the
centre of the Union, with about 2,000,000 inhabitants, of whom one-sixth
are foreigners, chiefly Germans. It must be remembered, in attempting to
form any true estimate of the causes of the failure of the law, that Iowa
suffers from the usual weaknesses of youth, whether youth of nations or of
individuals,--venturesomeness and fickleness. Its people are excitable,
inclined to experimentalise, and apt to rush to extremes. The spirit of
respect for the law because it is law, so universal in England, is very
little known there. If the law suits the people of a city or a county they
will observe it; if not, then so much the worse for the law! In one town
the inhabitants will be endowed with remarkable virtue: boys caught
smoking will be liable to have the stick of the policeman across their
backs; the sale of cigarettes, even to adults, will be forbidden; ballet
dancers, if permitted at all, will be ordered to wear long skirts; saloons
will be unknown; men as well as women found in houses of ill-fame will be
summarily arrested and punished; and, in short, the municipality will
devise sumptuary laws about almost everything belonging to the public and
private life of the people. In the next town, possibly only a few miles
off, the other extreme will prevail: gambling dens and saloons, although
both illegal by the laws of the State, will be allowed to carry on their
business unmolested by the police, on the payment of regular monthly
fines; there will be a quarter of legalised ill-fame, as in any Japanese
city, and public women will be inspected and certificated as in Paris. The
people of Iowa have not yet definitely made up their minds whether they
shall make their State (by order of the Legislature and with the approval
of the Governor) into a Paradise on earth, or whether they shall permit
one another to go to the bad, and shall make the road that way as smooth
as possible. Meanwhile they are experimenting both ways; and in course of
time, when the disorderly elements have been controlled, and the
effervescent stage of State life is passed, Iowa will probably settle down
to a great and glorious future.
The prohibitory law here, as enacted in 1884 and revised in the following
years, bears in its general regulations forbidding the sale of intoxicants
as a beverage a family resemblance to those of Maine and Kansas already
described. Necessary sales for medicinal purposes are made through duly
licensed chemists; but a chemist is not allowed to sell to any one unless
the applicant is known personally to him, or bears a letter of
recommendation from some reliable person of his acquaintance. The would-be
purchaser has to fill up the following form:--
"I hereby make request for the purchase of the following intoxicating
liquors (quantity and kind). My true name is ... I am not a minor, and I
reside in ... Township, in the County of ... State of ... The actual
purpose for which this request is made is to obtain the liquor for
(myself, wife, child, or name of the person it is intended for) for
medicinal use, and neither myself nor the said (wife, child, etc.)
habitually uses intoxicating liquors as a beverage."
If the applicant is not known to the chemist, the following form has to be
filled in by some other person:--
"I hereby certify that I am acquainted with ... the applicant for the
purchase of the foregoing described liquors, and that said ... is not a
minor, and is not in the habit of using intoxicating liquors as beverage,
and is worthy of credit as to the truthfulness of statements in the
foregoing request, and my residence is ..."
At the end of each two months the chemist has to send in to the county
auditor all application forms received by him, with a sworn statement
attached, "that no liquors have been sold or dispensed under colour of my
permit during said months, except as shown by the requests herewith
returned, and that I have faithfully complied with the conditions of my
oath".
The penalties for selling liquor without a permit, or for keeping for the
purpose of unlawful sale, are, for the first offence, 50 dollars to 100
dollars fine; for subsequent convictions, 300 dollars to 500 dollars fine,
and imprisonment for not more than six months. But there is a more severe
method of proceeding against offenders. An injunction may be obtained for
the closing of any premises where liquors are unlawfully sold, on the plea
of their being a nuisance. If they are again opened after this, the
offender is liable to a fine of up to 1000 dollars, and imprisonment for
six months or a year. Courts and juries are required to so construe the
law as to prevent any evasion, and even the general repute of a house may
be brought as evidence against it. When the injunction method is used,
there is no trial by jury, and thus a conviction can be secured in
localities where public opinion is most opposed to the law.
Police officers are bound to inform on offenders, under pain of loss of
office and heavy fines. Drunken persons are liable to a month's
imprisonment, unless they give information as to who supplied them with
liquor; any one who buys liquor unlawfully can compel the seller to return
him the money paid for it; and when a person gets drunk the seller can not
only be compelled to pay all costs incurred by any one in attending to his
customer, but is also liable to an action for civil damages from any
relative or connection of the drunken man who is injured in person,
property or means of support by such intoxication. It will be noticed that
the law directs its penalties against the seller rather than the
purchaser.
The Act was carried by a Republican majority, and has been fiercely
opposed by the Democrats. At first the new provisions were observed in
about eighty-five out of ninety-nine counties in the State, the parts
refusing obedience being mostly those along the banks of the Mississippi
and most thickly populated. In these latter it was found impossible, in
spite of the strictest provisions, to secure even an outward show of
observance. Rum-sellers, police, justices, and the newspapers all combined
to ignore the law. Temperance men sought to secure convictions, but in
vain. When there seemed any likelihood of a specially active reformer
making trouble, the saloon element did not hesitate to use force to put
him down. The most notable case of this was that of Dr. G. C. Haddock, a
warm prohibitionist, who lived at Sioux City, where the law was ignored.
