Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 71

Return of a Month's Salfs, made on affidavit extracted from Mr. McKinley's book of affidavits

Return of a Month's Salfs, made on affidavit extracted from Mr. McKinley's book of affidavits.

Alleeged Disease. No. of Affidavit.
Dysentery 1
Constipation 1
Cold 66
Malaria 6
Nervousness 2
Indigestion 48
Billiousness 6
La Grippe 4
Debility 12
Bowel Complaint 4
Headache 5
Dyspepsia 49
Chill 11
Rheumation 5
Asthma 3
Diarrhœa 4
Gripes 2
Lung Complaint 4
Kidney Disease 7
Neuralgia 3
Painter's Colic 1
Ague 2
Sunstroke 1
Weakness 3
Colic 1
Fistula (for a horse) 1
Used in Practice 2
254

Statement of Major S. J. Anderson, an ex-member of the State Legislature, and present Assistant-General Ticket Agent of the Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, living at Topeka:—My opinion regarding Prohibition is that it is an impossibility to enforce the law should public sentiment be opposed to it, as is the case in many of our large cities. I think the opposition to the law largely arises from change of population. Of course, the hardened drinker you will hardly ever succeed in converting to the viewing of the law with favour, and then the stranger page 23 coming in from other parts feel the restraint. One of its advantages is that the open saloon has disappeared, and this, I hope, will have a beneficial advantage on the young men. The law undoubtedly prejudicially affects settlement, for it keeps away many desirable settlers, who, as in the case of the Germans, must have their beer, and who, whilst they drink in moderation, are certainly an example to some others of our settlers who do not admit that they themselves do so. I have no doubt, in my own mind, that the man accustomed to drinking, even if a moderate, would not attach much weight to the affidavit required under the Act, although, as you point out, it Would decidedly be perjury. This, of course, applies only in general, and not in individual cases.

Statement made by Governor Llewellyn.

Prohibition has not been a success in the centres of population in Kansas, and the difficulty arises from the fact that in these places public sentiment cannot be brought to the support of the law; the Act, indeed, being in such instances most unpopular. Now, Leavenworth for example, and Kansas City, Kansas, and Wichita are three of our largest cities, but in each and all of these public sentiment is so overwhelmingly against the law as it now stands that something in the form of a regulation of the traffic, which it is an impossibility to suppress, has been locally undertaken. In these places, I live in Wichita myself, there is an undoubted inclination for the institution of some form of high license. In the rural districts and a large number of country towns or cities, prohibition has proven fairly successful. I think if a plebescite was taken on the subject of a repeal of the law the result would be most difficult to foretell, as in my opinion public sentiment is pretty evenly balanced. On an occasion like that, where there is to be a vote by the people, there is more or less agitation and discussion, and the voters get worked up, whilst at the same time party interests get imported into the contest, but I think if a direct and immediate vote was obtainable without any previous agitation it is possible the repeal would fellow. I have no hesitation in saying that the voting for prohibition would not be so large as when the vote to amend the constitution was taken. Whether there would be a sufficient number to carry prohibition is a very doubtful question. Changes have arisen in the voting powers of parties since the passage of the law. One contributory cause has been the class of immigration which has in many instances had to supply the vacancies caused by emigration. I am an ex-resident of Iowa, where I lived several years, and undoubtedly in the case of that State this cause strongly contributed to the present anti-prohibition feeling existent in that State. There emigration from Iowa of prohibitionists who settled in the Dakota has been followed by the influx of Germans and other foreigners, who whilst they are good settlers and fine agriculturists, yet entirely disbelieve in prohibition. There has been some change in Kansas from a similar cause, but we have not had so great an influx to replace the people we lost at the time of the settlement of the Indian territory. Then, too, a good many people who voted solid for prohibition have become convinced by results that the law cannot be satisfactorily enforced. I do not think that prohibition working under the administration of a National police such as you instance as existing in New Zealand would prove any more successful than it has done here. I think this is the city in the whole of the United States where Prohibition is best enforced. We have no open saloons, but I will not say itis not possible for a man to get a drink of beer in an open store, or shop, and drink same in view of the passing public. Indeed, after what you have related to me, I should say it was not a difficult matter, but had you not related some of your own experiences, I should from my personal observation have said such were almost an impossibility. I know, of course, that there are clubs as I have said, in fact I am aware of the existence of two German clubs, and another called The Elks. I believe the Germans drink in thoroughly Socialistic style from a common store, but in the Elks every man possesses his own locker. Undoubtedly other like institutions exist, but I cannot speak from personal knowledge. I should not think great difficulty would be experienced by a stranger in obtaining supplies at his hotel. It is unfortunate that the law, owing to its not being administered in our centres of page 24 population, leads young men and others to regard with some contempt all legal restrictions. This must have a demoralising effect. In Wichita the "joints" are run in an open manner, that is they have all liquor bars, but they do not front on the street, and the keepers are fined monthly in such a manner that whilst they are not made amenable under the Prohibition law (which inflicts penalties of imprisonment as well as tines) they yet indirectly contribute largely to the city revenue in the form of tines for breaches of some city ordinance.

