26 minute read
Utah Goes Dry
Utah Goes Dry
BY LARRY E. NELSON
GOOD-BYE JOHN. You were God's worst enemy. You were Hell's best friend. I hate you with a perfect hatred. I love to hate you." Thus spoke Billy Sunday during a funeral sermon he preached following the demise of John Barleycorn. The evangelist's colorful oration was among the many festivities celebrating the advent of national Prohibition, but John Barleycorn had not died easily. Two major efforts failed before the relentless Prohibitionists succeeded. Thirteen states adopted dry statutes between 1846 and 1855, but this number dwindled to five by 1863. The second significant though futile attempt came during the 1880s. The eventually triumphant wave was finally surging across the nation by 1913, and Utah was among the states engulfed by this final swell.
Discussion of Prohibition in Utah dated from the territorial period, but the ultimately successful campaign was not underway until the first decade of the twentieth century when the National Prohibition party, Women's Christian Temperance Union, Anti-Saloon League of America, and various local civic and religious groups were working for a statewide prohibition law. Although abstention from alcoholic beverages was a tenet of Mormonism, and the Utah electorate was predominantly Mormon, Joseph F. Smith who became president of the church in 1901 did not pressure politicians for enactment of a prohibition law because he wished to avoid charges of church interference in politics. The president's position did not, however, prevent other members of the church, including such prominent Mormons as Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay, from actively participating in the dry campaign.
Demands for statewide Prohibition met determined resistance from liquor interests, but the most significant opposition came from the Republican party which dominated Utah politics. Reed Smoot, a United States senator and Mormon apostle, controlled the state party. Smoot aligned the Republicans against a statewide law, because he reasoned that efforts to force Prohibition on all of the state's population would threaten his political base and revitalize old Mormon-Gentile antagonisms. Prohibitionists brought two dry bills before the state legislature in 1909, but Republican senators managed to kill one, and Governor William Spry, a Republican, destroyed the other with a veto when it reached his desk.
With Republican cooperation the legislature enacted a local option law in 1911, but the statewide law remained unobtainable. Under the local option provision, dry campaigners conquered most rural areas, but important cities and towns, such as Salt Lake City and Ogden, stubbornly resisted aridity. The various groups working for Prohibition in the state joined forces in 1914 to form the Utah Federation of Prohibition and Betterment Leagues and to gird for another battle in the state legislature. With a vigor born of new unity, the Prohibitionists pushed a statewide dry law through the legislative session of 1915, but Governor Spry responded with another veto after the legislature had adjourned.
The turning point in the struggle came with the election of 1916. Reed Smoot, adhering to the national party platform and apparently convinced that Utah was ready, publicly encouraged the Republicans to champion the dry goal. Following Smoot's lead the party nominated Nephi L. Morris, a Mormon and a known dry, for governor and placed a dry plank into the party platform.
Like their political opponents, the Democrats also vowed to bring statewide prohibition to Utah. The party convention met at Ogden and adopted a dry platform plank:
The Democrats nominated Simon Bamberger, a German-born Jew, for governor. Bamberger, who had publicly declared himself a Prohibitionist, was a successful businessman with interests in mining, the Bamberger Electric Railway, the Bamberger Coal Company, the Salt Lake Valley Loan and Trust Company, and Lagoon—an amusement park near Farmington.
In the speech nominating Bamberger as the party's candidate for governor, Brigham H. Roberts, aleading Democrat and Mormon, extolled Bamberger's dry convictions and praised him for voluntarily ending the sale of alcoholic beverages at Lagoon. After being selected as the party's nominee for the state's highest office, Bamberger delivereda short yet candid speech. Making no specific reference to any plank, he simply stated, "I stand on the platform adopted by this convention."
Prohibition and other Progressive policies were basic issues in the 1916 election. Because they advocated many Progressive programs, the Democrats attracted both Democratic and Progressive voters. When the election results were tabulated, Simon Bamberger was chosen to be the state's first non-Mormon governor, and the Democrats also gained overwhelming control of the state legislature. Utah had moved significantly closer to Prohibition.
When the Twelfth Session of the Utah State Legislature assembled, a request for prohibition legislation was prominent in the governor's message. Asking the legislature to redeem the party's campaign pledge, Bamberger declared that "enactment of a law providing for absolute prohibition" within Utah was "the first duty of the Legislature." He called for this "law to be in full force and effect not later than August 1, 1917." The "first duty of the Legislature" proved the most arduous task of the entire session. The battle for a statewide prohibition law raged from January 10, 1917, to February 8, 1917. The question of whether Utah should have a dry law was not at issue; rather, the struggle centered around disagreements over the means necessary to achieve the dry Utopia.
