666 



PROHIBITION". 



Convention of 1872, at Philadelphia, it was 

 declared : 



The Kepublican party proposes to respect the rights 

 reserved by the people to themselves as carefully as 

 the powers delegated by them to the State and to the 

 Federal Government. It disapproves) of a resort to 

 unconstitutional laws for the purpose of removing 

 evils by interference with rights not surrendered by 

 the people to either State or national Government. 



Mr. Herman Raster, who wrote this, avowed 

 it to mean " the discountenancing of all so- 

 called temperance (prohibitory) and Sunday 

 laws." The Democratic party, nationally at 

 St. Louis in 1876, and at Cincinnati in 1880, as 

 also by State conventions in many States, de- 

 clared its opposition to all "sumptuary laws." 

 In 1875 a bill passed the Senate of the United 

 States to provide for a commission of inqui- 

 ry " in reference to the question of revenue 

 from the manufacture and sale of alcoholic 

 and fermented liquors, and the effect of the 

 use of such liquors upon the morals and wel- 

 fare of the people " ; but it was defeated in the 

 House of Representatives. The same measure 

 has passed the Senate four times since, with 

 uniform failure in the House ; and the beer in- 

 terest has kept an attorney in Washington to 

 insure its defeat. 



Prohibition by Constitutional Amendment. On 

 Dec. 27, 1876, Hon. Henry W. Blair, of New 

 Hampshire, introduced in the House of Rep- 

 resentatives a joint resolution to amend the 

 Constitution of the United States by prohibit- 

 ing, "from and after the year of our Lord 

 1900, the manufacture and sale of distilled al- 

 coholic intoxicating liquors," providing that 

 on the last day of December, 1890, the same 

 should have been ratified by three fourths of 

 the States, and supported the measure in a 

 speech covering the entire question. Mr. Bla 5 r 

 has since kept this national amendment before 

 the Senate. 



State constitutional prohibitory amend- 

 ments came to be considered soon after the 

 national amendment was first proposed. The 

 Woman's Crusade (1873-'74), purely moral and 

 spiritual in its agencies, persuasive in its ef- 

 forts, and marvelous in its immediate results, 

 had not permanently checked intemperance. 

 The Reform Club movement, with all its blue- 

 ribbon enthusiasm, did not close the saloons, 

 or hold in total-abstinence ranks a large per- 

 centage of the men swept into it. The Wom- 

 an's Christian Temperance Union, allied there- 

 with, was almost powerless in presence of 

 a legalized traffic, potent in politics and pro- 

 tected by law. The Prohibition party was ill 

 organized where it existed, of meager member- 

 ship, and only stood as a weak protest against 

 a mighty power. How to apply the ballot, 

 under existing political conditions, and make 

 it effective for prohibition, was a problem 

 which the amendment plan appeared to solve. 

 It took the question out of party politics, and 

 separated it from the entanglements of party 

 necessities. It arrayed men on one side or 

 the other of a direct issue. Kansas began the 



open fight for State constitutional prohibition. 

 For five years previous the work of moral 

 temperance reform had there been vigorously 

 carried on, with prohibition as the ultimate 

 end sought. The Governor, John P. St. John, 

 was a Republican Prohibitionist. In 1879 

 many restrictive bills were before the Legisla- 

 ture, and these finally gave way to an amend- 

 ment adding section 10 to Article XV, as fol- 

 lows: 



The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors 

 shall be forever prohibited in this State, except for 

 medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. 



This was passed by the Legislature, March 

 5, 1880, with barely a two-third vote in the 

 lower House, and went to the people for ratifica- 

 tion on the 2d of November. Gov. St. John 

 led the amendment campaign, and had the co- 

 operation of many able and active workers, 

 organizers, and lecturers, from other States. 

 The liquor-manufacturers organized secretly, 

 and used every means in their power to stay 

 the temperance tides. Prohibition was adopt- 

 ed constitutionally by a majority of 7,998 in 

 a total vote of 176,606, and enforcing stat- 

 utes were enacted by the Legislature. The Re- 

 publican party renominated Gov. St. John, in 

 1882, for a third gubernatorial term, by al- 

 most the entire vote of the nominating con- 

 vention ; but he was defeated at the polls by 

 about the majority which prohibition had re- 

 ceived, though his opponent, Gov. Glick, did 

 not have so large a vote as had been recorded 

 against prohibition. A prohibition Legisla- 

 ture was elected, which refused to submit the 

 anti-prohibition amendment offered. The de- 

 feat of Gov. St. John was everywhere account- 

 ed the defeat of the principle he had advo- 

 cated, and open organization went forward to 

 nullify the law. In all the larger cities and 

 towns it was for two years overridden, though 

 partially successful through the State at large. 

 But in the autumn of 1883 those officials who 

 had favored the defiance of law were deposed, 

 prosecutions against violators were pressed 

 with unusual rigor, and both open and secret 

 rebellion against the Constitution and laws of 

 the State almost entirely ceased. This new 

 impulse began with a monster temperance con- 

 vention at Topeka, Jan. 9, 1883, where 1,241 

 delegates assembled, and was continued 

 through the efforts of the Kansas State Tem- 

 perance Union. At the election the next au- 

 tumn the enforcement of prohibitory law was 

 made an issue in three fourths of the counties 

 of the State, and in nearly all of these sheriffs 

 were chosen duly pledged to perform their en- 

 tire duty. In Topeka, the capital city, was 

 made the most bitter fight of the liquor inter- 

 est. The city was proceeded against, and a 

 decision of the Supreme Court said that the 

 city could not derive a revenue from the sa- 

 loons. A case being made against the mayor, 

 the same court decided that the State must 

 proceed against him by criminal information 

 in the court below. He resigned on plea of 



