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

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