The legislature was only in the third day of the session when a prohibition bill was introduced into the House of Representatives. Under a suspension of the rules, Representative Richard W. Young, Jr., of Salt Lake County, introduced a statewide prohibition bill which Utah Prohibitionists had modeled after the Oklahoma dry statute of 1910. This legislator was destined to play a leading role in the advent of Prohibition in the state. he was the son of one of Utah's most illustrious soldiers, Brigadier General Richard W. Young. This scion of the general was a Salt Lake City attorney who had served as counsel for the dry forces and was an intimate friend of Heber J. Grant. In his haste to make the prohibition measure House bill 1, Young presented it before the House was fully organized.
Several features of this dry bill precipitated controversy. The most volatile aspect was the section lodging ultimate responsibility for prohibition enforcement in a prohibition commissioner. Another source of disagreement was the section that allowed, under certain circumstances, search and seizure of alcoholic beverages without a search warrant. The ban on all beverages containing in excess of one-half of one percent alcohol by volume drew fire, and the stipulation that Prohibition become effective August 1, 1917, also provoked opposition.
Argument over the disputed sections of the bill was not restricted to the confines of the legislature. The Deseret News, at first offering only unqualified praise of the measure, declared, "It has been carefully framed, and is presumably as nearly free from loopholes and defects as human intelligence and experience can make it." The Salt Lake Tribune was much less pleased with the plan and argued that the proposal was ridiculously extreme.
The section that drew the most unfavorable criticism was the provision for a state prohibition commissioner. Opponents of this feature argued that such an officer was unnecessary because the state already had ample law enforcement personnel. The added expense of a commissioner was also assailed. Some felt that a commissioner would complicate enforcement and produce friction among the various law enforcement agencies of the state.
Proponents of the commissioner provision built their case around one central point. They argued that the commissioner would serve as a check on those law officers in the state who might be reluctant to enforce Prohibition. This reasoning was clearly enunciated by the sponsor of the bill in a speech at the First Methodist Church in Salt Lake City. Representative Young "explained that the appointment of a prohibition director or administrator was considered necessary because of the likelihood of local officials at various places being unwilling to enforce the law."
During the House struggle, the News maintained a discreet editorial silence while the Tribune strongly opposed the commissioner. The most important opposition came from the governor who made no secret of his displeasure with the commissioner. He argued that a chief prohibition officer was expensive, unnecessary, and an unfavorable reflection on the integrity of the present law enforcement personnel. Bamberger felt that the governor, as chief executive, should be charged with ultimate responsibility for enforcing the dry law.
Another point of contention was the provision for search and seizure of liquor without an official warrant. The News provided a summary of this provision: "All officers who have reason to believe liquor is being kept in any building not a private residence may enter such building and make search without a warrant, and may seize any liquor found and file complaint." Opponents of this measure argued that it was an unconstitutional invasion of individual rights. Critics also assailed the section that banned all beverages containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol. Arguing that this restriction was much too severe, they favored increasing the legal limit to at least two percent.
Apparently resigned to their fate, the liquor dealers formally contested only two features of the proposed law. Contending that they needed more time to conclude their business, the alcohol interests wanted the effective date for Prohibition moved from August 1, 1917, to January 1, 1918. They presented this request to the House committee considering the Young bill and to the governor, but in both instances the liquor dealers' proposal was rejected. When the bill reached the Senate, the liquor dealers asked that the limit of alcoholic content for legal beverages be set at two percent, but this petition was also denied.
On January 16, 1917, Representative J. L. Boyden, of Summit County, introduced into the House an alternative to the Young prohibition bill. With three major exceptions, the Boyden bill was identical to the Young proposal. The ultimate responsibility for prohibition enforcement was vested in the governor rather than a prohibition director. The lawful limit of alcoholic content in beverages was raised to two percent, and the right to search and seizure without a warrant was omitted. The August 1, 1917, effective date remained unchanged. The Utah Prohibition League swiftly attacked Boyden's measure with a vitriolic condemnation released through the News:
The league's statement was also important for what it did not say. No explicit denunciation was made of Boyden's omission of the commissioner or the search and seizure provisions of the Young bill.