He spoke and wrote, started prosecutions, and used every means in his
power against the drink interest. One night, as he was returning home, he
was surrounded in the open street by a crowd of roughs, and one man
deliberately shot him in the face, killing him immediately. A prominent
liquor man was arrested for the offence, and it is said that the evidence
against him was overwhelming. Nevertheless, the local authorities delayed
bringing him to trial for as long as possible, and then he was acquitted.
It was openly alleged that the jury had been specially selected to secure
this result, and had been heavily bribed.
Yet, in spite of these serious drawbacks, the law at first had some
measure of success. Governor Larrabee, in retiring from office in 1890,
referred at some length to the results obtained from it, in his message to
the Legislature. Though his words cannot be said to be free from
prejudice, they yet must carry weight as being the official verdict of the
leading officer of the State. "The benefits which have resulted," he
declared, "from the enforcement of this law are far-reaching indeed. It is
a well-recognised fact that crime is on the increase in the United States,
but Iowa does not contribute to that increase. While the number of
convicts in the country at large rose from 1 in every 3442 of population
in 1850 to 1 in every 860 in 1880, the ratio in Iowa at present is only 1
in every 3130. The gaols of many counties are now empty during a good
portion of the year, and the number of convicts in our penitentiaries has
been reduced from 750 in March, 1886, to 604 on 1st July, 1889. It is the
testimony of the judges of our courts that criminal business has been
reduced from 30 to 75 per cent., and that criminal expenses have
diminished in like proportion.
"There is a remarkable decrease in the business and fees of sheriffs and
criminal lawyers, as well as in the number of requisitions and extradition
warrants issued. We have less paupers and less tramps in the State in
proportion to our population than ever before. Breweries have been
converted into oatmeal mills and canning factories, and are operated as
such by their owners.... The poorer classes have better fare, better
clothing, better schooling, and better houses.... It is safe to say that
not one-tenth, and probably not one-twentieth, as much liquor is consumed
in the State now as was five years ago."
But even while Governor Larrabee wrote these words the knell of the new
movement had been already sounded, and from 1890 the cause he advocated
has been steadily losing ground in the State. His successor, Governor
Boies, was notoriously opposed to prohibition, and threw the whole weight
of his authority against efficient enforcement. He declared the
suppression of the drink traffic to be an impossibility, and that to
attempt it is "a cruel violation of one of the most valued of human
rights". As though to make his own assertions come true, he pardoned by
the wholesale persons convicted of unlawful selling. The result was what
might be expected. In all communities where the authorities had been not
over-warm about enforcement they now became slack, and everywhere the
police said that it was useless to secure convictions merely for the
Governor to make out pardons. In more than one town and county where the
trade had long been kept under, it now again made its appearance, and soon
the last state of Iowa was worse than the first. Most of the teetotalers
seemed to lose heart and do nothing; while for the few who were active the
dynamiter's bomb, the incendiary's torch and the murderer's revolver were
ready to silence them into submission.
But all the blame must not be laid on Governor Boies. He could not have
assumed the attitude he did had he not been supported by a large
proportion of the people. His conduct was approved by the State in
general, as may be seen by the fact that in 1891 he was re-elected for the
Governorship by a majority twice as large as that he had previously
secured. Iowa had tired of its anti-liquor crusade.
The condition of affairs in many parts in 1893 was a disgrace to the whole
State. At Council Bluffs, a town of slightly over 20,000 inhabitants, no
attempt was made to secure enforcement, and about seventy saloons were
wide open. The city had made regulations of its own to deal with this and
similar evils. Drink shops were allowed to do business undisturbed on
paying the City Treasury 52 dollars 10 cents a month; gambling hells were
required to pay 100 dollars a month; houses of ill-fame 12 dollars 10
cents a month, and the inmates of such places 8 dollars 10 cents each.
In Carroll, a town of 3000 inhabitants, a similar plan was adopted, and
seventeen saloons and four wholesale dealers were allowed to go free on
paying 20 dollars each monthly, as a town licence. In the whole of Carroll
county the law was ignored. At Des Moines, with a population of 50,000,
the amount of drunkenness had been rapidly increasing ever since Boies
took office. In 1890, out of 2441 total arrests, 940 were for drunkenness;
in 1891, out of 2921 the number of drink cases was 1015; in 1892, 1113 out
of a total of 3345 were for drunkenness. In Davenport, with 3000
inhabitants, largely Germans, there were beer gardens and saloons running
open week days and Sundays, as free from concealment as though they were
in the Fatherland. The houses of ill-fame have been licensed here,
confined to a certain quarter of the city, and their inmates inspected
weekly and given certificates of health. The keepers of such houses are
made to pay monthly fees of 25 dollars, and the inmates 10 dollars. A fee
of 200 dollars a year was required from saloon keepers, and those who
refused to pay were subjected to all manner of annoyances from the
municipality.[4]
It would be wearisome to go on further. Hardly a town in the State,
besides many country parts, but had abandoned prohibition, not for licence
and control, but for a lawless free trade, tempered by the levying of
municipal blackmail.