Statement of George 11. Meyer, City Marshall (Chief of Police) for the City of Saline:—My opinion regarding Prohibition and its effect upon this community is that whilst its introduction has led a number of men to abandon drinking, yet I believe a greater number have, owing to the existence of Prohibition, started drinking that otherwise would have probably left it alone, This because the moment you prohibit them these men are determined to have it. Then, again, we have a class of men whom we call "bottle-leggers." They send for a keg of liquor, then sell it in some out-of-the-way place. I have known them even say to a man, "You can have all your drink free: just bring me customers." This is an inducement to old topers to tout for them, ami oftentimes young fellows, who would never be seen going into an open saloon, will visit these joints, believing it is something manly to deft the law, and that their relatives will never know anything. Then another evil is the numerous societies which are inaugurated solely for the purpose of getting young people together that drink may be introduced under one plea or another. Card-playing clubs, even singing societies, are not free from it, and in this latter instance I speak with the certain knowledge of having been asked to become a member of such a society, when in course of formation, and on my putting the question, "Do you intend to introduce any drink?" was told they had thought of getting in a barrel of beer for subsequent refreshment. 1 declined to join that "singing." The profit derived from the sale of beer on such occasions, for it is retailed at five cents a glass, just as it would be in an open saloon, and is not a keg set up in a room where members can help themselves, is usually divided by the originators of the schemes. Now, I do not believe, even if we had open saloons, we could run the thing in better shape than it is at present. Our system is this: Although there are no regular recognised saloons doing business and paying monthly fines to the municipality, as you will find in some other cities in the State, yet there are joints, and we do not interfere with them so long as they do not sell to minors or drunken persons, or supply habitual drunkards. We do not close them all up, because if we did so to-day, to-morrow just as many would start up elsewhere in the city, and then you could readily bankrupt, a county by a lot of these cases, for, the witnesses' expenses would be excessive, and then it is next to impossible to get a conviction. In my opinion Prohibition has proved a failure. It not only takes our surplus money out of the State, but bads young men whom, I am positive, would not be seen going into a saloon to lower their manhood, and sneak into places where liquor of the vilest quality is being sold. These young fellows think that their purpose in walking, say into a billiard-saloon, or through a cigar store into a backroom, is never divined, and that nobody is any the wiser as to the reason for their going into the place, I think if you would stay in this city for a few days and watch at the railway depots the quantity of stuff that comes into the place, you would quickly realise what a farce the law in its present form is. Why, I should estimate that we have one or two carloads a week come in here, and then additional to this are all the cases of bottled liquors. We gave the monthly tine system a trial two years ago, but it was not a success, because we found that some of the keepers considered that having paid this they could carry on just as they liked. Of course, we quickly stopped that, but we find we can best keep them in bounds by letting them sell quietly, and keep the young people off their premises. In cases in which fines have been inflicted they just got somebody else to act as their agents, and went on selling again. Now, you see a case of beer containing two dozen bottles costs wholesale two dollars sixty-five cents, and the bottles can be retailed in a joint at twenty-five Cents each—a good profit. I am in favour of a high license system, with a limitation of licenses based upon population. We had sixteen saloons here before the page 25 law of prohibition came in. Well, for the last few months we have not had much trouble, but before that period there was considerable drinking going on. Now we have got the joint-keepers pretty well in hand, so that they know who to sell to, and also know that we will stand no nonsense. The United States Revenue Returns show that there are twenty-eight holders of United States licenses to sell intoxicating liquor. Four of those are druggists, so it is not a difficult thing to arrive at the conclusion that we have somewhere in the city twenty-four "joints." As a fact the law was utterly powerless to touch the offender. Our population, according to the local census taken this year, is 6,835, and we boast of having five public (national) schools, and five other large educational establishments in Saline.