On January 18, 1917, the Boyden bill was referred to the same House committee which was considering the Young bill. As a member of this committee, Richard Young was in an excellent position to stall action on the rival bill which was never reported out of committee. When the committee quietly acknowledged that Boyden's alternative would be buried until the more stringent prohibition measure had been approved, the undaunted Boyden replied that he would arrange for introduction of his bill into the Senate.
Without recommendation for or against passage, the Young bill was reported out of committee on January 18, 1917, and the committee offered no significant alterations. On January 19 and 20 preparations were made for consideration of the measure as a special order of business for Monday, January 23. At least two noteworthy preparations preceded the floor fight. Because the liquor issue had aroused much public interest, special seating arrangements were made to accommodate a large group of spectators. The News reported that a group of twenty-five representatives had met in a planning session prior to the crucial House confrontation. Referred to as the Alfalfa Club, this group purportedly laid plans to steer the Young bill, intact, through the House. Several proposals to make the law more stern were considered but rejected at this meeting.
In view of the inadequate documentation, the actual existence and effectiveness of the Alfalfa Club may be seriously challenged, but certain facts lend credence to the supposition that a group cooperated to clear a path for the bill. Despite previous opposition, the prohibition measure passed the House with relative ease, and the Tribune reported that proponents used parliamentary chicanery to thwart efforts to emasculate the bill.
At any rate, the crowd of spectators and the group of dry solons were in their places when the House debate began. Although the discussion continued through the morning and into the afternoon, the proposal suffered no major alterations. The bill passed the House with only one dissenting vote, that of Representative Jacob T. Raleigh whose action was explained as an expression of opposition to the prohibition director feature. When Bamberger learned of the House action, he became even more adamant in his opposition to the commissioner. He declared:
Aroused by this threat of veto, the Salt Lake Ministerial Association sent representatives to the governor requesting that he accept the commissioner. Bamberger's reply to the association was a published statement which reiterated his stand against the commissioner. The governor received numerous telegrams, letters, and telephone calls congratulating him for his position.
To this chorus of opposition was added the voices of Salt Lake City's most prominent newspapers. The Tribune, long an enemy of the commissioner plan, editorially called upon the Senate to remove the disputed provision and charged that those who favored the commissioner did so out of a desire for pork barrel legislation. According to the Tribune, the director and staff appointments would provide political plums for legislators to apportion among their friends. The News, heretofore silent on this issue, finally voiced opposition to the commissioner. Careful to reaffirm its dry stand, the newspaper editorially commented:
Thus, one of Utah's foremost dry organs went on record against the commissioner.
Forces opposed to the Young bill put an alternative prohibition law before the Senate. Introduced by Senator John H. Wootton of Utah County, Senate bill 45 seems to have been a fulfillment of Boyden's promise to get his bill, which had been pigeonholed in the House, presented to the Senate. Wootton's proposal eliminated the commissioner and the search and seizure provisions of the Young bill. Unlike Boyden's proposal, the Wootton measure retained the limit of one-half of one percent alcohol for legal beverages.
Wootton's proposal suffered the same fate as its counterpart in the House. The Senate assigned the bill to the Committee on Commerce and Industries from which it never emerged. Wootton apparently agreed to allow his bill to be shelved until the fate of the House bill was determined. The rising clamor of opposition may have convinced him that the Young proposal would probably be satisfactorily amended.
The devotees of the commissioner feature did not, however, concede defeat. Upon receiving the bill from the House, the Senate referred it to committee for study. Among those who beseeched the committee to retain the commissioner was Representative Richard Young and a former Salt Lake police chief, S. M. Barlow. Donald D. McKay, floor leader of the House, led a successful movement at the convention of the Utah State Farm Bureau to put that organization on record in favor of the commissioner plan.
These defenders must have been sadly disappointed when the Senate committee reported the bill. The committee readily acknowledged that its "proposed amendments will materially alter the structure of the said Bill." The recommendations eliminated the commissioner and the search and seizure provisions. The Tribune reported that the leaders of the Utah Federation of Prohibition and Betterment Leagues were willing to accept these deletions.
As a special order of business, the Senate began debate of the prohibition measure on January 31, 1917. During this discussion, the terms "Governor" or "Attorney General" were successfully substituted for the term "commissioner" in the original proposal. The stipulation was also included that a legal search warrant be obtained prior to searching any premises. These two changes were the only major alterations made by either house of the legislature. The opposition of the governor, several legislators, the Tribune, the News, and the acquiescence of the Utah Federation of Prohibition and Betterment Leagues were dominant factors in this tailoring of the bill.