It was manifest that this condition of affairs could not last; and the
Republican party, that had for many years remained steadfast to the cause,
at last determined to abandon it. A purposely vague clause was chosen for
the party platform in 1893, stating that "prohibition is no test of
Republicanism. The General Assembly has given to the State a prohibitory
law as strong as any that has ever been enacted by any country. Like any
other criminal statute, its retention, modification, or repeal must be
determined by the General Assembly, elected by and in sympathy with the
people; and to them is relegated the subject to take such action as they
may deem just and best in the matter, maintaining the law in those
portions of the State where it is now or can be made efficient, and giving
the localities such methods of controlling and regulating the liquor
traffic as will best serve the cause of temperance and morality."
It was fully understood at this election that the Republicans would now
advocate some modification of the law, and on this understanding their
candidate for Governorship was returned to office by a large majority. The
newly elected Governor, the Hon. F. D. Jackson, dealt with the question at
some length in his inaugural address. "A trial of ten years has
demonstrated," he said, "that in many counties it (prohibition) has fully
met the expectation of its friends, having successfully driven the saloon
system out of existence in those counties. While this is true, there are
other localities where open saloons have existed during this period of
time in spite of the law, and in spite of the most determined efforts to
close them. In such localities the open saloon exists without restraint or
control, a constant menace to the peace and safety of the public. From
these localities there is an earnest demand for relief--a demand not from
the law-defying saloon sympathiser, but from the best business
element--from the best moral sentiment of such communities--from the
churches and from the pulpit. While the present prohibitive principle,
which is so satisfactory to many counties and communities of our State,
should remain in force, wisdom, justice and the interests of temperance
and morality demand that a modification of this law should be made
applicable to those communities where the saloon exists, to the end of
reducing the evils of the liquor traffic to the minimum."
A measure for the semi-legislation of saloons had been brought forward in
1893. The malcontents did not ask for the total repeal of the law, but
they demanded that, in localities where prohibition had notoriously
failed, some other measures should be tried. At the end of March, 1894, a
"mulct-tax" Bill was carried in the House of Representatives, and sent on
at once to the Senate, where it was "railroaded" through without debate.
Early in April it received the sanction of the Governor and became law.
This measure is not a licensing law, and does not (nominally) license the
saloon; but it provides that, on the payment by a saloon-keeper of a
special tax, and on the observance of certain conditions, he shall not be
liable to punishment for breaking the prohibitory law. This sounds
somewhat strange to those of us who still retain old-fashioned opinions
about the necessity for enforcing all laws or repealing them. Clause 16 of
the "mulct" Act is surely a curiosity among illogical compromises:
"Nothing in this Act contained shall in any way be construed to mean that
the business of the sale of intoxicating liquors is in any way legalised,
nor is the same to be construed in any manner or form as a licence, nor
shall the assessment or payment of any tax for the sale of liquors as
aforesaid protect the wrong-doer from any penalties now provided by law,
except that on conditions hereinafter provided certain penalties may be
suspended".
The tax required from liquor-sellers is 600 dollars a year, besides a bond
for 3000 dollars. If, in a town of 5000 inhabitants, a majority of the
electors who voted at the last poll sign a written statement consenting to
the establishment of saloons; or if, in a place with less than 5000
inhabitants, sixty-five per cent. of the electors sign a similar
statement, then, in such places the fact that a liquor-seller has paid his
tax shall be a bar to any proceedings under the prohibitory Acts. Each
saloon is to consist of a single room, with only one exit and entrance,
with the bar in plain view from the street, and with no chairs or
furniture except such as are necessary for the attendants. The attendants
must all be males, and no liquor is to be sold to minors, drunkards,
persons who have taken "drink cures," or to any person "whose wife,
husband, parent, child, brother, sister, guardian, ward over fourteen
years of age, or employer shall by written notice forbid such sales".
It is too early yet to say what the result of the "mulct" Act will be. The
latest news from Iowa reports that the necessary proportion of signatures
for the opening of saloons has been obtained in a number of moderate-sized
towns, which were formerly thought to be favourably inclined to
prohibition. In Des Moines 5500 signatures have been secured, and the
drink-sellers boast that they can obtain one or two thousand more if
required. It is yet a matter of doubt whether the saloon-keepers in
several border towns will submit to the new law or will continue their old
plan; but it seems certain, that for a large part of the State the days of
even nominal prohibition are over. The State Legislature has agreed to
re-submit to popular vote the prohibitory amendment to the Constitution;
but this is done rather as a sop to the advocates of temperance than with
the expectation that it will lead to any change.