Statement by Mr A. C. Pattee, Probate Judge for the County of Saline.

From an examination of my records I find that four druggists hold licenses to sell liquor of an intoxicating character for medicinal, scientific, or mechanical purposes. There were more, but toe other holders of permits have allowed them to run out. My observations of the wording of the law relating to Prohibition lead me to be of opinion that it is an undoubted advantage. Its chief recommendation is that whilst a legislative enactment will never prevent certain old soakers from obtaining intoxicants, at the same time it prevents young people gaining an acquaintance with the interior of an open saloon. Prior to holding my present appointment I was a Minister of the Gospel, and came from Connecticut some six years ago. I have actively identified myself with the carrying into effect of the law, and I think we are very much better off now than under the old repime. The number of affidavits filed during the twelve months ending May 1st, of this year, and upon which affidavits a like number of sales of intoxicating liquors were sold, were 6,341. The worst feature in relation to the administration of the Act is the false value so many men attach to the oaths which they take in whisky cases. Many undoubtedly deliberately perjure themselves. My idea is that until the drink legislation is nationalised we shall never have any real control. As the law stands there is not a druggist, or a "joint" keeper who dares sell a drop of liquor until he has paid Uncle Sam his license fee. Put the whole liquor traffic in the hands of the Government and I think then good would result. At present, although we may do much good by educating the people, and by keeping this sale of liquors away from the sight of our children, still we recognise that we cannot prevent the sale of intoxicants.

Mr Rufuss Cove, in reply to questions, said:—

I am Chief of the Metropolitan Police for the City of Wichita, and have also held the position of Sheriff to the County. I have been employed in those offices for the past nine years, and my observations of the application of the Prohibitory Law, and the results therefrom has caused me to be of opinion that the law is a failure.

Why do you think that?—Because I do not think any legislation can prevent men from drinking.

Then, do you think that even it legislation preventing the legal importation of any intoxicating liquors waft adopted there would be smuggling?—Yes. 1 am certain there would, and, what is more, there would be illicit manufacture in the State. I think, however, you can largely minimise the evil of drinking to excess by educating the people to let it alone; but you cannot drive them, by any law, to do so.

Were you a resident herb before the law was brought into force, or rather, before it was adopted by the people?—Yes. I was here nine years before we had any Prohibitory law.

About how many open saloons I had you then in the city?—Well, our town was only one possessing a population of three thousand people when I first came into it, and when Prohibition came in we numbered about sixteen thousand, and had about twelve open saloons. Now our population is about twenty-three thousand persons, and we have twenty-seven places which are tacitly permitted to sell liquor.

page 26

Was there any effort made in the past to enforce Prohibition?—Immediately following the introduction of the law there was a most strenuous effort made. All open saloons were closed, and every possible effort was made to have the law observed. The officers did their best to enforce the law strictly.