After a final vote of passage, the bill was returned to the House. In a move that can be interpreted as an effort to promote unity in the dry camp, Representative Young proposed that the House accept the bill as amended by the Senate. With only one dissenting vote, the motion carried.
Again the lone dissenter was Jacob T. Raleigh. He was a Salt Lake City construction contractor, and his construction activities continued after he moved to California in 1928. As fate would have it, this single Utah legislator who voted against Prohibition lived just long enough for history to vindicate his judgment. He died one day after Utah's 1933 electorate voted to repeal Prohibition, but in 1917 the Utah Progressive party chastized him for his negative stand on the Young bill.
Before sending the bill to the governor, the House took two precautions to prevent either willful or negligent error. A duplicate copy of the measure was made and filed with the chief clerk until the original was safely "in the hands of the Secretary of State." Also, Representative J. H. Mace of Gunnison was appointed to accompany the messenger who delivered the bill to the governor.
The initial response to the legislation was general acclaim. Bamberger declared, "I believe the prohibition bill as it finally passed is a splendid measure—one of the best in the United States." The Tribune concurred, "No prohibition bill ever became law with a better chance of being enforced." 45 As might be expected, the News was ecstatic and happily joined in the "widespread jubilation over the passage of the bill."
Upon receipt of the bill, Bamberger referred it to Attorney General Dan B. Shields for examination. Apparently swayed by the pleas of liquor dealers, the governor's referral included special instructions requesting that adequate phraseology be provided to allow production of "near beer" in Utah if the bill as passed by the legislature prohibited such activity. The attorney general ruled that the proposed law allowed consumption but prohibited manufacture of beverages containing less than one-half of one percent alcohol. The governor returned the measure to the House asking that modifications be made to allow manufacture of such drinks.
The request encountered a furor of opposition. A group from the Utah Federation of Prohibition and Betterment Leagues met with the governor and argued against any change in the law. 48 The House refused to alter the bill, and the allegation was made that liquor interests were behind the proposed change. Also, any alteration would mean that the bill would have to go through the Senate where further emasculation might occur. The unchanged measure was returned to the governor who felt that panicked dry leaders had stampeded the House; nevertheless, he signed the bill. With Prohibition finally enacted into law, Bamberger declared, "The prohibition question in Utah has been decided. If every good citizen will do his duty in aiding the Governor and peace officers of the state the enforcement of prohibition will be easy."
Speculation that circumstances related to the return and final passage of the bill might endanger the law's validity arose shortly after the bill received the governor's signature. A disturbed Representative Young asked the attorney general about such a possibility. The reply stated that although there was no cause for alarm the lawmakers should take the "extra precaution ... to expunge from the House record all matter pertaining to any transactions in reference to the bill after the same had been submitted to the Governor."
Although not everything the Prohibitionists had desired, Utah's law was comprehensive and thorough. With a few exceptions, the statute proscribed manufacture, importation, transportation, advertisement, or possession of preparations containing in excess of one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. Acknowledging the legitimate need for certain products containing alcohol, the law allowed possession of denatured alcohol, pure grain alcohol for scientific and industrial purposes, patented medicines, flavoring extracts, and sacramental wines. Anticipating the possible misuse of these commodities, the legislators devised elaborate safeguards. To monitor legal alcohol, the law provided for a state alcohol warehouse through which all legal alcohol would be distributed, established a complex system of permits and reports, authorized the governor and attorney general to promulgate additional regulations, and vested administrative responsibility in these two officers and the state chemist in conjunction with local justices of the peace. The law required that patented medicines and flavoring extracts contain "no more alcohol than absolutely necessary" and conform to standards established by the state chemist.
The prohibition law placed prime enforcement responsibility upon the governor and attorney general and also required the appropriate county and municipal officials to participate in enforcement. Peace officers were given broad interrogation, search, seizure, and arrest powers. Persons convicted of a first violation were guilty of a misdemeanor, and any subsequent offense, with the exception of drunkenness, was felony punishable by a term in the state prison. Persons maintaining an establishment for illegally dispensing spirits were subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both, and the law abolished property rights "in any liquors, vessels, appliances, fixtures, bars, furniture and implements" employed in violation of the liquor law. After examining the new statute, Attorney General Shields concluded, "I believe Utah has as near a 'bone dry' law as can be found anywhere in the United States." Utah's provisions against personal possession of liquor were more stringent than the Volstead Act which Congress later enacted to implement the Eighteenth Amendment. Although subject to judicial interpretation and legislative revision, the statute of 1917 served as Utah's basic dry law during the entire era of Prohibition.
