PROHIBITION". 



667 



health, a prohibitionist was elected by 492 

 lajority, and all the saloons were closed. 

 Iowa's Legislature finally submitted an 

 mdment to popular vote, June 27, 1882, it 

 iving been proposed and approved by the 

 jislature previous. There was a prohibitory 

 iw on the statute-books of that State, but its 

 " wine and beer " clause gave practical exemp- 

 'lon to the entire traffic in spirituous liquors. 

 )n its face, however, the prohibitory amend- 

 lent had sole reference to wine and beer ; and 

 jut 33 per cent, of the voters in Iowa were 

 jign-born. The contest here was carried 

 >rward chiefly by the Woman's Christian Tern- 

 mce Union, which perfected an organiza- 

 ion in every county, made a thorough canvass 

 the State, introduced a constitutional cate- 

 rism among the children, and in four months 

 jcomplished an educational work as effective 

 its influences as it was surprising in its ex- 

 it. The ablest temperance speakers were 

 the platform, in the pulpit, and on street 

 )rners, night and day. The literature of pro- 

 libition was scattered broadcast, but with unu- 

 lal discrimination. The total vote was 281,- 

 113, and prohibition won by a majority of 

 ),759. A test case being mada up against it, 

 16 amendment was declared unconstitutional 

 >y the Supreme Court, on the ground of a 

 jrical error in the records of the Legislature, 

 by which it was originally passed. (See IOWA, 

 page 445.) Thus nullified in its constitutional 

 embodiment, the principle was taken by those 

 who supported it directly into the political can- 

 vass of 1883, the Republican party approving 

 and the Democratic opposing, and was made 

 the leading issue. " A school-house on every 

 hill-top, and no saloon in the valleys," became 

 the Republican rallying-cry, and again prohi- 

 bition won. A bill rescinding the " wine and 

 beer " exemption of the existing prohibitory 

 law was promptly passed. 



Ohio followed in the work for constitutional 

 prohibition. After passing the Scott high- 

 tax law, the Legislature of that State in 1883 

 adopted two forms of amendment, or two 

 amendments, one for prohibition, the other for 

 license. Under the Constitution as it stood, 

 no license laws could be enacted, but there 

 might be, or there was, free trade in liquors, 

 except as covered by a tax, while there might 

 also be prohibitory enactments if the Legisla- 

 ture so desired. Both amendments were sub- 

 mitted at the regular election ensuing, October 

 5th. They were confusing in their antagonistic 

 provisions, and the temperance people appeared 

 for a short time in doubt as to what position 

 should be assumed. Then they organized for 

 the second, or prohibitory amendment, and in 

 opposition to the first. Here, as in Iowa, the 

 Woman's Christian Temperance Union led the 

 campaign; but a Constitutional Amendment 

 Association, composed mainly of voters, helped 

 to bear its burdens. Of necessity the question 

 became more or less mixed up with the party 

 struggle then in progress. The Democratic 



party had declared for license, but was chiefly 

 antagonizing the high-tax law; the Republi- 

 can party openly supported the Scott law, and 

 gave no help to prohibition. Yet for the third 

 time in thirty-three years the people of Ohio, 

 through a majority of those voting apon it, 

 declared themselves against license and in favor 

 of prohibition; but the prohibitory amendment 

 was lost. It received, as counted and 

 turned, 323,188 votes, out of a total of 721,310 

 cast for the several State tickets, and a majority 

 of this total was required for its passage. The 

 license amendment had less than 100,000, and 

 besides these only about 100,000 voted against 

 the second amendment. Of the 88 counties in 

 the State, 83 gave an aggregate majority for 

 prohibition of 4,315, and 46 of these gave indi- 

 vidual majorities. 



In Indiana a prohibitory amendment passed 

 the Legislature of 1882, but was defeated in 

 the Senate of 1883, because of an alleged error 

 in the legislative record. In Connecticut such 

 an amendment passed the House in 1882 by 

 140 to 20, but was beaten in 1883 by 115 to 83. 

 In Pennsylvania, in 1881, it passed the House 

 by 109 to 59, but failed in the Senate ; in 1888, 

 being reintroduced, it was amended in com- 

 mittee by a compensation clause, for the bene- 

 fit of all persons whose property-rights the 

 amendment might impair, and was killed by a 

 vote of 151 to 27. Wisconsin lost the amend- 

 ment bill in 1881, by lack of the necessary two 

 thirds, though the vote stood 51 for to 39 

 against in the House ; in 1883 the House vote 

 was against it. New Jersey's upper House 

 adopted the amendment in 1883, by 11 to 10, 

 but the lower House defeated it by 29 to 27. 

 Michigan, in 1881, gave, in the House, 63 for, 

 33 against ; in the Senate, 21 for, to 10 against ; 

 but in 1883 there was not the necessary two 

 thirds in favor. Maine legislatively adopted 

 the amendment last winter by 91 to 30, and 

 22 to 2, in the two houses; it is now (1884) 

 before the people. Massachusetts defeated it 

 by 115 to 83; New York (1883), by 54 to 42, 

 and 18 to 13 ; Nebraska (1882), by lack of two 

 thirds; Illinois (1882), by 21 to 16 in the Sen- 

 ate, 66 for to 51 against in the House; Mis- 

 souri (1883), by 68 to 59 ; West Virginia, by 

 lack of two thirds ; Texas gave it a majority 

 of both houses in 1881, but lost it the next 

 year; the Arkansas House gave it 66 to 17 in 

 1881, but the Senate did not concur ; Minne- 

 sota lost it by 49 to 38 ; and Oregon passed it 

 in 1883 by 52 to 6 in the House and 18 to 1C 

 in the Senate, thus remitting it to another Le- 

 gislature. Prohibition by constitutional amend- 

 ment is now the settled policy of temperance- 

 workers in nearly all the States. 



Local Option. Local prohibition by local op- 

 tion exists in sixteen of the thirty-five towns 

 in Rhode Island ; in about half the towns of 

 Connecticut; in portions of five counties in 

 New Jersey and in one entire, as also in two 

 or three large towns ; in fourteen out of twen- 

 ty-three counties of Maryland, where vigorous 