The result was what?—The result was a dismal failure. We had just as much whisky sold here as there had been before, and it was of a poorer quality. I saw-more drunkenness in this town, while every saloon was closed, than I had whilst they were wide open. I have seen men during that time, men whom I had never known to be drunk previously, in a state of blind drunkenness on the public streets, and this was immediately after the attempt, and while we were, in fact, attempting to enforce the Act. There is no doubt there arc existent a class of men who so long as they can get a thing do not want it, and do not care for it at all, but the moment you say they shall not have it, the moment you try to prevent them, as well as others from getting it, they make up their mind they will have it, and you can bet they'll do so. They will not be forced, and that was just how it was in relation to the drink. I am not a drinking man myself. I do not make a practice of the habit, but I never knew what it was to crave a drink of intoxicating liquor until after the 1st May, 1881, when I found every saloon closed against me. If ever I wanted a drink in my life it was then, and you bet your life I got it. There is another thing in connection with closing the saloons, ft is a matter of impossibility to put things in such a shape that it will he impossible to prevent a man from getting whisky if he is possessed of enough money to pay forfeit. With open saloons a man if he wants a drink will go in and get it, pay for it, and walk out. Well, when he had no open saloons it was pretty hard to get a single drink. You would have to buy a bottle in order to get it, and this was more than a man wanted, but having got it after some trouble, and run the risk of being caught, he, although he don't want it, would not throw it away. Well, he could not take it home, and so he would drink it, and consequently get drunk. Another thing. While we had open saloons, or even as we have them now, I find we can control the people who run them—that is in a certain measure, we can say to them, "Now, gentlemen, if you allow minors in your places of business, you will be forced to quit. If you sell liquor to an intoxicated man, or to any man who is in the habit of getting intoxicated, or if we see any drunken men leaving your premises we shall force you to quit." While they are now anxious to run saloons for their own good, they see that they run an orderly house.

What system have you in force here in relation to these places—there are twenty-seven of them you say? If a man wants to start business here as a "joint-keeper," he has first to obtain the permission, or rather the assent to his doing so, of all the business people and property holders in the district or block where he pro poses opening. Of course we do not license them, that would be contrary to law and we cannot really fine them at regular periods, because if they are convicted of selling only so much as one glass of beer it entails a fine of 100 dollars and thirty days imprisonment in the county gaol; but we get round that by simply ordering them to come up to my office on the first of every month. Then the clerk puts down their names as offenders against the law, in that they have been keeping or maintaining a nuisance, which is an offence against the city regulations. Then I require them to put up a surety for their appearing to answer the charge the same afternoon. This amounts to 75 dollars. They put up the cash, and, of course, do not appear, and the bail is forfeited, and handed over to the City Treasury; of course we do not proceed further with the charge. This is done monthly, so a "joint-keeper" has to really contribute in fines in lieu of a license a sum of 900 dollars a year. Owing to our rule requiring a man to have the consent of the property-holders and business people in the block where he desires to open, the class of men keeping the saloons is generally of a respectable character, and having money wherewith to well furnish his saloon. Now, under Prohibition where strictly enforced, any dead-beat, any thug, any tough, or criminal, a man entirely void of self-respect, if he could raise three and a-half dollars, could get a pony keg of beer, or a bottle of "burst-head" whisky, and start a "joint" in some outhouse, coal cellar, or shed, in the backyard of some workshop, or a stall in some livery stable, and then to catch them was almost impossible, for they would move from page 27 place to place, and no officer, or set of officers, no matter how keen, could keep track of them, or know what they were doing. Well, at the same time, with these shifting joints," or walking whisky stores about, any old toper who could raise enough to pay for a drink, any boy who could do so, could purchase for very little, enough of this vile stuff to paralyse them. These men cared nothing for the imprisonment portion of their penalty. Gaol was nothing to them. In fact it was a sort of picnic, and as for the fine, well they had nothing, and so you could not get anything. That, of course, is presuming you secured a conviction. But to do this you had to subpome your witnesses, and often they would evade service by running away, whilst if you got your witnesses, the next trouble was to secure a jury. Here it is considered a disqualification if a juror considers the pnnishment provided by law is more severe than the offence merits. Well, I have seen four days occupied in trying to get a jury for one little whisky case, because you might be certain the accused's counsel would ask the jurymen, "Do you believe that the punishment is too great for the offence?" In other words, "Do you believe that a tine of 100 dollars and imprisonment in the County gaol for thirty days is too great a penalty for the sale of one single glass of beer or whisky?" And almost every man you got would disqualify himself by expressing the opinion that it was too severe. I have seen whisky cases here that cost the County from 500 dollars to 1000 dollars in expenses to secure the conviction of a man who had nothing. Then you had no sooner got him gaoled than another one would start again in the very same place, and you had all your work over again.