As provided, statewide Prohibition came to Utah on August 1, 1917, and the dry season was greeted with mixed emotions. The Tribune estimated that four thousand persons were "dependent on the liquor business in Salt Lake," while the News calculated that "one hundred and twenty-two store rooms used exclusively for sale of liquors and about forty buildings, as drug stores and restaurants, where liquor is dispensed as a side line" would be affected by Prohibition. During the last few wet days the "retail bars sought to dispose of the stock they had on hand. ... It was a case of bargain sales, and the liquor was handed out at the last at most any price offered. Auction sales were the order of the day, and every place was jammed with bidders." The News carried an advertisement offering used office equipment for sale by a retiring liquor establishment. Some alcohol dispensaries made plans to remodel and go into a different business after Prohibition while other dealers prepared to leave the state. Apparently convinced that nation : wide Prohibition was inevitable, one Salt Lake City retailer announced plans to move to Havana, Cuba, and continue selling liquor. Becker's Brewery in Ogden began preparing for a move to Evanston, Wyoming. The possibility of a business slump resulting from this activity was not considered to be serious. If such a recession did occur, both the Tribune and the News agreed that the stimulus of war would prevent any grave economic decline.
Some Utah residents were also making wet plans for the coming period of aridity. In this connection, the Tribune noted:
Some people were making a personal effort to forestall Prohibition for as long as possible.
For the News the advent of Prohibition ranked with the most important event in Christian history. A front page editorial, permeated with untempered religious fervor, announced: "We stand today on the threshold of a great reform. We are facing a new dawn, a new day . . . [the] passing [of alcohol] will be the greatest blessing we have known since Christ." The newspaper described the activities of the last wet night in Salt Lake City with disdain: "Noisy, and in some cases riotous, scenes marked the closing hours of King Alcohol's reign." The debauchery necessitated treatment of "more than a dozen cases . . . at the hospital," and, according to the News, there was at least one instance in which a policeman was nearly shot by an inebriated celebrant.
The Tribune's narrative vividly contrasted with the pious description given by its competitor. Instead of solemn references to Christ's Advent, the Tribune observed, "John Barleycorn is dead. Long live aqua pura." For this newspaper, the coming of Prohibition was a valid reason for an alcoholic celebration:
That which the News considered moral decadence was only adult recreation for the Tribune:
The celebrants were described with tongue in cheek:
Whether solemn or gay, whether viewed through dry eyes or wet, Prohibition became the law, and two further steps were taken to assure perpetual Prohibition. Utah voters ratified a dry amendment to the first constitution in 1918, and the state legislature of 1919 ratified the Eightenth Amendment to the national Constitution. The Tribune editorially prophesied, "Within a few years the now most violent objectors to prohibition will acknowledge it as a blessing. . . . Old soaks will be drained dry. Old thirsts will vanish; no new ones will be cultivated. The nation as a whole will sober up."
The march toward statewide Prohibition in Utah during the twentieth century generally paralleled developments in other states. As was common across the country, clergymen were prominent in the Utah movement, and Prohibition was linked to progressivism. Utah Prohibitionists worked through local groups and in cooperation with national organizations to achieve their goal. As was typical in the nation, local option in Utah was a milestone along the route to statewide aridity which revealed dry strength in rural territory and dry weakness in urban areas. Delays caused by the political situation made Utah one of the last states to enact a statewide law, but this allowed Utah Prohibitionists to benefit from the experiences and tactics of other states in such matters as drafting a dry statute and writing a prohibition amendment into the state constitution. In ratifying the Eighteenth Amendment, Utah joined with forty-five of her sister states. Prohibitionist sentiment was powerful enough in Utah to enact a law that was among the strictest of state statutes and more rigid than the Volstead Act. Undoubtedly, many local contemporaries of these events agreed with Billy Sunday that John Barleycorn was truly dead.
BURGLARIZED FOR BOOZE
Sometime Sunday night or Monday morning a boxcar at Utah Junction, loaded with whiskey in cases, was broken into and a quantity appropriated. Later the car was sent back to Castle Gate, resealed and started west to its destination, not, however until it was rifled the second time of a quantity of goods. Sheriff Collingham was then summoned, but when he got there the car was gone. No great effort or expense is being gone to in trying to get hold of the burglars. The car was en route to Hiawatha to be loaded with coal, trainmen bringing it through from Zion as an empty. It was consigned to California. (The Sun [Price], August 24, 1917.)
For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.