Could not Prohibition be framed to prevent all this?—If you could get a large majority, a large public sentiment in favour of it, but where there is a large feeling against it, it is impossible. I do not mind what country you try it in.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?—For this reason. You may indict and convict a community. Here, in this city, we have 23,000 population, and we have practically open saloons, which number twenty-seven. Topeka, our capital, has a population of 35,000, and they say there are no open saloons, or "joints." but I can go with you in that city and point out a good many places where drink can he bought, whilst I believe I could show you more drunken men on their streets going scot free than you would find here in a week. We are exceedingly strict here regarding the arrest of drunken men. You go to Topeka and stay at the best hotels, above the first floor, in the morning, before the rooms have been swept out, you will find the corridors lined with empty beer bottles, and in the majority of the rooms you will find similar evidences of sobriety of that kind. Where it is obtained from, of course, I cannot say for certain. You can get drink in every druggist's store, and there are plenty of bottle-leggers, as we call them—men who carry a bottle and will sell you a drink in a by-street.

What is your opinion of a high-class license system?—I think a high license system with a law prohibiting any kind of games in a bar-room, or in any room attached thereto, or any premises connected therewith, would be of great advantage. You would, however, require to so frame the law that the bar-room should have no seating accommodation of any kind, then if a man wanted a drink he could go and get it and walk away. Then make it a punishable offence to do any treating, and an offence to tacitly allow any to be done on the premises, and you have got rid of one of the greatest aids to intoxication. 1 would also compel every saloon keeper to provide sureties, say of 5,000 dollars, as guarantee that he or his servants will not sell to minors, persons who are in an intoxicated condition, or who are habitual drunkards. If he breaks this let his bond money go to the County or City Treasury.

(Copy of declaration at foot of transcript of foregoing note.)

I have made myself acquainted with the foregoing transcript of note taken of my remarks in an interview with Mr H. Gilbert Stringer, of New Zealand, and find them correct in every particular.

Rufus_Cove,

Wichita, Chief of Police, Wichita, Kan.
page 28

Mr G. M. Dickson, in reply to questions put, said:

I am President of the Metropolitan Potice commission for the City of Wichita. In my opinion Prohibition has proved to be a most dismal failure so far as this city is concerned. The reason for this his been that almost unanimous public sentiment has been expressed against the law. There was an honest attempt to enforce it after its passage by the Legislature, but it utterly failed. I think is is impossible to enforce it. In this city a man can now get a drink with with as much impunity as in St. Louis, and only have to pay the same price. By our working under the present system a large saving in the matter of maintaining a police force is effected, and public safety and order is better provided for. If we have to look after bootle-leggers, and jug people who can gain no foothold under our present system, because no one need go behind holes and corners to get a drink, we require a larger force. This was the case when we endeavoured to enforce Prohibition. There was more trouble and more crime during the time we were endeavouring to carry the law into effect than has ever been the case since. Nearly double the number of police were requisite then with less satisfactory results. The crime sheets showed an increase of drunkenness, petty thefts, and quarrelsomeness. Doubtless much of this was traceable to the bad quality of the liquor illicitly obtained. The supply obtainable from men who were known as "bottle-leggers," was of the vilest quality and consisted chiefly of reduced alcohol, and a man who took but a small quantity of it would bring on delirwn tremens in its worst forms. Another feature is that the law engenders an antagonistic spirit in men who do not as a rule drink. It seems to be a prevading characteristic of the whole human race that the moment you say, "you shall not have a certain thing," to a man that particular article becomes at once the most coveted, and get it he will if any possibility exists. Then too with Prohibition as strictly enforced as possible, there is nothing that can prevent a man procuring a supply and surfeiting himself, whereas in the case of a restricted saloon business he would only take a single drink. If a jointkeeper in this city permitted drunken men on his premises, he would be forced to immediately close his place. Secondly, the joint keeper here instead of merely having little hole and corner bars of no value, have all expended large sums in adequately furnishing their saloons. We have saloons here that cost between 2000 and 3000 dollars for fittings, exclusive of the large stock of liquors and the loss of these, because all would be forfeited, would be a serious item. We compel them to close rigidly at midnight on Saturday, and to remain closed throughout Sunday This rule I believe is faithfully observed. In Wichita 1 think we have one of the best governed cities of its size in the United States. Our records show that we are pretty free from criminals. The report of our Commission for the year 1889, made to the Attorney-General, shows that during the year ended April 30th, 1890, there was a feeling existed that the County Attorney was not enforcing the law; and the Prohibitionists obtained the appointment of an Assistant Attorney-General (Mr. G. Coffin), who was appointed solely for the purpose of pushing matters to extremes in the enforcement of the law. Mr. Coffin was an out and out Prohibitionist; yet when the returns for the year were complete it was found that prosecutions had been instituted by the County Attorney numbering 115, and by the Assistant Attorney-General numbering 90, a a total of 205. The County Attorney secured 24 convictions, the Prohibitionist representative and council only 10. Ir is most difficult to obtain testimony regarding a liquor-selling case. Men whose word might be taken in the smallest particular aside from this, yet seem to attach no weight to their testimony and the truthful nature thereof in a case of this kind. For these reasons I am of opinion Prohibition cannot be successfully applied.

Returns respecting the sale of whisky (or other spirits) and beer by druggists in various centres. These figures are extracted from the Probate Judge's returns of receipts at $150c. per 100 sales made, an affidavit in each case being required of the purchaser, and such affidavits being lodged with the Judge monthly by the druggists. There is not a uniform method of recording these sales in the books of the office, but in all instances their correctness of figures is vouched page 29 for by the fact that the County Treasurer has to give receipts for the moneys paid him from this source, and a small arithmetical calculation yields the exact number of sales:
Topeka. Populatiion of County in 1892, as per Agricultural State Boards Report, shown to be 49,483)
Mouth. No. of Draggists Licensed. Sales Made. Revenue.
April 29 6,310 $94 50c.
March 40 6,673 100 11
February 30 5,778 86 58
January 30 6,217 93 21
December. 1892 29 6,259 98 81
November 1892 29 7,218 108 23
October 1892 28 6,223 93 28
September 1892 29 6,863 102 23
August 1892 29 5,195 86 10
July 1892 29 4,968 74 47
June 1892 29 4,024 60 32
May 1892 29 4,467 66 98
70.105 $1,060 15
Saline.
County Population. 1892. Permits Sales. Revenue.
17,136. During year. 4 6341 $95.12
17,136. During part, 6 6341 $95.12
21,833 McPherson. 4 19,000 $283.00
9,544 Gfary. 6 4,051 $61.22
39,177 Sedgewick. 10 10,517 $172.76

vignette